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.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- The Brothers Wachawski and Schopenhaur - Auricle 10:05:09 05/17/03 (15)
- Actually... - NapTime 17:11:27 05/18/03 (9)
- I do not remember any such in the 2nd movie, perhaps - Auricle 18:09:40 05/18/03 (8)
- You missed it. The Architect discussed free will <nt> - kSpace 21:49:14 05/18/03 (7)
- Au contraire, he said "Choice", not "Free Will" - Auricle 07:10:27 05/24/03 (5)
- Literal vs Implicit / Choice vs Free Will - kSpace 00:21:56 05/25/03 (2)
- Re: Literal vs Implicit / Choice vs Free Will - I.Kill.Hackers 20:00:40 05/25/03 (1)
- Re: Literal vs Implicit / Choice vs Free Will - Hawklord 06:06:28 06/01/03 (0)
- it's stimulating art-philosophy - njjohn 16:23:29 05/24/03 (0)
- Re: Au contraire, he said "Choice", not "Free Will" - NapTime 09:15:33 05/24/03 (0)
- Yes - NapTime 18:09:24 05/19/03 (0)
- no relation - njjohn 21:06:34 05/17/03 (4)
- Sigh . . . - Auricle 08:03:48 05/18/03 (2)
- Now that's a stretch. - eeerie1 10:26:08 06/20/03 (0)
- Re: Sigh . . . - njjohn 18:56:42 05/18/03 (0)
- Re: no relation - Derick 01:30:40 05/18/03 (0)