Slashdot Mirror
Philosophy, Reality and The Matrix
securitas writes "The NYT discusses The Matrix as a reflection of American society, the 'war on terror', political allegory and the impact of The Matrix on contemporary philosophy. NPR provides streaming audio conversations with Matrix thinkers, including Jake Horsley, author of 'Matrix Warrior: Being the One'; Prof. Frances Flannery Dailey on violence in the Matrix; and Prof. Greg Garrett, co-author of 'The Gospels Reloaded' and why he doesn't like the kind of hero that Neo has become. Finally, the CSM follows up its The Gospel According to Neo with an online chat transcript with Josh Burek, the author of the essay."
As if that's not enough Matrix Philosophy, Here's more
and Still more. And just a warning, clicking on any of those links might spoil the movie for you.
some people take movies too seriously... they are for enjoyment!! Books are for thinking...
How either of these two films can become the basis for a pseudo-religious metaphor is beyond me. Surely there is more substance in movies like "28 Days Later", or even "City of God". (Like: life sucks, get used to it.)
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
Tolkein was often quoted as hating anyone who tried to attach meaning that wasn't there to literary works. He'd have hated the level of allegory his books supposedly represent these days.
Reminds me of grade school English class, where we'd write a story/poem, and then the class tried to analyze it. I'd often as not just write some mundane piece about people walking down the street, and the class would proceed, with the teacher's help, to show how I REALLY was talking about the progress one takes through life, and a bunch of utter bullshit. I always had a laugh when the teacher would ask what I meant by a particular passage, and I'd just look at him/her and say "Um, they went for a walk. Nothing more, nothing less".
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
It can be a great modern myth however after you study a bit of philosophy in the area of knowledge and skeptisism, you will find that on the surface the matrix looks good but there are some very compelling arguements against it. Thus reducing the entire film to nonsense. My only wish is that The Matrix (and its sequals) will get people more interested in Philosophy - on a real level, not just the "ohhh are we really dreaming....!" level. For more look to Nozick's theory of knowledge, G.E. Moore, Contextualist theory, closure principle, and arguements for and against the closure principle.
The bodiless brain in the vat argument has been around WAY longer then The Matrix... So in that sense The Matrix is just rehashing (though you do seem to have a body in the matrix...) These are just some ramblings of CS major with a double in philosophy... So take with a grain of salt. Thanks
This isn't totally related to the Matrix films, but it's interesting anyway... I was thinking the other day, if we were to simulate our real world somehow, and assuming we would like to simulate the real world as closely as possible, we'd need more information (and energy) to create the simulation than is required in the real thing (because the simulation requires a simulation of the rules and requires checks on each rule and "memory" to hold the simulated information, and so on).
Therefore, our simulated world must always be inferior in some way to the real world. In other words, we'd need to "bound" the simulated world somehow since we would not be able to create an accurate simulation (our real world must bound the simulated world). I guess what I'm getting at then is that if we were to simulate the real world, our simulation cannot be both consistent and complete (Godel's theorem). If it is complete (all rules of nature simulated), we'll have to bend some rules to ensure the system remains bounded (else we'll run out of resources in the "real" world to use in the simulation) and if it is consistent, we surely cannot simulate all rules (again, bounding issues).
Further, if we were living in a simulated world, this would mean that eventually we should find laws of nature that are not consistent or complete. (Still, assuming we aren't in the simulated world, can we ever find such laws?)
Anyway, is my logic right? In either case, can someone direct me to useful texts that covers such notions? Excuse me if I've butchered anything.
This happens because the act of talking a walk itself has symbolic meaning. Even if you didn't take a walk to escape something, relax, find yourself, or whatever else, you might have just taken it because you enjoy a walk. There is still meaning there, and the meaning other people attach to it in the poem would be the same they would attach to it if they saw you walking down the street.
Anything that imitates life has levels of meaning, even someone refusing to write poetry and just handing in a blank piece of paper.
The Matrix Web site has a number of papers written by philosophers, theologians, scientists and others. Of those I've read so far, the one I find most interesting is The Brave New World of the Matrix which draws upon Husserlian phenomenology to discuss the philopsophy of AI. It sounds boring but it's not. If you like that you might want to go on to read some Martin Heidegger.
Unbelieveable to me is that a commercial enterprise (Warner Brothers) is making thinking and philosophy cool again through one of its franchises. I never thought I'd hear about Husserl and Heidegger after I graduated, least of all on a Hollywood-produced movie by the likes of Joel Silver.
Jeez, sounds like you're having an even worse weekend than I am. Lighten up, man.
I agree that the philosophical aspects of The Matrix are overblown. Unlike most of the reviewers who cite the debt owed to Philip K Dick and "visionary" authors, I have actually read Dick (and Stephenson, but no Gibson yet), and I am totally unimpressed with the plot twists and ponderous questions posed by the movies. Any one of Dick's novels is a far weirder mindfuck than the Wachkowskis could hope to pull off. And the whole hacker analogy was covered in "Snow Crash" (and, I'm told, in most of Gibson's books).
However, I still loved the movies (but the first is far superior to the second). The Wachkowskis understand what George Lucas so superbly realized in Star Wars (and then forget around 1982): if you're going to make a derivative pastiche, do it well. The concepts in either set of movies are not revolutionary or particularly insightful - what distinguishes them is how well the mess holds together, and how well the finished product works. Heck, even a lot of the action is derivative if you've seen enough Jet Li or John Woo flicks, but they did a swell directing job too.
I know it makes you seem l33t to bash these movies, just like it's cool to be the voice of reason on Slashdot and interject random comments about how crapulent Linux is and how Microsoft really has its shit together. However, you need to understand that quite a few of us enjoyed the movies in spite of their flaws, and that even if they're ripoffs with a phony layer of pseudo-philosophy, we still liked seeing these ideas committed to film with such style and intensity. Finally, The Matrix did not seem at all trendy when it came out - rather, it set the trend for a lot of less-talented filmmakers.
By the way, I'm very curious about how you think The Matrix was "offensive", unless you're one of those types who think video games were to blame for Columbine.
All the people who were born in zion do not adhere to any type of steriotype at all. The programs, both exile and proper, are perfect steriotypes (Little asian man, Kung fu master, coarse old black lady, pompous rich white man, etc.)
Just an interesting point on how much imagination the machines have.
It's an offensive, violent movie, which the producers try to legitimize by jumping on the bandwagon of religion.
Actually, my view on this matter is very different. For me, Matrix is a philosophical hands down. The reason as top why there is such an ammount of action in the movies is the fact that it draws people to it. Matrix is a movie that makes (some, more intellectual) people really think about what is happening. I mean... The end of Matrix: Reloaded makes me really compelled to seeing the third movie.
Philosophy exists in the Matrix movies, it does however not exist a "Matrix philosophy" in the movies.
The movies are in short a mix of different religions, philosophies, Alice in Wonderland and modern action. I also feel strangely attracted to the number '5' in the movies (Binary 0101 - Trinity hacks computer, Highway, IIRC Neo's room number - the fifth reincarnation of Zion etc.).
Notice that no religious expert supports the viewpoints of the usual windbags toting the defense that the matrix trilogy are thinking man's movies or something. Nothing but a trendy violence-filled, mindless movie. Entertainment for mindless masses.
Actually, the Matrix was basis for discussion in our religion class... Not that our teacher might be considered a religious expert, but hey at least it generated couple of pages of interesting notes.
One day on the bus home from campus, I sat next to two people having a conversation about philosophy. The one doing most of the talking was a fairly typical long-haired pseudointellectual type making a kind a claim about existence similar to Descartes but more in line with Berkeley.
After hearing him repeat "But I can't know if you really exist -- you could just be a figment of my imagination" in response to protests from his companion, I leaned forward with the following suggestion to the annoying metaphysician:
"After I punch you in the nose as hard as I can, will you tell me again about my being just a figment of your imagination, or will you just be too busy wiping away imaginary blood?"
Unfortunately I wasn't too original. I remember a philosophy lecture where Berkeley arrives at the home of a rival philospher (Locke?) in a rainstorm and finds the door locked. He bangs on the door loudly demanding to be let in, and his friend leans out the window and asks him what the problem is. Berekely complains that its raining, he's wet and cold, and the door is locked. His friend laughs and says "George, the door, the lock and the rain are all just figments of your imagination -- can't you get past them?"
Some artists and psychoanalysts would question if you really have the control to make anything meaningless, no matter how hard you try. Any subject you choose to write about, or create from, no matter how 'random' may still be subject to choice and control by your subconcious. If you wanted to pick a random idea to write about, you're mind doesn't just say "Ok! rand() idea coming up!"
Even if you can't discern it yourself conciously, you very likely chose it for a reason. If you closed your eyes, and decided to write about the first thing you saw when you opened them, you still wouldn't be any 'better' off. What you see may be random to a degree, but not what is significant to you about it. Your focus could be caught by the color of what you see, it's texture, or shape. Thanks to the human mind, almost anything you choose to focus on no matter how trivial or mundane is pregnant with infinite possibilities with very real meaning. This is because the meaning is not truly in the object of your focus - the subject of your creative endevour or otherwise. The meaning is in you. It's you, your mind, concious and unconcious, and it's thinking and feeling many many different things wether you realize it or not.
Of course you can take the world in The Matrix and apply it to the real world. Of course it would then be that the heroes (Neo et al) are more akin to Al-Qaeda than anything else. A quick synopsis:
A group find that the world is under repression from a foreign/alien force that has 99% of the world under its sway. Taking religious prophecy as mandate they stage a guerilla war against the agents of oppression. They also specifically state that although they are fighting for all of humanity, killing civilians is perfectly acceptable in the name of their goal (as agents can take them over, so better to kill them all anyway). Oh and the rebels have almost no plan for what would happen if they won (and the 9 billion batteries are freed).
I guess I spoke to quickly. I think Morpheus is more of an archtype for Osama Bin Laden: the hands-off spiritual center of the organization. I guess Neo would then be more like Mohammad Atta or Amyan Al-Zawahiri (who's the CEO of the Al-Qaeda org). Then you can finish it off with Trinity as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed... Cypher as Jose Padilla... Agent Smith as Dick Cheney... fun for all!
What is music when you despise all sound?
It is. According to producer Joel Silver GM donated something like 200 cars for the scene.
You're quite correct in that there are some Christian tennants, but the majority are buddhist. Moreover, what is mildly Christian is far more Jewish:
The messiah to the Jews was a military leader who was prophesized to return and restore the military Kingom of Israel. They were pretty sure, in the time of Jesus, that this would be someone from the line of David (hence the use of Joseph to attribute this to Jesus). One of the primary reasons most Jews at the time denied that Jesus was the messiah was because he was far from a military leader: he advocated peace and acceptance, which was quite contrary to the Jewish model of a messiah.
The One seems more to be a Boddhisatva. In The Buddhism of the Great Vehicle, there is the belief that some people realize that they're about to achieve Enlightenment, but instead of fully crossing over themself, they remain here in The Great Illusion so as to facilitate the Enlightment of others. These are Boddhisatvas, basically "helping buddhas".
"Stumble before you crawl"
More generally, though, I think you're way off the mark to complain that people were finding meaning that you didn't intend. I think this is the ultimate compliment -- they found your work to be applicable to other experiences you hadn't thought of.
-Esme
Nothing, depending on how the matrix is implemented. In the movie, the Matrix simulation is supposed to be a prison with body/minds physically chained to it, and so it's obviously "wrong", but it doesn't have to be.
Why is having a false reality presented bad no matter how comfortable it is?
A false reality isn't automatically bad, especially because nobody can know if the reality they're currently living is also false or not. I would CHOOSE to live virtually in another, better, "false" reality, as long as I had at least as much control over my life as I do now (which isn't much).
I don't know how Matrix Revolutions is supposed to end, but I hope it's not a damn luddite ending where the Matrix is shutdown after the people inside are forced to take the blue pill and wake up to a more "real" reality, where most learn that truth is shit, and ignorance is bliss. A better ending would simply be freeing the Matrix from machine control so people can make the choice of what plane they want to live on. And hell, if the freed 20th-century Matrix isn't good enough, just create a few more parallel simulations you can "slide" to so there's a universe for every mind, and/or recurse a few more levels.
--
Power to the Peaceful
I agree with your take of what was going on with the multiple monitors. It was as if it was attempting to map the different options that Neo could have chosen for his response. And then, using his acutal response, they can improve the model for later use.
The issues to me, however, are those that are very specific - like when Neo knocked over the vase in the first movie. Are we to belive that ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING up until that point had happened exactly as before? Or does she have a Jedi-like preview of the very soon-to-happen future? If it's the first case, then there are some serious problems. Most geeks are familiar with the fact that extrordinarily small events can change the course of history dramatically. Take for instance being at a resturaunt and deciding to wait to shit until you get home vs. using the public restroom. So you almost spent 10 minutes longer there, but you chose not to. If you get in a car wreck and your sister who was eating with you is severly injured, how does that event trickle down throughout your life? What if that wreck didn't happen? What if you were going to meet your wife at the hospital where you went to visit your sister, but you never got in the wreck? What if you postponed going out of state to college because you wanted to stay and see her through her time in the hospital and you ended up not being offered that big job because of it? All because you waited to piss? Given that concept, and the fact that everyone in the group in the first movie was bringing SOMETHING new to the table, I find it hard to believe that things could play out precicely as the Oracle saw from previous iterations (if in fact that was her way of making predictions).
She even goes into it more later in the second movie. She talks again about knowing about things that are going to happen, yet Neo has already broken the mold at that point from previous versions of The One - so how is she able to still know what lies ahead?
An interesting question, and if you read my main thread above you'll see that the answer isn't something complex and cool - the answer is that there is no reason. I don't expect them to be able to explain her oracle powers in a credible way - even allowing for fiction.
dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
The plot was almost non-existant and I didn't really leave the movie knowing anything particularly new about the "Matrix" and the position of the human race was not particularly different at the end than the beginning...
Nothing new? Hmmm, there have been 6 previous Ones and Zion has been destroyed 6 times. The function of the One is to reset the Matrix and then pick (don't remember the numbers) some men and women to populate Zion and start over again. There are rogue programs in the Matrix, one of which is the Oracle.
As far as the position of the human race, at the end of the first movie they were not in any danger which they are now since Neo refused to reset the Matrix. The architect said that they (the machines) were prepared to have an existance that didn't rely on the humans for power even though it wasn't optimal they were prepared for that.
Don't forget this is the 2nd movie in a trilogy, movies like this usually don't advance much and save it for the last movie.
I've heard lots of reviews like yours from lots of people and the problem seems to be that people don't realize that the reason that the first was good in comparison to the second is that most people had never seen a movie like that before. The action style was new, the opening was quite impressive, Neo coming out of the pod and the human race being slave labor for machines.
I guess the problem is that people expect too much, I enjoyed the movie very much but I didn't think it was going to surpass the first because of that "newness" the first one had.
Oh yeah as far as the plot, it was set in the first movie. They are trying to escape from the Matrix, this movie assumed that you saw the first one and did not re-introduce ideas from the first.
$0.02
The game "Enter The Matrix" contains a lot of information about the third movie. (by the way, I just finished playing as Ghost and now playing as Naomi i found than the gameplay has different missions and strategies!. Really good indeed.).
There are a lot of analogies in this movie, i think that creates a lot of speculation and thus makes it more interesting.
I guess when the Animatrix comes out, then more information will be made available (not all episodes are available on the site).
Jose Vicente Nunez Zuleta RHCE, SJCD, SJCP
Yes definitely Smith is a virus as evidenced by his replicating ability. Whats interesting is that it is not limited to just the Matrix, or at least what we know of as the Matrix.
As for protecting the Keymaster, I thought he was their hostage. Why would he need to be protected from Neo, Morpheus and Trinity by the Merovingians?
I believe the Oracle is something different, quote the Architect:
"Thus the answer was stumbled upon by another, an intuitive program, initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche. If I am the father of the Matrix, she would undoubtedly be its mother."
Interesting sidebar:
When the Architect says:
"But we already know what you're going to do, don't we? Already I can see the chain reaction; the chemical precursors that signal the onset of an motion, designed specifically to overwhelm logic and reason, an emotion that is already blinding you from the simple and obvious truth: she is going to die and there is nothing you can do to stop it."
I find it interesting/funny that he says "chemical precursors."