 
|
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 Brothers Wachawski and Schopenhaur posted by Auricle on May 17, 2003 at 10:05:09:
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.
Follow Ups:
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 ]
