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.
This says a lot about our modern society. The original Matrix was a very good movie that played the "things are not what they seem" angle beautifully. The second Matrix film was a series of plastic action sequences designed for or taken from the video game, linked by a bizarre and fragmented plot, and populated with characters who acted like cardboard and sounded like cliches of themselves.
You're right--it does say a lot about modern society. Most of us can't see a point unless it's spoon fed to us.
(Hey, you! Yeah, you who hasn't seen the movie yet! Skip this damn post!)
The second movie's plot makes perfect sense, but only if you realize that it's a semi-reversal of the thrust of the first movie. The One questions his role, and finds out that he is a false prophet. The undercurrent is both the same as the first one ("reality is not what you know") and opposite ("you're free of the machines--but only superficially.")
Go back and watch the movie again; hell, just listen to it, and ignore the "plastic action scenes" if you can't get past them.
Funny, I had the opposite reaction. Why are we equating the teachings of an amazing work of literature, indeed the very Word of God Himself, that teaches deep theological truths and a way to lead a wholesome, meaningful life in service and love to man as an act of worship to God with a collection of adrenaline-filled, pop-culture eye candy (albeit entertaining eye candy) that encourages immorality and speaks nothing of God at all. Besdies, the movies are obviously not based on Christianity alone, but rather it is a strange conglomeration of many religions with heavy emphasis on gnosticism.
Also, it is actually nearly impossible for a film made by people from the United States not to have some Christian overtones. This is a country based on Christian values (if not beliefs). Given our nations strong Christian history, there is bound to be more than a fair amount of influence. I believe it is this influence that people are seeing and clinging to, but I must emphasize (and I believe the makers of the Matrix would agree) it is influence not belief.
I also find your description of "confused hallucinogenic gibberish" an interesting one. The Bible is actually a very logical, structured book. It is highly regarded as one of the most accurate historical books of its time (in regards to references to historical places and events). Whether you agree with its teachings or not, there is a great amount of wisdom and insight to be found in its pages. The book of Ecclesistes contains incredible observations made by King Solomon who sought meaning in life through all of the pursuits we see so prevalently in our society today (entertainment, food, career, sex, accolades). His observations are truly timeless. Also, given the fact that its contents were written over a span of 1500 years by many authors of varying social positions (kings, doctors, shepherds, etc.), the internal consistencies are nothing short of amazing.
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
The patronizing attitude you have towards myself and my contemporaries (i.e. academic philosophers) shows just how much you should have taken a few of the classes when you were in college.
If you're not old enough to have taken college classes, then frankly you shouldn't talk about things beyond your kin.
Philosophy serves to do a few things, at the bare minimum: 1, encourage people to critically analyze everything in their life, in the pursuit of enlightenment (be it purely intellectual or possibly mystical), 2, enable people to better apply critical reasoning to every-day problems including everything from law to science to programming.
To overly simplify philosophy as the glib "people who get paid to think of what life might mean" grossly fails to appreciate the depth of the field. The majority of philosophy today deals with epistemology (the study of knowledge, both in terms of its form and its function), ethics (the study of moral systems) and meta-ethics (the study of the origins and basis of moral systems).
"Stumble before you crawl"
We'd take your feedback more seriously if you didn't end a bunch of your posts with that smug "Next." It's self-important, and makes you sound like Comic Book Guys' brother...and it ultimately undermines your arguements.
If you seriously believe that, you weren't paying attention.
I say this to a troll because I think a LOT of people jumped to that conclusion at the end of the movie.
+++ATH0
I have to wonder, who thought this was a troll? Which part of it was troll like? This is why I continue to believe we should have all our moderations be publically visible. Why is it that this very open-source-friendly collection of individuals here at Slashdot is so afraid of being held responsible for their [irresponsible] moderations?
"Stumble before you crawl"
First, I'm not a professor yet. I'm working on my PhD.
Second, since you're claiming to be a philosophy BA (based on your email), its odd that you completely misread the statement. I was suggesting that philosophy serves to encourage enlightenment. That I expanded that, permitting it to include not only purely intellectual enlightenment but also the metaphysical enlightenment that philosophers who are also religious (such as buddhist monks or jewish Kabalists) often reach.
Frankly, I'd have to respond to you with a "bzzt" of your own, saying that you are either a troll or lousy phil prof. You couldn't even parse a simple statement, and your assumptions excluded any philosophers who beleive there's a spiritual side to enlightenment.
"Stumble before you crawl"