»The Matrix is Philosophy...NO«

Reading over an old thread, I just uncovered this little gem:

Yodimus wrote:

That only means a couple, or zero, more decent films from the sci-fi/philosphy genre.

The Matrix is philosophy?
Give me a break!
If you all spent half as much time reading as you do watching and discussing this inane tripe, you would be aware that nothing in the Matrix even approaches a philosophical inquiry. It's religion, plain and simple. Either you like the movies (which would apply to most of you) or you don't (which would apply to me). Religion is a take-it-or-leave-it matter of faith. I am reminded of the "Philosophy" shelves in the bookstore near my home, which are lined with titles like "Wisdom of the Buddha," etc., while Judeo-Christian-Islamic titles are shelved under "Religion."
Put plain and simple, if your "philosophy" presupposes a savior, prophet, or saint like Neo, Buddha, or Christ, it's not a philosophy at all, but a religion. Philosophers do not worship Socrates or Confucius. They do not revere Nietzsche as a saint. And they certainly do not follow the principles of Jefferson as those of a prophet.

To put it bluntly: Matrix=Religion plus or minus whatever half-understood mishmash of philosophical crumbs the Wachowski's have picked up on.

If you don't like the Matrix why are you at this site?

Are you going to discuss or what?

But I guess if I'm saying the Matrix is not a philosophy, but a religion, then I should explain why so many atheists I know dig it.
I think it is comforting to them to see that in the US we can still make films about copkillers who can do their business and look cool about it. That the religions have not been able to censor our viewing habits to conform to their standards of morality yet.
I think the reason why it doesn't work for me is it's not hokey enough, in the Invaders from Mars sense, to work as sci-fi, yet not pretty enough in the Crouching Tiger sense to work as a martial arts film. It looks bad (the color scheme sucks; for an example of a good color scheme see Star Wars ep. IV) and it's way too religious for me.
But I'm happy to discuss my views.

footloosifer wrote:

Are you going to discuss or what? But I guess if I'm saying the Matrix is not a philosophy, but a religion, then I should explain why so many atheists I know dig it. I think it is comforting to them to see that in the US we can still make films about copkillers who can do their business and look cool about it. That the religions have not been able to censor our viewing habits to conform to their standards of morality yet. I think the reason why it doesn't work for me is it's not hokey enough, in the Invaders from Mars sense, to work as sci-fi, yet not pretty enough in the Crouching Tiger sense to work as a martial arts film. It looks bad (the color scheme sucks; for an example of a good color scheme see Star Wars ep. IV) and it's way too religious for me. But I'm happy to discuss my views.

Direct examples of Matrix philosophy:

Is there such a thing as fate? - M1
The choices we make. - M1
Understanding the choices we make. - M2
Are we driven by purpose? - M2
Cause and effect. - M2
The connection implied by the word. - M3


I know philosophy, I have studied it, and there is a lot of philosophy in the Matrix. The above examples are all philosophical questions/statements, and not religious ones.

I agree.
However, these statements are not fully explored in the films. The films are about pretty people beating the shit out of each other while techno plays in the background.
Want an example of a philosophical sci-fl film from my perspective?
Planet of the Apes 1968. That film fully explores Darwinian natural philosophy in all its ramifications.
Another?
Star Wars IV and V. It's the most thorough exploration of the Freudian concept of Oedipus Complex (i.e. Luke hates his father) since Freud himself.
Another?
Blade Runner. It has Nietzsche written all over it.
-KE-

I thought Planet of the Apes was about a bunch of monkeys taking over the world. And isn't Star Wars just about a bunch of guys trying to hit each other with big glow rods in a contest to see who rules the galaxy?

See how some people can take away what they want from art, philosophy, and religion and make it mean whatever they want it to mean?

Then there is no room for standards in culture. Everything that sells is good. What our humanities classes teach is garbage.
King Lear is the same as "The Simpsons" because the father figure is a dolt in both stories.
Would you prefer I get more obscurely into my shelf of movies?
If I could name one high-budget film that constantly gets trashed by viewers but is infinitely superior to The Matrix from a philosophical perspective, it's Dune 1984.
It is the most Marxist depiction of leadership and class struggle ever. Which is kind of funny because David Lynch was a big Reagan fan. The common people rise up and triumph.
That's philosophy.
Oh, I can see it coming, that's what happens in the Matrix, right?
It already happened in Dune! It's ripped off!

It's funny how you say it's about religion and not philosophy. I don't have much time because I'm leaving for work right now, but it is sufficient to say that the two are in fact both really sides of the same coin.

I'll write more on this later, when I get back from work.

You do realize that philosophy is more than just talking about some philosopher's theories, right? Because from the examples you gave it seems that to you a movie can only talk about philosophy by following one theory through and through. If that's what you're looking for, then stop watching movies and grab a book. What's interesting about the Matrix trilogy is that the Wachowski brothers were able to incorporate philosophical notions into an entertaining action movie. That in itself is an accomplishment. With that said, here are some quotations from the Matrix movies...

From The Matrix :

Morpheus : "Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake up from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?"

Morpheus : "What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

Cypher : "You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years. you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss."

Cypher : "I disagree, Trinity. I think the Matrix can be more real than this world. All I do is pull the plug here. But there, you have to watch Apoc die."

From The Matrix Reloaded :

Councillor Hamann : "... it does make one wonder just... what is control?"
Neo : "If we wanted, we could shut these machines down."
Councillor Hamann : "Of course... that's it. You hit it! That's control, isn't it? If we wanted, we could smash them to bits. Although if we did, we'd have to consider what would happen to our lights, our heat, our air."
Neo : "So we need machines and they need us. Is that your point, councillor?"

Smith : "But as you well know, appearances can be deceiving, which brings me to the reason why we're here. We're not here because we're free, we're here because we're not free. There's no escaping reason, no denying purpose - because as we both know, without purpose, we would not exist."

Merovingian : "This is the nature of the universe. We struggle against it, we fight to deny it, but it is of course pretense, it is a lie. Beneath our poised appearance, the truth is we are completely out of control. Causality. There is no escape from it, we are forever slaves to it. Our only hope, our only peace is to understand it, to understand the 'why'. 'Why' is what separates us from them, you from me. 'Why' is the only real social power, without it you are powerless."

From The Matrix Revolutions :

Smith : "Do you believe you're fighting for something, for more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is, do you even know? Is it freedom or truth, perhaps peace - could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson, vagaries of perception. Temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose."

You're giving me sound bites. Good screenwriting though, I always have kind of felt like the brothers are talented writers as genre writing goes.
To me, movies are so infinitely inferior to books that the most any film can hope to do is explore one philosophical theme, or philosophy of art, and even that is just the tip of the iceberg. When I say Blade Runner has Nietszche written all over it, I mean to say that the "slave morality" of the replicants is conflicting onscreen with the "master morality" of the human beings. This doesn't mean, for example, that there is no Sartre in the hopeless violence of future LA.
With all due respect to the Wachowski's, I just don't trust any philosophy written by former carpenters who became multimillionaires by making three action films.
I think the basic problem is that a philosophy cannot really be equated with a dramatic work, if that is what you want to call this stuff. Benedictus' profile says he likes philosophy, so he knows that the word means "love of wisdom". To me, the excerpts you have posted are musings, perhaps even philosophical musings, but musings after all. It's the oversimplification of the complexity of life that makes me think the whole thing's a kind of megalomaniacal religious polemic.
I hate to "bottom line" but here it is: the brothers were trying to sell tickets so they could live comfortably and fashionably. Philosophers almost to the last one eschew that kind of comfort and fashion. Think Zarathustra's downgoing. That's philosophy.
The cranky old man is falling asleep now.
PS: If you think I'm literal-minded about this whole thing, talk to Transio. He'll open up whole new worlds of literality to you.

footloosifer wrote:

To me, movies are so infinitely inferior to books that the most any film can hope to do is explore one philosophical theme, or philosophy of art, and even that is just the tip of the iceberg.

But it's one hell of an act to cover the whole iceberg, let alone the whole ocean of icebergs - even during one's lifetime, isn't it.
And to say that only the iceberg is Philosophy, and the single ice crystals are not is a bit....arrogant.


"What is control?"

This question alone is potentially a philosophical iceberg. It gets your brain cells working, approaching the question from different angles, reading "professional" opinions, discussing it.... doing some,...you know... philosophising.
And this question is being explored deeply - most times not obvioulsy - in the movies. That the trilogy's answer given in the end is of spiritual nature (and even that is a matter of interpretation), doesn't mean that he question is not philosophical.

You have been given several examples of such questions asked in the Matrix movies and you say:
"However, these statements are not fully explored in the films"

How can they possibly be fully explored?

footloosifer wrote:

I think the basic problem is that a philosophy cannot really be equated with a dramatic work, if that is what you want to call this stuff

Well,... dramatic work may not be able to give all the answers, but what can?
But dramatic work can ask you questions, it can make references, it can touch on things.

Philosophy has not much to do with truth; therefore it is much more than just reading Kant, Hegel and Co. The centre of Philosophy is...you. You have to take the offer made by "professional" and "unprofessional" Philosophers, by religions, sciences.... and paint your own picture of this world.
And dramatic work can be a means to this.

I think there is much beauty in metaphors and symbolism. They can translate abstract things into pictures.
The brothers have taken many abstract philosophical, spiritual, scientific... themes and woven them into a story that captures audiences with it's plot and it's making, and - potentially - draws them towards the underlying questions.
The fact that they "were trying to sell tickets so they could live comfortably and fashionably" doesn't contradict with this. Lucky you, if you can make money with what you are interested in.

footloosifer wrote:

Put plain and simple, if your "philosophy" presupposes a savior, prophet, or saint like Neo, Buddha, or Christ, it's not a philosophy at all, but a religion.

Well,... so that we know what we are talking about: Buddha is neither God, not saint, nor a saviour.
Asked What he is, he said "I am awake". That's all,...and that's a lot.

ryanlewisjones wrote:

It's funny how you say it's about religion and not philosophy (...) it is sufficient to say that the two are in fact both really sides of the same coin.

I agree!
It's funny that you, footloosifer, make these two statements:

"I am reminded of the "Philosophy" shelves in the bookstore near my home, which are lined with titles like "Wisdom of the Buddha..."

"if your "philosophy" presupposes a savior, prophet, or saint like Neo, Buddha, or Christ, it's not a philosophy at all, but a religion"


Do you know about the huge influence eastern religions had on Schopenhauer's work?

Have you ever heard of:
Perennial Philosophy is a term that is often used as a synonym for Sanatana Dharma (Sanskrit for "Eternal or Perennial Truth"). It was used by Leibniz to designate the common, eternal philosophy that underlies all religious movements, in particular the mystical streams within religions. The term was popularized by Aldous Huxley in his book The Perennial Philosophy in his description of Vedanta.
en.wikipedia.org...


footloosifer, how would you define Philosophy and Religion; and where would you draw the line between them?

Back from work!

What I was going to say this morning:

Basically, the roots of philosophy come from human intuition questioning it's own existence. So you might say that the first philosophical question is "why are we here?" or some question along those lines.
Religion came along later, as a means of helping people with this question. Religion gives people a purpose, and helps to answer the "why" of life. While it may or may not be true with any religion, it gives those that follow it a sense of fullfillment and purpose.
Ask a Christian "why are we here" and s/he has an answer.
Ask a Sikh, s/he has an answer.
Ask a Buddhist, hey presto.

You might say that religion originated from human's desperation to understand themselves. So religion really stemmed from philosophical approaches.

This is also true of modern science. If you ever do a history of mathematics course, like I have, you will learn that the roots of Mathematics lie in philosophy, and even now there are close links between the two. Many early maths problems were posed as theoretical philosophical questions, and were later solved after mathematical discoverys. These include the discovery of Pi, the Fibbonacci sequence, prime numbers, and many more.

footloosifer wrote:

PS: If you think I'm literal-minded about this whole thing, talk to Transio. He'll open up whole new worlds of literality to you.

Don't you mean to say "ignorance"? I am, after all, ignoring you (so I can't see what you say!)

I would like to add here a distinction between Religion and Theism.

A theist is one who believes that it's likely there is one or more greater entities responsible for our existence. A non-religious theist has usually arrived at this belief through philosophy.

Religious folks, on the other hand, are drones. They believe because they are told to believe.

Most non-religious theists abhor religion, because religious dogma for the most part is inane, incongruous babble written millenia ago, compiled without forethought, and explained postea.

I would like to add that while self-proclaimed philosophers don't "revere Nietsche as a saint" (you misspelled his name, BTW - how's THAT for literal?), they DO revere him (those of Nietzschean mindset, anyhow). Self-proclaimed philosophers are, after all, only human. They are often guilty of the same faults as religious folks. They seek their gods elsewhere (science, people).

I believe there is some philosophy in the Matrix. Of course it's limited - the scope and length of the movie are limited. In fact, I think that much of the theme is Philosophy vs. Religion. Morpheus makes the distinction of who represent the religious folks in the movie when he says something like "so dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it." So, then, the people inside the Matrix represent the religious people of the world.... what is Neo saving them from then? Is it possible he represents Nietzsche? Who knows... I don't have time to think about it. Mull it over yourself.

Personally, I think of Morpheous as representing hard determinism. He knows that Neo is an anomaly because he is working in concert with the machines who have identified him as such. He believes that Neo will free Zion based upon hard-deterministic principals. One cannot alter his path in life. Choice is an illusion. All that matters is causality.

It's funny how, in the end, when the "enlightened" come to an understanding, they decide to rebuild the Matrix. It's almost like a concession that the drones are incapable of enlightenment, so might as well maintain the status quo.

Finally, I think your ad hominem attack on the W's ("construction workers") is baseless. Whether they were construction workers has nothing to do with their intellectual or philosophical capacity.

transio wrote:

Religious folks, on the other hand, are drones. They believe because they are told to believe. Most non-religious theists abhor religion, because religious dogma for the most part is inane, incongruous babble written millenia ago, compiled without forethought, and explained postea.

Ahm,... you sure you are properly informed about the world religions?...

transio wrote:

Self-proclaimed philosophers

Who decides who is a "self-proclaimed" philosopher and who is not?

transio wrote:

I think that much of the theme is Philosophy vs. Religion.

How can there be a vs., when many religions - among them Hinduism, which is even quoted in the trilogy - are actually both?

transio wrote:

Morpheus makes the distinction of who represent the religious folks in the movie

How about Morpheus himself represents much of what you claim to be religious people: blind believers?

transio wrote:

One cannot alter his path in life. Choice is an illusion. All that matters is causality.

Can determinism be equated with causality? Within the principle of causality, there is no choice at all?

There is a nice Buddha quote on that one:
""I do not believe in a fate that falls on men however they act; but I do believe in a fate that falls on them unless they act."

transio wrote:

It's funny how, in the end, when the "enlightened" come to an understanding, they decide to rebuild the Matrix. It's almost like a concession that the drones are incapable of enlightenment, so might as well maintain the status quo.

Nah,... not status quo.
How about "to be free, truly free, you cannot change your cage. You have to change yourself."
You need your cage to start from, because without the cage you cannot live (this is a very old discussion about the end of Revolutions and how billions of people could possibly survive without the Matrix).
But the more YOU change, the more you understand, the bars of your cage will evaporate.
That is how I understand the trilogy quoting "from delusion lead me to truth".

tozy,

Good points, all. Here are some replies:

Self-proclaimed philosophers are those who say, more or less, "I'm a philosopher."

As for the Hinduism = Philosophy claim, can you provide an argument for that in detail?

I agree in retrospect that Morpheus is more of a blind believer. Doesn't make much sense, though, that such a man would be portrayed as a protagonist.

I agree that Determinism != Causality. That was a simplification of the truth. They are not inclusive.

I admit I haven't really studied the movie in detail or thought about it too deeply.

Anyhow... back to work

transio wrote:

A theist is one who believes that it's likely there is one or more greater entities responsible for our existence. A non-religious theist has usually arrived at this belief through philosophy. Religious folks, on the other hand, are drones. They believe because they are told to believe.

It's a matter of what side of the fence your pissing on, I suppose. Your comment on 'religious folks' is absolutely biased and or misinformed nonsense.

tozy wrote:

And to say that only the iceberg is Philosophy, and the single ice crystals are not is a bit....arrogant.

That's me!

tozy wrote:

Philosophy has not much to do with truth; therefore it is much more than just reading Kant, Hegel and Co. The centre of Philosophy is...you. You have to take the offer made by "professional" and "unprofessional" Philosophers, by religions, sciences.... and paint your own picture of this world. And dramatic work can be a means to this.

You're right, philosophy involves more than study. Still, I haven't even conceded that the Matrix is drama yet. It seems more like sports to me. I have a new term for it: "NBA epistemology."

tozy wrote:

The fact that they "were trying to sell tickets so they could live comfortably and fashionably" doesn't contradict with this. Lucky you, if you can make money with what you are interested in.

"Lucky," but not real life. Make believe. Disneyworld. Play dress up and fight the bad guys. I refuse to believe that all the history of art and science comes down to a bunch of pop-culture fads "directed" by rich people, which is what the publishing, film, and television industries seem to think. This is what I always think when I watch the "next big thing" like the Matrix: Wow, I'd rather be living life than sitting here being indoctrinated into the greatness of some millionaire putz who thinks he's an artist but probably has never written a poem or painted a picture.

tozy wrote:

footloosifer wrote: Put plain and simple, if your "philosophy" presupposes a savior, prophet, or saint like Neo, Buddha, or Christ, it's not a philosophy at all, but a religion. Well,... so that we know what we are talking about: Buddha is neither God, not saint, nor a saviour. Asked What he is, he said "I am awake". That's all,...and that's a lot.

I don't know what this "Buddha is" stuff is supposed to mean. He's a dead guy who wanted to start his own cult. They don't buld colossal statues of him for nothing. I think that all these shadowy religio-historical figures have been misrepresented as selfless, self-effacing wisdom-keepers when in reality they probably were a lot like our own savior figure, President Bush. They believed they were divinely guided, were absolutely ruthless in their characterization of the consequences of nonbelief or nonpractice of their particular brand of hokum, and surrounded themselves with sycophants who would spread the word when they died.

tozy wrote:

Quote: It's funny how you say it's about religion and not philosophy (...) it is sufficient to say that the two are in fact both really sides of the same coin. I agree! It's funny that you, footloosifer, make these two statements: Quote: "I am reminded of the "Philosophy" shelves in the bookstore near my home, which are lined with titles like "Wisdom of the Buddha..." "if your "philosophy" presupposes a savior, prophet, or saint like Neo, Buddha, or Christ, it's not a philosophy at all, but a religion" Do you know about the huge influence eastern religions had on Schopenhauer's work?

I haven't read him, but I just looked him up. I know that there are plenty of Jewish philosophers, like Spinoza, who use religious ethics in their work. However, Spinoza never in his philosophical work - to the best of my knowledge - wrote that the Jews are the chosen people of God and that everyone should follow the Mosaic Law because such statements are inherently unphilosophical. They presuppose a prophet, which is unscientific, hence unphilosophical, since philosophy is a science, not an art. Since I have also characterized Darwin as a philosopher, a better example of a "religious philosopher" would be Isaac Newton, a fanatical Christian who invented Enlightenment-era physics. However, he was a devotee of Galileo, who said (I think), "The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

tozy wrote:

Have you ever heard of: Perennial Philosophy is a term that is often used as a synonym for Sanatana Dharma (Sanskrit for "Eternal or Perennial Truth").

I'm listening....but don't get me wrong: I don't respect all philosophers because the books tell me to. For all I know, Huxley might have been on mescaline when he came up with that book.

tozy wrote:

footloosifer, how would you define Philosophy and Religion; and where would you draw the line between them?

I would have answered this before - in fact I think I did - but I was asleep. Like I said, any "philosophy" that presupposes a savior, saint, or prophet as its center is entirely unphilosophical (reductive) and therefore religious.

Quote:

Like I said, any "philosophy" that presupposes a savior, saint, or prophet as its center is entirely unphilosophical (reductive) and therefore religious.

Does this therefore negate Nietzsche's idea of "the overman"? Sure it was only in one of his books and not the center of all of his work, but I don't think you can say that it is entirely unphilosophical and therefore religious. In fact it feels very unreligious, due to how Nietzsche defines his "overman".

I agree with you in a sense, the movie isn't a book on philosophy, it's not presenting a coherent argument for one thing or another, but what it does do is raise questions, yes even philosophical questions, and it does this with a sci-fi/action/superhero vehicle that at first is entertaining if even on a purely superficial level. But, if you dig deeper there are layers of meaning thrown through the whole thing and this can really enrich the whole experience. That is the genius of the matrix trilogy. And that I think is what a lot of good art accomplishes. It starts a dialogue and helps to foster Socratic thinking and questioning in which apparently many of those who post here enjoy taking part in.

Not saying you are wrong necessarily, rather that you get out of the films only what you put into them. If they do not challenge you, if they are boring and just mindless action with little "muses" thrown in to help increase sales I can certainly see why you don't enjoy them and think they are a farce of a film meant to capitalize on your willingness to consume. That's all well and good, and I can see that as a possibility from a certain perspective, but from my perspective the films are not what you say they are. Perhaps I am blinded by my own shortcomings and ignorance, but hopefully "I am beginning to see the light" (plays in the Oracle's house). Anyways, to each his own.

transio wrote:

Finally, I think your ad hominem attack on the W's ("construction workers") is baseless. Whether they were construction workers has nothing to do with their intellectual or philosophical capacity.

Actually, I said they were "former carpenters who became multimillionaires by making three action films." I.e., they are nouveau riche pseudo-aesthetes who think that if they can promote their ideas through promoting themeselves as powerful entertainment gods, everyone will believe them. Well, I don't buy it. As I have said before, I have written plenty of stuff off the forums that I think is better than what the academic bigwigs write, but I guarantee you I am not going to turn it into a martial-arts trilogy.

hexediter wrote:

Quote: Like I said, any "philosophy" that presupposes a savior, saint, or prophet as its center is entirely unphilosophical (reductive) and therefore religious. Does this therefore negate Nietzsche's idea of "the overman"? Sure it was only in one of his books and not the center of all of his work, but I don't think you can say that it is entirely unphilosophical and therefore religious. In fact it feels very unreligious, due to how Nietzsche defines his "overman".

The ubermensch was in several of Nietzsche's books besides "Zarathustra", but I take your point. I tend to see his Zarathustra phase as the product of his syphilitic illness, and yet, good poetry and a satire on scripturally based religion. I think if you take the concept of selfhood as far as Nietzsche did, as to rewrite the words of a religious prophet to promote your selfmade religion - with a congregation of one person, yourself - then you are really not being serious.
My favorite passage:
"You higher men, the worst about you is that all of you have not learned to dance as one must dance - dancing away over yourselves! ...learn to laugh away over yourselves! Lift up your hearts, you good dancers, high, higher! And do not forget good laughter. This crown of him who laughs, this rose-wreath crown: to you, my brothers, I throw this crown. Laughter I have pronounced holy; you higher men, learn to laugh! (Zarathustra, "On the Higher Man," 17, 20, PN 407f.)

Taisou wrote:

transio wrote: ...Religious folks, on the other hand, are drones. They believe because they are told to believe. ... Your comment on 'religious folks' is absolutely biased and or misinformed nonsense.

It's absolutely biased, as is everything I write. It's also absolutely correct. Religion is, without exception, illogical.

Which is totally logical. I mean, who would have thought that a computer hacker could save the world through kung fu?

Oracle.

transio wrote:

Oracle.