I guess this is why I never liked this flick, the philosophy behind it makes no sense to me. A lot of what we think as our "world" is our perception of things around us. Why would someone destroy a perfectly fine perception, where you have a good life, for some "truth" where all it does is ruin your perception and lead you to a terrible life? And not only that, but fight to remain in the terrible perception because someone told you it's the "truth". I perfectly understand Cypher's attempt to return to a perception that gave him back the perception of old.
This is true in many areas of life. Every restaurant has cockroaches. It's unavoidable. But see one, and you cross off the restaurant for ever; see a cockroach in several restaurants, and you cross off going out to restaurants all together.
Ignorance is a bliss in many cases, or rather our inability to look beyond the ignorance, learn of some "truth" and still continue to enjoy what we did before despite the knowledge of the "truth". We enjoyed something for long time in ignorance, but once we have the "truth", we are no longer able to enjoy the same thing.
The first Matrix never concluded upon which way of thinking is best. Cypher had completely valid reasons, and he was one of the characters, that made the movie worth watching.
In the sequels, it became apparent, that the "real" reality wasn't what they were expecting either, it was just another form of control, an extension of the matrix. One could say, this proves cypher right as well.
Sorry Leo, wall of text incoming. (and not very structured)
LeoNatan wrote:
I guess this is why I never liked this flick, the philosophy behind it makes no sense to me. A lot of what we think as our "world" is our perception of things around us. Why would someone destroy a perfectly fine perception, where you have a good life, for some "truth" where all it does is ruin your perception and lead you to a terrible life? And not only that, but fight to remain in the terrible perception because someone told you it's the "truth". I perfectly understand Cypher's attempt to return to a perception that gave him back the perception of old.
The Matrix is largely based on Platos popular Allegory of the cave. In that sense it is not to be taken as a representation of proper reality but as symbol for something else. The Matrix acts as a metaphor for a special kind of perception. For Plato the cave was the sensual worldview, where political rhetoric, traditions, art (which is seen as an even lesser representation of reality than the senses) and opinions dominate, in that world, people are slaves without their knowing to the ever changing sensual experience. They cannot free themselves without the help of another. It is also an allegory on "learning". In the Matrix this is similar. It is said that only young people are freed, because young minds adapt to change better than older ones. The matrix is, just like the cave, a prison. People are beeing used as batteries for the machines. Just like the cave, they are not conscious of their imprisonment, they think their lives (like Neo's life) is determined by the world they live in. Inside the Matrix, Neo lives a pretty normal life but you can see that he is in fact of little importance to the world he lives in. His life in the Matrix has no meaning (since it is just a simulation, actions do not mean anything). Wheareas, the life outside has meaning.
For Plato, who wanted to confer a theory of knowledge, the life outside the cave is the intellectual life, the knowledge of reason (vs. the sensual knowledge inside the cave) and stands for intellectually abstract knowledge, beginning with mathematics and ending with philosophical ideas. For Plato, the sensual world is but a weaker and wrong version of the intellectual world. The sensual world is always changin whereas the intellectual ideas are eternally true. So only the intellectual world of reason is really true and gives access to the real idea of things and concepts like truth, freedom, justice and ethics. Knowledge inside the cave has no meaning, just like the Matrix. Imagine Science inside the matrix, what meaning does it have since the simulation's laws are random (could always be changed by machines). Inside the Matrix, inside the cave there is no real justice, no real freedom, no real knowledge, whereas outside, in the real world, life has meaning (fight for humanity, freedom, Zion) and everyone plays an important role.
Your example with the cockroach is true, of course, but the metaphor of the matrix goes deeper (!). It stands for the difference of an ignorant, meaningless life and the meaningful truth. Of course us humans like the illusion and we seek it, which is nicely proven by this very forum of Gamers (and Oculus Rift etc.). But that is because these things do not change our relation to our life in a meaningful way.
LeoNatan wrote:
Ignorance is a bliss in many cases, or rather our inability to look beyond the ignorance, learn of some "truth" and still continue to enjoy what we did before despite the knowledge of the "truth". We enjoyed something for long time in ignorance, but once we have the "truth", we are no longer able to enjoy the same thing.
If you compare it to Religion, then would you want to stay a religious person even though you knew and were absolutely sure that you were abused and lied to on a massive scale? It is the same for Plato and the difference between rational scientific thinking and the common knowledge of traditions, the lies of rethorics and the illusions of our senses.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
Oh man this movie is so good but all in all the machines wouldn't bother creating a world for us. They would just grow and harvest
3080 | ps5 pro
Sin317-"im 31 years old and still surprised at how much shit comes out of my ass actually ..."
SteamDRM-"Call of Duty is the symbol of the true perfection in every aspect. Call of Duty games are like Mozart's/Beethoven's symphonies"
deadpoetic-"are you new to the cyberspace?"
This is true in many areas of life. Every restaurant has cockroaches. It's unavoidable. But see one, and you cross off the restaurant for ever; see a cockroach in several restaurants, and you cross off going out to restaurants all together.
This sums it up best I think, and you pointed out the concept without knowing it. "see a cockroach in several restaurants, and you cross off going out to restaurants all together"
Thats what they are doing, seeing the roaches (matrix) everywhere..and crossing off that reality altogether.
put it in terms that relate:
if EVERY restaurant had 1000's of roaches, that they hide as the can in the kitchen and keep from being around the customers.
Would you still want to blissfully enjoy that steak, after someone pointed out 100's of them was crawling on it in the back? Would you go "nope, I refuse to believe the roaches are there, because the steak is much better before I knew.."
Would it be right to let the customers continue eating there day after day unaware of the roaches?
It comes down to 2 lines of thinking:
Some want to live by "false beauty is better than the ugly truth"
While others live by "the truth is more beautiful than any poetic lie"
And I see it as the people in the matrix that know, are the religious zealots(like Cypher) vs Nalo saying the opposite:
They are living with a false reality that makes them comfortable in their life, despite knowing its all a lie and they cover their ears and hold on to the faith of what they desire despite all facts point otherwise..vs facing the truth of what's going on.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Sorry Leo, wall of text incoming. (and not very structured)
LeoNatan wrote:
I guess this is why I never liked this flick, the philosophy behind it makes no sense to me. A lot of what we think as our "world" is our perception of things around us. Why would someone destroy a perfectly fine perception, where you have a good life, for some "truth" where all it does is ruin your perception and lead you to a terrible life? And not only that, but fight to remain in the terrible perception because someone told you it's the "truth". I perfectly understand Cypher's attempt to return to a perception that gave him back the perception of old.
The Matrix is largely based on Platos popular Allegory of the cave. In that sense it is not to be taken as a representation of proper reality but as symbol for something else. The Matrix acts as a metaphor for a special kind of perception. For Plato the cave was the sensual worldview, where political rhetoric, traditions, art (which is seen as an even lesser representation of reality than the senses) and opinions dominate, in that world, people are slaves without their knowing to the ever changing sensual experience. They cannot free themselves without the help of another. It is also an allegory on "learning". In the Matrix this is similar. It is said that only young people are freed, because young minds adapt to change better than older ones. The matrix is, just like the cave, a prison. People are beeing used as batteries for the machines. Just like the cave, they are not conscious of their imprisonment, they think their lives (like Neo's life) is determined by the world they live in. Inside the Matrix, Neo lives a pretty normal life but you can see that he is in fact of little importance to the world he lives in. His life in the Matrix has no meaning (since it is just a simulation, actions do not mean anything). Wheareas, the life outside has meaning.
For Plato, who wanted to confer a theory of knowledge, the life outside the cave is the intellectual life, the knowledge of reason (vs. the sensual knowledge inside the cave) and stands for intellectually abstract knowledge, beginning with mathematics and ending with philosophical ideas. For Plato, the sensual world is but a weaker and wrong version of the intellectual world. The sensual world is always changin whereas the intellectual ideas are eternally true. So only the intellectual world of reason is really true and gives access to the real idea of things and concepts like truth, freedom, justice and ethics. Knowledge inside the cave has no meaning, just like the Matrix. Imagine Science inside the matrix, what meaning does it have since the simulation's laws are random (could always be changed by machines). Inside the Matrix, inside the cave there is no real justice, no real freedom, no real knowledge, whereas outside, in the real world, life has meaning (fight for humanity, freedom, Zion) and everyone plays an important role.
Your example with the cockroach is true, of course, but the metaphor of the matrix goes deeper (!). It stands for the difference of an ignorant, meaningless life and the meaningful truth. Of course us humans like the illusion and we seek it, which is nicely proven by this very forum of Gamers (and Oculus Rift etc.). But that is because these things do not change our relation to our life in a meaningful way.
LeoNatan wrote:
Ignorance is a bliss in many cases, or rather our inability to look beyond the ignorance, learn of some "truth" and still continue to enjoy what we did before despite the knowledge of the "truth". We enjoyed something for long time in ignorance, but once we have the "truth", we are no longer able to enjoy the same thing.
If you compare it to Religion, then would you want to stay a religious person even though you knew and were absolutely sure that you were abused and lied to on a massive scale? It is the same for Plato and the difference between rational scientific thinking and the common knowledge of traditions, the lies of rethorics and the illusions of our senses.
I guess they failed conveying this. Because what purpose was there really? You say, Neo has a normal life but no purpose, but outside he has a purpose. Why do people need to find purpose in everything? Look at the people around you. None of them, or such a miniscule percent of them actually have any purpose beyond abusing the earth's natural resources and abusing people beneath their socioeconomic ranking. What is the purpose of life? Smith says it well - death. Why is this not enough? Why the need for a "higher purpose"?
In the end, when you know the result of their accomplishment, can you still claim they helped the human race? They brought it to near extinction and the Matrix was allowed to remain operational. And those that did choose or were forced to disconnect, what kind of life did they have, in a world basically devoid of any natural resources? They just went and ruined a perfectly fine world for so many people, just to satisfy Neo and the gang's twisted need of purpose and higher meaning.
DXWarlock wrote:
LeoNatan wrote:
This is true in many areas of life. Every restaurant has cockroaches. It's unavoidable. But see one, and you cross off the restaurant for ever; see a cockroach in several restaurants, and you cross off going out to restaurants all together.
This sums it up best I think, and you pointed out the concept without knowing it. "see a cockroach in several restaurants, and you cross off going out to restaurants all together"
Thats what they are doing, seeing the roaches (matrix) everywhere..and crossing off that reality altogether.
put it in terms that relate:
if EVERY restaurant had 1000's of roaches, that they hide as the can in the kitchen and keep from being around the customers.
Would you still want to blissfully enjoy that steak, after someone pointed out 100's of them was crawling on it in the back? Would you go "nope, I refuse to believe the roaches are there, because the steak is much better before I knew.."
Would it be right to let the customers continue eating there day after day unaware of the roaches?
It comes down to 2 lines of thinking:
Some want to live by "false beauty is better than the ugly truth"
While others live by "the truth is more beautiful than any poetic lie"
And I see it as the people in the matrix that know, are the religious zealots(like Cypher) vs Nalo saying the opposite:
They are living with a false reality that makes them comfortable in their life, despite knowing its all a lie and they cover their ears and hold on to the faith of what they desire despite all facts point otherwise..vs facing the truth of what's going on.
You know, I am not sure what to think of someone who for the argument sake, let's assume he has seen all the roaches in all the restaurants, and he decides to go on a crusade to ruin restaurants for all other humans, or for as many as he can. It's childish somewhat. I guess he believes he is doing the right thing, but as a bystander on the side, I can look at things objectively, and consider the facts - the same man that is scaring people from restaurants probably also has roaches in his own kitchen, yet he can't accept the fact that restaurants also have roaches.
Also, I do not accept the comparison to religion. How does science destroy the world of a religious person? If anything, it provides a larger context of where we live in, and it enriches our bonlinging to this vast world, and how unimaginably large events have had the impact to create such small and insignificant things as life on a planet.
A) A lot of what we think as our "world" is our perception of things around us.
That is still true in the Matrix. If our perception is that we live in a computer-simulated world that the machines have built to keep up alive like vegetables, ... well than this still is our reality, as our "world". The fact that not everyone shares this exact same view/perception is irrelevant to the question.
B) Why would someone destroy a perfectly fine perception, where you have a good life, for some "truth" where all it does is ruin your perception and lead you to a terrible life?
I dont see this as a destruction or replacement of the "initial" perception, but merely as an extension of the current perception, hence one's world view is extended. It's like finding out there are other people in foreign lands who speak a different language and have a different religion, or ... finding out that indeed the earth is revolving around the sun and not the other way around. The fact that in the particular case of the Matrix this new perception is generally valued lower for reasons of quality of life (slavery, suppression, ...) is a social problem, but the core of this problem doesnt imply at all that would always be the case. There might be cases where the "new" perception is even better than the old one. Unless your world view is extended, you will not find out. Once you are "enlighted", there is no choice to ignore the new "perception", whether you like the consequences or not.
C) And not only that, but fight to remain in the terrible perception because someone told you it's the "truth".
I dont see that in the context of the Matrix they were fighting merely because they were "told it was the truth", but because it "truely extended" their world view and hence required a new evaluation of the status quo and all consequences they must take to react to it. I see little distinction in your point between merely being "told" and truely experiencing the new "world".
D) I perfectly understand Cypher's attempt to return to a perception that gave him back the perception of old.
I personally dont, because to me it is the equivalent at dying or stopping to think / exist. It's like the equivalent of whishing you were the exact same person, last year, one year ago. You are not the same person again, except biologically. And this is not to be confused with the "Star Trek Transporter / Beamer" situation, where you get physically destroyed, but then put together with new atoms and molecules, but in the same configuration, where the "you" in kept in-tact / un-altered.
E) This is true in many areas of life. Every restaurant has cockroaches. It's unavoidable. But see one, and you cross off the restaurant for ever; see a cockroach in several restaurants, and you cross off going out to restaurants all together.
I dont know how to respond to that. That was comlpete non-sense. This is like, your opinion, man.
F) Ignorance is a bliss in many cases, or rather our inability to look beyond the ignorance, learn of some "truth" and still continue to enjoy what we did before despite the knowledge of the "truth".
The difference between ignorance and knowledge is that usually you cannot truely make something that becomes known unknown. In this case, it is non-sensical to say that ignorance is "to be prefered" (to over-simplify the argument), simply because "you never know what you are missing / being ignorant about", hence you cannot evaluate whether or not any new situation or world view will be "better" than the previous, or not.
G) We enjoyed something for long time in ignorance, but once we have the "truth", we are no longer able to enjoy the same thing.
It's a true statement to say we are not longer able to enjoy the same thing, in the sense that this thing is not the same anymore, D'uh. It's a tautology which bares no value, positive or negative.
As I said before, the flaw in this argument is that you cannot know prior having an enlightment about your world view whether or not it is better or worse. Basically we are a slave to any new revelations and are doomed to adapt our values and lifestyle as the new consequences dictate it.
EDIT:
Oh yeah, I just realized another flaw:
Basically, even if there always was a technical (or otherwise) way to get back to the "ignorant" state of mind, there can never be a guarantee that you won't ever be enlighted with the "truth" again at some later point. At which point you havent achieved anything by swallowing "the blue pill", because one can always still "wake you up" again (or eventually).
I think you missed what I tried to say, or I didn't word it correctly. My argument was not that we should stay in the ignorance, but it might be preferable, since we cannot, once we know a larger context, enjoy the smaller context as we did before.
For example, let's assume the Matrix is real. Someone shares the secret with you. What I ponder is why can't we say "OK, I understand, but I like it here and would like it much more here when compared to the alternative, so I will choose to stay here". Morpheus and Neo do not give this choice to the people. Morpheus and his gang are zealots, and by the end of the story, they ruin much of humanity, and what is left is bad for the "outsiders" - it has always been bad for them, as well as the remaining "insiders", who familiar with the truth or not, have their lives change for the worse because of a war they did not choose to have.
This is the sense in which I understand Cypher's motivation. He is privy to the truth; and yet, he has considered both options, and has chosen to remain in the world where he can live a fulfilling life to his perception of "good".
But it is not "real".
What is reality? Is democracy real? Let me tell you it is not. You are controlled, like a battery, to shape your consumer culture into one that brings them money. You are insignificant in this world. You really are. You live your life, you marry the one you love, you have kids. And you die. And in fifty years, if not less, you are forgotten. This "reality".
So? Would you rather live in a North Korea, where the government tells you what to buy and what to watch and what to enjoy? Or would you rather someone shot you in the head right now because you will die eventually and be forgotten anyway?
No. While you may not have a "real" purpose in the grand scheme of things, you find joy in the little things and perceive that while you may be a pawn for tycoons and pawn for politicians and are a mere ecolution artifact for the sole purpose of species reproduction (most humans are not even that anymore), you can still enjoy what you see as "real" and argue bullshit on internet forums, while paying hard earned money for the "right" to install and play some silly game.
The whole point of this thread was to attempt a discussion on something I don't agree with. So in that sense, keep discussion coming. Your comments at the end are retarded, so I will take your posts with a spoon of salt from now on.
About the pills, I am saying either pill is zealot. Why is there no green pill, where he doesn't forget the "truth" of "reality", but chooses not to fight a lost cause but instead chooses to live his life simply, without destroying countless other lives and nearly causing the extinction of humans?
About the pills, I am saying either pill is zealot. Why is there no green pill, where he doesn't forget the "truth" of "reality", but chooses not to fight a lost cause but instead chooses to live his life simply, without destroying countless other lives and nearly causing the extinction of humans?
There is no green, because the people living outside make the rules for the pills, they either want your help, or not at all. Thier pills their zealot rules about them.
It takes all types, just as there is types that will die to prove a religion right, or die thinking reality is a false lie on us by alien brain implants, ones that will drink the koolaid thinking they are right and die for it happily, they don't offer "deadly kool-aid, regular kool-aid, and kool-aid that just makes you shit for 4 days" you get 2 choices, drink it and die, or don't drink it..
The issue I think lies in the fact the movie focuses on the main characters, not everyday joe.
I mean there could be millions of people that took the blue pill, and still happily ignorant it even happened thats not focused on, since that's not exciting for a movie.
And just like real life, there is small packs of people fighting for what they think is right, regardless if it is, if its better or worse for mankind, or even for those around them. while the majority of mankind is ignorant of them even doing it, or caring to know they are.
Same in the matrix, a handful of people decided that fighting to free mankind is worth ruining what mankind blissfully enjoy unaware. Is it right? is it just? or even is it moral to force that on people? thats up to each person's perspective of it...Just like in real life.
The fact that there is numerous groups, forces, mindsets, militias, etc of people in the real world you (and us) cannot see why they would, because its the zealot road and ruining mankind's enjoyment because they think its wrong, some even willing to destroy mankind as a whole for its 'wrongness' as a risk they will take..shows that despite you not seeing why the characters would want to, that they aren't doing anything different than people do now.
Think of Nymrenanin or whatever his name was. was he not the same? "Wake up, your lifes a lie and here let me force you into seeing why and live like me"..None of us could understand the point, reason, or need to live like he does, or why he is so determined to convince us..
You cannot base a movies believability on "Thats retarded I wouldn't have done that.." Base it more on "Would SOMEONE do that,even if its only 1 in every million people". and I'm pretty sure if Nymrimrodn was offered, he would, and hed be in here 24/7 convincing us the steak isn't real.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
I guess they failed conveying this. Because what purpose was there really? You say, Neo has a normal life but no purpose, but outside he has a purpose. Why do people need to find purpose in everything? Look at the people around you. None of them, or such a miniscule percent of them actually have any purpose beyond abusing the earth's natural resources and abusing people beneath their socioeconomic ranking. What is the purpose of life? Smith says it well - death. Why is this not enough? Why the need for a "higher purpose"?
I really dont know. Like I said, since the Matrix is based (partially, since there are also alot of other references) on Platos Cave, what they do is take a story that is meant for conveying a theory of knowledge and transport it into a dystopian future, essentially replacing the meatphor with a SciFi reality. That makes it difficult to debate, since it was never meant to be used that way. The question is, are we debating on the metaphorical or the interpretational level of the story.
For Plato, there is obviously more meaning in the rational scientific concept and eternal truth (his philosophy is an idealism) which he describes as the outside world (where the sun symbolizes hte idea of good etc.). This is typical idealism and which can clearly be criticized as such. The Matrix tells the story purely from the metaphorical level and the actions of indivuduals inside the metaphor and we are left alone with the interpretation and the "truth" behind the metaphor.
So there is the question whether the movie is apt to transport the idea behind it or not. And then there is the question whether you adhere to such an idealism or not. Personally I dont think that the Matrix is apt to convey the interpretational level that good, since it leaves us to believe that the metaphor is real. But it has its points:
To come back to the question of meaning. I think the meaning is given in the fight for freedom. People who live in opression and know about it are more likely to band together and get their freedom. Take 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall. People, allthough having their basic needs fulfilled, lived in an opressing system that denied other basic freedoms. So they fought for it. Whereas people in the western world, who had these freedoms slowly became lazy, selfish and egoist (not all of them of course).
The metaphor of the Matrix becomes interesting in both cases. In the case of the people behind the wall, people become conscious of their imprisonment and want to get out (The propaganda didnt work so well). The people on this side of the wall are not conscious of their enslavement, so they dont necessarily want out. (Some of them do actually think they see a greater picture, but they are dismissed by the masses)
Your question remains though. Why would people leave a simulated world where life is as good as it gets for a world in misery and war? The answer, in my opinion, lies withing what Nalo said earlier which I'm going to C/P :
Morpheus: What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad.
There is a reason why Cypher wants his memory erased. Because why does he want ignorance? Because he'd rather be a stupid happy pig instead of an intelligent but sad Sokrates (Mill). But Morpheus still has a point. Even if his memory is erased, the Matrix isnt real and that subconscious feeling alone is enough and will eventually get to some people who will want out.
Like you said, there are plenty of people around me that just live their meaningless life and seek satisfaction of their basic and socially constructed needs more than anything (I suppose I am like that aswell, most of the time). But there will always also be other people, who seek higher meaning, who break boundaries. Lets call them revolutionaries, or visionaries. People who land probes on asteorides, people who travel the pacific or atlantic ocean in huge wooden boats, sometimes conquerors and slavers, sometimes even opressors who impose themselves on others but sometimes people who just want to know and wonder, people driven by curiosity.
Yes, there are the masses, but there are a lot of others aswell. They can bring about good things or destruction and mayhem but one thing they have in common is that they are never just satisfied with the simple satisfaction bodily needs.
Mr. Smith doesnt understand that, because ultimately he's a machine (a program), he does what he's supposed to do and gets angry when it doesnt work. His puropse is predetermined. Humans on the other side are driven, not by an external programmation, but by an internal will (that is actually difficult to describe).
Many people will want to remain inside the Matrix. Some will prefer the ugly truth over the golden lie.
LeoNatan wrote:
In the end, when you know the result of their accomplishment, can you still claim they helped the human race? They brought it to near extinction and the Matrix was allowed to remain operational. And those that did choose or were forced to disconnect, what kind of life did they have, in a world basically devoid of any natural resources? They just went and ruined a perfectly fine world for so many people, just to satisfy Neo and the gang's twisted need of purpose and higher meaning.
I'd argue that the perfectly fine world, as you describe it, wasnt so perfectly fine, since ultimately it was fake and subconsciously people knew that. Why did Truman leave the show? (To have a more poignant example) I think this is a question you have to answer for yourself. What would you have done? Would you describe yourself as someone who would not seek for answers when he felt something was wrong? Maybe the existence of this very thread (if not an elaborate troll) proves otherwise?
LeoNatan wrote:
Also, I do not accept the comparison to religion. How does science destroy the world of a religious person? If anything, it provides a larger context of where we live in, and it enriches our bonlinging to this vast world, and how unimaginably large events have had the impact to create such small and insignificant things as life on a planet.
Maybe that was a bad comparison, since I really do not think that science and religion are in opposition to anothers since they operate on completely different epistemological levels. But I thought it would give about the idea pretty well. Once you know a certain truth, can you go back to live the lie? I guess I tried to answer that in an earlier paragraph.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
too much text, eh? I'll try to keep it shorter next time.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
There is no green, because the people living outside make the rules for the pills, they either want your help, or not at all. Thier pills their zealot rules about them.
It takes all types, just as there is types that will die to prove a religion right, or die thinking reality is a false lie on us by alien brain implants, ones that will drink the koolaid thinking they are right and die for it happily, they don't offer "deadly kool-aid, regular kool-aid, and kool-aid that just makes you shit for 4 days" you get 2 choices, drink it and die, or don't drink it..
Not sure about that. Many religious people A lot of religious people are indeed offered a "regular kool-aid" while others do drink the "deadly kool-aid" (some religious more than others).
DXWarlock wrote:
The issue I think lies in the fact the movie focuses on the main characters, not everyday joe.
I mean there could be millions of people that took the blue pill, and still happily ignorant it even happened thats not focused on, since that's not exciting for a movie.
And just like real life, there is small packs of people fighting for what they think is right, regardless if it is, if its better or worse for mankind, or even for those around them. while the majority of mankind is ignorant of them even doing it, or caring to know they are.
Same in the matrix, a handful of people decided that fighting to free mankind is worth ruining what mankind blissfully enjoy unaware. Is it right? is it just? or even is it moral to force that on people? thats up to each person's perspective of it...Just like in real life.
The fact that there is numerous groups, forces, mindsets, militias, etc of people in the real world you (and us) cannot see why they would, because its the zealot road and ruining mankind's enjoyment because they think its wrong, some even willing to destroy mankind as a whole for its 'wrongness' as a risk they will take..shows that despite you not seeing why the characters would want to, that they aren't doing anything different than people do now.
Think of Nymrenanin or whatever his name was. was he not the same? "Wake up, your lifes a lie and here let me force you into seeing why and live like me"..None of us could understand the point, reason, or need to live like he does, or why he is so determined to convince us..
You cannot base a movies believability on "Thats retarded I wouldn't have done that.." Base it more on "Would SOMEONE do that,even if its only 1 in every million people". and I'm pretty sure if Nymrimrodn was offered, he would, and hed be in here 24/7 convincing us the steak isn't real.
Funny, I was thinking of Ronhrin as well, he was a zealot. If he could, he would ruin the "illusion" of "democracy" for everyone in the world just because he doesn't want to pay taxes from the internet scams he was running.
But that is not my disagreement of the movie's ideas. Are there zealots in the world? Sure. But that does not change the fact that I disagree about what the movie is trying to sell. Even if on premise it might have something going for it, what was presented was terrible.
I really dont know. Like I said, since the Matrix is based (partially, since there are also alot of other references) on Platos Cave, what they do is take a story that is meant for conveying a theory of knowledge and transport it into a dystopian future, essentially replacing the meatphor with a SciFi reality. That makes it difficult to debate, since it was never meant to be used that way. The question is, are we debating on the metaphorical or the interpretational level of the story.
For Plato, there is obviously more meaning in the rational scientific concept and eternal truth (his philosophy is an idealism) which he describes as the outside world (where the sun symbolizes hte idea of good etc.). This is typical idealism and which can clearly be criticized as such. The Matrix tells the story purely from the metaphorical level and the actions of indivuduals inside the metaphor and we are left alone with the interpretation and the "truth" behind the metaphor.
So there is the question whether the movie is apt to transport the idea behind it or not. And then there is the question whether you adhere to such an idealism or not. Personally I dont think that the Matrix is apt to convey the interpretational level that good, since it leaves us to believe that the metaphor is real. But it has its points:
To come back to the question of meaning. I think the meaning is given in the fight for freedom. People who live in opression and know about it are more likely to band together and get their freedom. Take 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall. People, allthough having their basic needs fulfilled, lived in an opressing system that denied other basic freedoms. So they fought for it. Whereas people in the western world, who had these freedoms slowly became lazy, selfish and egoist (not all of them of course).
The metaphor of the Matrix becomes interesting in both cases. In the case of the people behind the wall, people become conscious of their imprisonment and want to get out (The propaganda didnt work so well). The people on this side of the wall are not conscious of their enslavement, so they dont necessarily want out. (Some of them do actually think they see a greater picture, but they are dismissed by the masses)
Your question remains though. Why would people leave a simulated world where life is as good as it gets for a world in misery and war? The answer, in my opinion, lies withing what Nalo said earlier which I'm going to C/P :
Morpheus: What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad.
There is a reason why Cypher wants his memory erased. Because why does he want ignorance? Because he'd rather be a stupid happy pig instead of an intelligent but sad Sokrates (Mill). But Morpheus still has a point. Even if his memory is erased, the Matrix isnt real and that subconscious feeling alone is enough and will eventually get to some people who will want out.
Like you said, there are plenty of people around me that just live their meaningless life and seek satisfaction of their basic and socially constructed needs more than anything (I suppose I am like that aswell, most of the time). But there will always also be other people, who seek higher meaning, who break boundaries. Lets call them revolutionaries, or visionaries. People who land probes on asteorides, people who travel the pacific or atlantic ocean in huge wooden boats, sometimes conquerors and slavers, sometimes even opressors who impose themselves on others but sometimes people who just want to know and wonder, people driven by curiosity.
Yes, there are the masses, but there are a lot of others aswell. They can bring about good things or destruction and mayhem but one thing they have in common is that they are never just satisfied with the simple satisfaction bodily needs.
Mr. Smith doesnt understand that, because ultimately he's a machine (a program), he does what he's supposed to do and gets angry when it doesnt work. His puropse is predetermined. Humans on the other side are driven, not by an external programmation, but by an internal will (that is actually difficult to describe).
Many people will want to remain inside the Matrix. Some will prefer the ugly truth over the golden lie.
Well, I first and foremost take the creation in its most literary form - a dystopian future with humans as batteries. Even if there is what to discuss about it in metaphoric way, I think they failed to interest me the first line of literary creation, but also I think they failed me in their conclusion. And since I have never been able to enjoy "nice graphics" without liking the story, I was never able to enjoy The Matrix as a technical accomplishment either. They put an array of cameras and achieved some cool bullet time effects. Great ... and?
I think they mainly failed to look at all sides of their proposed problem and solution. Is their "final solution" of destroying the machine world - allegory of constructs, big government, consumer habits, etc. - the best solution for everybody? Or just a small portion of intellectual zealots that will "benefit" from knowing they have achieved their individual truth of not living a lie, while the rest would just suffer.
You mention the wall. Let's look at the fall of communism and socialism in western Europe. I don't disagree that the fall was the "good" outcome. But was it indeed the best solution? I would argue that it's not clear cut. If you ask my mother, she would say that during the socialism in Bulgaria, she had a great life, while after the fall, everything took a heavy turn to the worse. Sure, she "knows" that she has a lot more "freedoms" in a "democratic" Bulgaria, except the freedom to live a much better life she could before.
In this case, we can observe before and after and judge or debate what was the best solution or nuances of it. Like we can debate the merits of The Matrix' literary interpretation because we've seen the start and finish of the story.
This mentions the metaphors you brought up. I think it's from one of the DVDs.
Let's look at what something like Ronhrin would suggest the world should look like. In his mind, we are all batteries in a world where the state - "the boogieman" - uses people and their resources as batteries to fuel the state. On its merit, there is what to discuss. But what is his solution? Like in The Matrix, he would have it destroyed at once, regardless of the repercussions to an entire society. While not perfect, what would Ronhrin suggest? Anarchy is the solution; survival of the fittest. The weak in society? They are weak, they do not deserve to be empowered by the "slave" of you and me.
Also, I very much disagree and dislike with saying someone's life is insignificant. All life is equally insignificant. How is the asteroid lander's life and more significant than someone who works in the field and feeds his family and many others through his work? Is it more significant because the result is more glamorous? Also, why is "basic satisfaction" lesser than "higher satisfaction" from seeking "higher meaning"? What higher meaning? Is space travel higher meaning? Is pondering if democracy vs theocracy a higher meaning? (They are both means of control of the masses by the top of the pyramid, and that's because how humans have grown in the evolutionary process. I would argue this should be the higher meaning - understanding this, instead of trying to create philosophy to pretend we are something more than a species of animals that evolved from other species of animals, and that whatever we ponder here is so irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. This is a megalomania I don't share. I am a software developer, but I don't see myself in a higher "position" than the guys that clear our office. I am richer, perhaps, because I am paid more money, but I do not see myself with "higher purpose" than others.)
I see Smith as a tragic character. A realist doomed to fail in a world with boundaries he cannot control, set by higher beings (Wachowskis) to prove some point. He tries desperately to fulfil what he was created to do, but through means outside of his control, he is always tricked into failing, which makes him angry.
couleur wrote:
I'd argue that the perfectly fine world, as you describe it, wasnt so perfectly fine, since ultimately it was fake and subconsciously people knew that. Why did Truman leave the show? (To have a more poignant example) I think this is a question you have to answer for yourself. What would you have done? Would you describe yourself as someone who would not seek for answers when he felt something was wrong? Maybe the existence of this very thread (if not an elaborate troll) proves otherwise?
Well, in both cases, it has to be explicitly said and shown, through extreme examples, that there is something "odd" in the world, so there is a minimal justification to the "strange feeling" of the main character. In The Truman Show, Truman is quite content with his boring life until a series of strange events [are made to] occur, in order for story to proceed. Now, I love The Truman Show, but that is because it is a much personal and much more warmly crafter story, but there are many holes in that story too.
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Will read now.
