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.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- 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)