 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: The Matrix Reloaded posted by michael w on May 15, 2003 at 23:27:31:
The Brothers love Schopenhaur. Schopenhaur, I should note, wrote his major work (at least in his own mind) before the age of 30. And it shows.From an Introduction to Schopenhaur:
QUOTE
Born in Danzig, Schopenhauer, because of a large inheritance from his father, was able to retire early, and, as a private scholar, was able to devote his life to the study of philosophy. By the age of thirty his major work, The World as Will and Idea, was published. The work, though sales were very disappointing, was, at least to Schopenhauer, a very important work. Bertrand Russell reports that Schopenhauer told people that certain of the paragraphs were written by the 'Holy Ghost.'Schopenhauer's system of philosophy, as previously mentioned, was based on that of Kant's. Schopenhauer did not believe that people had individual wills but were rather simply part of a vast and single will that pervades the universe: that the feeling of separateness that each of has is but an illusion. So far this sounds much like the Spinozistic view or the Naturalistic School of philosophy. The problem with Schopenhauer, and certainly unlike Spinoza, is that, in his view, "the cosmic will is wicked ... and the source of all endless suffering."
END QUOTEThe Matrix (I) employed this rather sophomoric view to good effect. And they added the twist that the rules of the Matrix (Cosmos) could be bent or even ruptured (including the laws of Newtonian Physics) if only one knew how. And I am interested to see where they go with it (if anywhere). But none of this is new. And all of it has had a better exposition (though far less intertaining) before.
En Fin, the philosophical postulation is worth, maybe, 15 minutes at a campus coffee shop (unless one is 12, then it might take a bit more time). The dazzling effects and the twists (the theory for which was explained in the first film) would be probably be better served without the schoolboy musings.
That said, this is the transitional film taking us to episode 3. We must wait for final judgement. Still, unlike starwars, this is not a series of fables for children . . . it is a fable for adolescents. Better, I suppose, as long as they don't feel compelled to run on about it.
Follow Ups:
the movie is just a spinoff from Descartes' Meditations. The Matrix is the Evil Genius of Descartes, not Schoepenhauer's Cosmos. They even said in the movie that the Matrix needed free will to work. That's why previous versions failed. The so-called Cosmos is void of any freedom to choose. The two do not equate.-NapTime
I was distracted (or in the Gent's).If you are speaking of the speech delivered be "Agent Smith" to the drugged and bound Morpheus in the original film there is no mention of "Free Will", only that the first Matrix was a Utopia which humans rejected because we define ourselves by our suffering ("whole crops were lost"). They simply programmed in a bit of misery. And that is Cosmos. Knox and Schopenaur rampant! I just played the excerpt from the DVD to be sure.
If that is what you were referring to, you are mistaken. Though, I wish not. I can deal with Descartes more patiently than Schopenhaur!
If there is a quote in the 2nd movie that I missed, just tell me where it is. When I buy the DVD I will check it out. I certainly don't intend to suffer through the ill mannered audiences in a NYC theatre again (well, maybe a mid-week matinee).
:-)
They are not the same as choice can be limited and therefore subject to rules (as the architect implied . . . what do you think programming is?) . True "Free will" cannot be.I had been present during that scene when I first saw it but you got me wondering whether or not I mis-heard, so I just saw the film again (rug-rats, obnoxious 20 somethings and all, but it was a gloomy Friday). I did not mis-hear.
I am less damning of the "adolescent philosophising" than I was. Though far from original or profound, it is probably the only way 3/4ths of the audience is ever exposed to the ideas. No wonder they are moved to paroxysms of admiration.
I agree. The architect did not specifically mention free will, but stated that the Matrix depends upon choice, conscious or unconscious, to accept or reject the construct. This choice appears to be real and necessary for system meta-stability. Clearly, the architect has come to accept an oscillating system of growth and destruction in the "real" word in order to maintain stability in the Matrix.There is a persisting mystery regarding Zion and its relationship with free will...
I can only guess that Zion is necessary as the only way an individual can opt out of the Matrix and survive in the real world. An interesting twist is if Zion itself is "real" or just another "level" of the construct. Does the existence of free will depend on a true "out" or is it just a choice between two options of simulated life. How is it that the enslaved humans can instinctively distinguish these possibilities? If Zion is "simulated", then why does it need to exist at all, as choices can be made within the Matrix?
If Zion is "real", how is it that Neo is able to stop the "Squiddies"? He notes, just before this event, that he can now "feel" them, and apparently has the sudden insight that his powers may be functional outside of the Matrix (if he's really outside the Matrix).
It will be interesting to see how this question is resolved.
My guess is just like he is able to decipher code and fight the agents on their own terms, he has learned how to harness his electrical energy and use it as a weapon. Perhaps through a higher level of consciousness he has deciphered the way his body works on the cellular level. Maybe hacked his own programming?
Or maybe Neo was hacked by Persephone. She applied lipstick before the kiss, the music became a little more dramatic during the kiss.
i want to disagree again. i don't see it by any means as adolescent philosophising.it's as good art-philosophy as anything else.
i noticed on the board here though that there is not a full appreciation of philosphising. i think there is a staid view of philosophy. i don't quite understand the attitude but i'm not familar with the lack of feeling of vitality towards ideas.
you are probably not a fan either of rubert sheldrake. he's the man.
actually i'd have to think if they have incorporated any of his ideas into the matrix movies. it seems it could be so.
they are made for each other, it would seem.
It does not matter if a choice is limited to a specific set of alternatives (in the case of the doors, there are two). As long as the actual choice made remains unpredictible, it constitutes an act of free will.The reason the Matrix is going to fail for the 7th time, according to the Architect, is that the choice Neo always makes IS predictable, representing a flaw in the design (i.e. no real choice is made). Of course, there are arguments out there that omniscience and choice (or free will) can coexist, but whether the Brothers take this into consideration remains to be seen in the final movie.
though now that I think about it, there is the slight possibility that he was lying, but it would take a very bizaare twist in the plot to explain those doors.
i disagree with what you say and your approach.first to call something adolescent is a problem itself in philospohical discourse. isn't that called the straw man fallacy?
also, you are trying to say a = b, where 'a' is schopenhaur's philosophy and 'b' is the philosophy in the matrix movie. because you say the directors 'love' the philosopher's ideas.
unfortunately that does not prove your premise.
actually it's impossible to prove your premise.
i think you are trying to say or imply that thought does not progress. that's the idea of a machine, not a human. so you must be an agent. :)
i see the matrix as a outstanding critique of current society, and its attempt to control individuals and thoughts.
i think alot can be written and said about it and i understand there are college courses on it. which does not prove anything of course, but it's there.
i hope people can see the weaknesses in your argument and what you are attempting to do in your argments.
i see that you are in the 'adult' world is suppose and those who see
the significance of the matrix idea are in the adolescent world.lol, damm.
you must be an agent sent by the matrix to protect it by trying to discredit a vehicle to take people out of the matrix. a propaganda, disinformation machine.
but i think it is said somewhere in the second movie that it's just impossible to do so. the rebellion against the matrix cannot be stopped.
so you know part 3. the matrix will eventually fall. there will never be a perfect world where all humans and all human thoughts can be controlled.
Nothing is ever proved in philosophy (or logic . . . even a perfect syllogism can be wrong) and my point was not philosophical, it was an observation of a pseudo-philosophy that borrows heavily from a philosopher loved by the brothers. Not "a=b" as you state, but that "a is similar to b" (or perhaps even "contained of b").I am merely pointing out the obvious parallels. If you fail to see them I leave you to your own serenity.
"i think alot can be written and said about it and i understand there are college courses on it. which does not prove anything of course, but it's there."
I don't doubt it. In a world where 18 year olds with no worldly experience are allowed to choose their curriculum very silly things happen. This is actually a minor offender compared to other things I've seen.You attribute to me the notion that "thought does not progress". My response is that there are very few new notions (especially philosophical notions) in the world (and none in either of these two films). Ideas are sometimes packaged in different ways and may have slightly different flavours. In fact, the person who has the thought may not know of the previous exposition but it is virtually always there. Some of these particular ideas were present in "pagan" religions long before Schopenhaur wrote about them, not to mention the Brothers.
There are other far more sinister ideas in the movie that almost no one talks about, even amongst the critics. viz. "Those poor, dumb police are ignorant dupes of the machines and it is perfectly OK to kill them by the score. After all, we know the real truth!" Substitute "Jews" for "police" and "International Zionist Conspiracy" for "machines" and you could have a latter day "Mein Kempf". Why no one finds that disturbing (at least amongst the people who take these two films seriously) is beyond me.
I don't find it disturbing myself. But that's because I don't take the films seriously
It's quite a leap to arbitrarily substitute "Jews" for agents & "International Zionist Conspiracy" for the machines.
you are much more reasonable in your second post here.i'm not up to going deep into the issues tonite.
the matrix has people locked in cacoons and the machines are feeding off their energy. don't they have a right to free themselves of it?
who came looking for who? aren't the agents trying, and are programmed, to destroy the rebelling humans.
what's interesting about the film too is that human nature works both for and against the humans. the guy who said he should have taken the blue pill instead, for odd reasons, turned against his fellow humans.
to me, the first matrix movie is an incredibly revealing film philosophically. i understand too, the film was embraced by some buddhist group since the idea that we are really not awake is part of their philosophy.
but then, something can come along and be this revealing and it can be discarded by many, confused by many, and obfuscated by many. my original reaction was to rebel against this lessening of the film.
i like the idea by the russian philosopher ouspensky who said that esoteric knowledge is really there and available to all but people just don't tap into it.
> > > > i see the matrix as a outstanding critique of current society, and its attempt to control individuals and thoughts < < < <Aldous Huxley would have been proud...?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
