This site is to host your ideas about Philosophy - about doing philosophy as opposed to studying it. To be a philosopher (which is what we are aiming for)you need to think and here you can share your thoughts, get feedback and , hopefully, inspire discussions.
Friday, September 4, 2009
the Matrix and Philosophy
Watch the above?
What questions does the film raise? what answers are suggested by the film according to this clip, or according to your interpretation?
What answers do you have? Do you agree with the ideas of the cave?
The film 'the matrix' raises many questions but the core question being: 'Do us humans really exist, and if so is the world we seem to be living in reality?'. There weren't particular answers so to speak mentioned in the clip but the whole concept of 'the matrix' being that if we indeed are not in reality, then we are probably hear for someone elses gain of power.
The first sub-question that was raised was: 'What are the real limits and bounds on our own behavior and actions?'. I feel that we are in reality and if not, that our minds cannot fathom the true means for our so-called existence.
The director of this film stated that people generally allow themselves to be subjected to institutionalized control and rigid thinking and I believe that this is true as most people do not like to question the world in which we live in philosophically as it scares them.
Another question that was sort of raised was that 'if we are 'asleep' to reality, then are we being exploited?'. I think that in the matrix's case, that the people in Neo's world weren't particularly being hard-done by as the people were unaware, weren't arguing against this and all but a very few were living normal happy lives. How can you be being exploited if you are happy?
The character Morpheus said that this world Neo was living in was a 'prison' for his mind. This i kind agree with because although the world he is living in wasn't reality, it was far from a prison, seeing that he seemed to have more freedom in that world then in reality.
'The only thing we know for certain is that nothing is certain' Socrates idea is definitely important in the context of this film and its links to the cave allegory. I agree that the cave idea and the matrix are plausible but only because we simply cannot disprove them. Therefore, I do not agree or disagree with the idea of the cave allegory or disagree with the ideas that 'the matrix' represents but i find it rather hard to imagine that the matrix does exist.
I agree with Georgina on the fact being that one of the major questions raised from the Matrix is: 'Do we exist, and is the world we're living in actually reality?' However, I also believe that there are a few other questions that the Matrix raises, being equally important. Some of the questions raised: Are we as submissive a species as the film suggests? How can that be if we have free will? Or, is our individuality merely a characteristic that we possess keeping us from thinking there is anything more than what is perceived as 'reality'? The film provides one answer to all these questions: that there are higher beings which control us and use the human race as 'batteries' for their own production in their world. Even though the film did provide an answer, depending on the individual, it would be open to interpretation and opinion; there really is no ONE truth to any of these questions.
According to my interpretation, the answers you get from the questions raised in this film depend on what kind of questions you are asking. Many of the questions raised in this film are on different levels of thinking: some being basic and less philosophical such as, questioning who we are as individuals and what stance we have in, and as, a society. Others requiring much deeper consideration such as: is our universe all there is, and if not, could Plato's analogy of the cave be something close to the truth? The film has already raised a single truth that answers all these questions, but as I said before, it is very much open to interpretations, and nobody can really give answers that will be agreed on by everyone.
The clip suggests that we are all 'slaves' living in a world being a 'prison' for our minds. Georgina agreed by saying that maybe this isn't our reality, but disagreed on the fact that it may be a 'prison'. I disagree with her because even though we may be satisfied and prisoners in our world are generally not happy being imprisoned, we are trapped and have limited free will. What I am trying to say is that, if it were assumed that the Matrix was the ultimate truth, then we are prisoners because we would not have quality of life, we wouldn't be the highest beings in our universe, and we wouldn't be able to escape from being in this universe. IF the Matrix were assumed, then we all would be prisoners albeit how we felt about it.
In my opinion, the Matrix (although an adaptation of the allegory of the cave) is a much more complicated hypothesis of Plato's cave analogy. It goes further than just asking 'what if?'. I do agree with the idea Plato suggests; that there is definitely more than our 'reality' and all we see, but the Matrix goes ahead and assumes a new reality, so as to not just question 'what if?' but to also add to that and ask 'what if THIS were true?'
I do not believe that what the Matrix is saying is true as there is no evidence to back it up and it is also a film made for our entertainment. However, in assuming such a vivid image of such a disparate reality to our own, it should be said that, as Georgina said, although it cannot be proven, it cannot be disproven either. Even though I do not believe in what the Matrix is implying, I do appreciate this film as it challenges one to think against everything they know and against what they believe to be actuality; something that not many people are willing to do.
How do we know that what we perceive as reality is reality? Short answer: we don't. Reason, perception, emotion and language are the only paths to knowledge (according to TOK, anyway). Obviously, language wouldn't help unless somebody who had experienced (perceived) the true reality communicated this information. In the movie, Morpheus reveals the truth to Neo, suggesting that the makers of the film think this is the only way of knowing. Reason cannot help beyond suggesting that there is no evidence to the contrary. Perception is useless, as we already know, because our possibly illusory reality is convincingly all-encompassing. Our perception could easily be very limited or quite whole, but we have no way of being sure about this. Emotion could indicate that there is more to reality than we think. In the film, Morpheus tells Neo, "You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life: that there is something wrong with the world, you don't know what it is." Unfortunately, this would not hold up in a court of law and has to be dismissed. Consequently, the only way to know the truth is to get someone to tell you it or, even better, release you from your misperception and show you the true reality.
What are the limits to our knowledge? The majority of our knowledge comes from our perception and experience of the world around us, which is, naturally, extremely limited in the perspective of the whole universe and the past and future. We have only experienced the places we have been to and those we have seen on television. Even the well-travelled can only claim to have seen a tiny minority of the entire world and very few of us have been beyond this planet, considering it is so tiny in relation to the universe trillions of times its size. All of this does not take into account the miniscule amount of time that we have to experience things anyway which limits us in two ways. The first being that we cannot experience any of the future or past beyond our measly 100 years or so. The second being that to experience all of the universe it would take far, far longer than we live. Needless to say, it would be impossible to experience all of time and space as one could not reasonably be in all places at all times nor have the memory or brain capacity to take in this much information. The point about the limits to knowledge highlighted in this clip, however, is that even if we were not restrained by the limits stated above, we still could not ever assure ourselves that what we see is real or true.
Is being "unplugged" by someone who is already free the only way we could free ourselves? This question is best answered in terms of the allegory of the cave. The prisoners are trapped inside the cave and chained so they cannot move their heads or legs. Similarly, our reality could be a form of prison, but if it is, we can't escape and even if we had the key, we wouldn't know how to untie ourselves. Morpheus tells Neo that he was born into a prison that he can't observe through his senses. This means that the makers of the film agree that a person could not escape without help from someone outside of the system.
I definitely think that the allegory of the cave makes a valid point about how we can never know the truth about what the nature of reality is, but I think when it comes to the sorts of questions Plato is raising, at the end of the day we have to assume that the simpler option is the one that is more likely to be true. For that reason, I believe that it unlikely that there is that much more to reality than we believe there to be.
'The Matrix' raises many basic, yet crucial questions about our existence, reality and our personal freedom. The director mentioned that he wanted his film to stimulate people to question the world and all that is in it, instead of give in to institutionalized thinking.
The film portrays an 'ordinary' person who one day is told that he has been living in an almost virtual world in which nothing is real. This then serves raise the question, 'is our world a reality?'. Since we as humans really only have access to the content of our own minds, how can we even begin to comprehend things in the external world?
This question was first raised in Descartes' book Meditations when he considered the possibility in which the entire material world was an illusion and that we are merely ghosts deceived by an evil demon to believe that we had a body and that what we believed to be real was actually reality - ensuring that our reasoning was just as flawed as out perception. Such a question can never have an answer as reality will always be whatever we perceive it to be.
Another question raised in the movie is 'are we merely submissive, acquiescent beings being controlled by a larger force? What are the limits and bounds of our own behavior?'. Firstly, I must argue that it is quite impossible for one to be such acquiescent beings as it is obvious that one thinks, and therefore one cannot be a mere a submissive, passive being. In addition, if we were indeed being controlled by a large, deceiving force, how could it allow us to question and ponder the possibility of being controlled by a large, deceiving force as we are doing right now?
I disagree with Maya and Georgina in saying that a fundamental question in the Matrix is whether we, as human beings really ‘exist’ as I believe that is one thing that we cannot doubt. To doubt the existence of oneself is virtually impossible as there must exist a being or self which is doing the doubting. As Rene Descartes said ‘I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am’, a philosophical statement that is now one of the most fundamental element of western philosophy.
The Matrix seems to be a more modern depiction of the Allegory of the Cave, an analogy constructed over 2000 years ago by Plato. Both The Matrix and the Allegory of the Cave cannot, as Maya and Georgina said, be proven nor disproved. I agree that it is not an impossible feat, however I concur with Arabella in saying that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one as it requires the least amount of assumptions.
After watching that segment from the film, 'The Matrix', I felt the main question asked was not whether we actually exist, but whether the reality we (seemingly) exist in, is a true objective reality opposed to an illusion. It seemed that 'The Matrix' makes the assumption we do exist, on some level at least, and instead solely questions the reality/ies in which we do exist in.
This film clip suggest that the reality in which Neo awakens from is simply an illusion in which we as humans believe we exist objectively in, when in fact it is 'fantasy' world, where the higher beings acquire energy from our inert actual entities. This concept bares countless similarities to Plato's Philosophical concept of the Allegory Of The Cave, as mentioned in the clip.
Neo represents a prisoner who has escaped from the cave and/or learned the truth of the actual reality lying outside of the cave. We (as well as the rest of the human race) represent the rest of the prisoners, still shackled within the cave although in this case specifically, still thriving within the small embryo-like pod's within the Matrix.
It seems to me, that this idea of another separate TRUE reality in which we can awaken into is perfectly plausible due to the fact we cannot disprove it, although since we have not had any experiences or sights into the true reality, we cannot be certain of this notion. The way in which I like to think of it, and how it seems fairly logical to me, is comparing this awakening into the true reality to awakening from a dormant-state dream. For example, I (and most certainly everyone else) have had experiences in dreams where I believed what was happening was true, and I was convinced it was. Once you wake up though, you realise it had simply been a vague, unclear dream, and most certainly not reality. What I'm trying to say is that, as long as we don't awaken from this reality we are experiencing right now into the true reality , we cannot be sure of a separate reality. However, I still believe 'The Matrix' and 'The Allegory Of The Cave' are extremely feasible theories.
The girls before me all mentioned an idea relating to the clip of this reality being a prison to our minds and also the notion of whether we have free will or not. I think we have to look at how we imagine the idea of a prison in this context. I can see how we can be imprisoned or incapsulated within this reality, although I think being imprisoned in this context means simply not being exposed to the true authentic reality, not being prohibited from free will. Although we must also consider what we perceive free will to be.
Elaine mentioned the impossibility of us being acquiescent, passive beings due to the fact that we think. I would have to disagree with this as we can think and still conform and be indoctrinated to the reality we experience. Also, we may only believe we are thinking, when in fact we are programmed to think, or some other entity is controlling our 'thinking' mechanisms externally. Of course, this is going to extremely vague and broad measures, but again, this theory within itself cannot be disproved.
I do not firmly agree or disagree with the ideas of the Matrix or the Allegory Of The Cave. I believe that this theory of a true reality is definitely possible, as I have stated previously, although I believe that unless we experience it, or learn more about this external reality, then we can assume logically it does not exist, or it does not exist to us at least.
As everyone has pointed out, the matrix does raise many questions that clearly wants us to question both our existence and our perception of reality. One question the movie wants you to ask yourself is: How you know you're not in something like the Matrix program? However, to believe in the matrix, one has to truly believe that their are robots in this world? Is it really possible that robots exist, and live amongst us 'humans'?
I disagree completely with Georgina's statement that humans do not like to question - but then, are all of us supposed to really critically analyse the world we live in today. If we did, we would be forced into NIHILISM. If we questioned our existence together with reality, would one persons answer be the same as anothers, probably not. This leads on to Human perception, we know this is not the same. Some people do not even have answers, people would rather live their lives not knowing than fear that aliens may one day take over the earth. Others simply believe that God made the world, it must be real.
The clip raises quite a few controversial statements, one of which is raised is the fact that we are blindly submissing to authority. This is true, in a sense that we all the governments around the world, and the worlds history of dictators, this is proven to be correct, but then what CHOICE do we really have? Can we fight back, just because ONE person thinks its wrong? Is that person right?
What Maya said, I agree with to some extent, apart from the fact that are we really the most superior beings in our universe? Do we really not believe that there is something else out there who is far more intellectual than us? Forget computers and Robots, but could there be another life form that used HUMANS as developments to further better their species??
I didn't quite understand Arabellas comment about being unplugged by someone who is already free...Do we really believe that we aren't free? Aren't we given freedom to live on this earth. Aren't we given free choice? Options?
I completely agree with Elaine, if we were to doubt our existence on earth, would be stupid. Then what are we on the earth for? Show? This is the one thing we really cannot question, and retrieve an answer. Some people may form opinions, and we cannot truly say whether they are correct or not..there is no right or wrong.
Josh mentioned illusions. Then how do we know illusions really exist? How do we know what is an illusion and again, what is reality? It seems strange to me that we can have parallel universes, or this idea that there is another reality other than ours, I'm not saying it couldn't happen. But does it seem plausible to assume so? What evidence does mankind have to back this statement up?
Kant said: “All the interests of my reason, speculative as well as practical, combine in the three following questions: 1. What can I know? 2. What ought I to do? 3. What may I hope?” This I believe sums up the matrix and the allegory of the cave, in some ways. I do not truly believe either one could be feasible. I think that the matrix was made to question our existence rather than give us a possible reason for believing in another realm.
Something we must question is whether the Matrix really is "less real" than the world outside the Matrix? This sums it up.
"The Matrix" raises many different questions based on the idea of our reality and perception of the real world. As everyone above has stated, how do we know whether the so called "reality" that we perceive is real and not an illusion pulled over our senses?
The film provides serveral answers to the question, but which can be different depending on each person's interpretation. The Matrix Program depicts the reality that we perceive as a mere illusion to allow us thinking we're living in a normal life, while in reality humans are just batteries for the machines. This idea allows everyone to question their own world and perhaps, "think outside the box" to the subject of perceiving reality.
The characters represents people who have found "the true reality" and are trying to rescue others from this prison for human minds. However as the character Morpheus stated in the clip, "...so hopelessly dependent on this system, that they will fight to protect it.", it raises other question such as whether if others would really want to see the true reality, or stay inside the illusion and continue on their lives. Would others be happier to live a lie or face reality? Is it right to force others into the truth?
I agree with Georgina and Maya's points on linking the Allergory of the Cave with The Matrix as being a complicated interpretation, and that such ideas are possible, but only because they cannot be disproved. Josh's points on the possibility that we are programmed to think and that our thinking are actually controlled by a higher force is also a valid point, which raises the question if the "truth" that we discover behind the illusion would actually be real or not, as we may just be programmed or controlled to believe that we have found the ultimate truth, but actually its just another big illusion.
I believe that it is possible for us to find out that our reality is false, and that there will be some that would try to bring everyone to the truth, the Allegory of the Cave is a good description of this idea. However I don't think that everyone would agree to coming into the truth when they're used to the reality they've perceived, as some may be afraid of what they dont understand in their realm of knowledge. And even if everyone does leave the cave and see the outside world, what then? Will we be overcomed by joy? or perhaps lament by the very fact that the outside world is not as good as being in the cave? Some may even go back into the cave despite discovering the outside world, as Arabella has stated that at the end of the day we have to assume that the simpler option is the one that is more likely to be true. Perhaps that despite discovering the truth, it may be too complex for us to regard it as true? Is the simpler, fantasy world that we dwell in more "true" as we understand and experienced it more?
The matter of whether our reality is a "fake" like the Matrix Program and that we should all head towards the "real" reality is debatable. I personally feel that if such a "real" reality exists, discovering it may be a harsh journey and those who do it may be mocked and laughed at like those coming back into the cave, but perhaps that by discovering that reality, we may be able to find answers to the life questions we never understand, and ultimately be beneficial to individuals.
The individual courage and actions to discover and face the truth may be more admirable than thinking ignorance is bliss.
I agree that the film 'The Matrix' raises many controversial issues. Personally i feel that whether it is true or not comes down to the individual or faith and where i stand on this matter is that, we can not question that we actually exist however we can question the purpose of our existence, how we got here, and where we will go after. Our existence is set in stone.
When watching The Matrix i think it is important to bear in mind that the film presents ONE view of our existence. It is not factual as it is not backed behind any certain evidence. Therefore it is not possible to be certain of it so believing in it comes down to your faith in the idea. This is in similar relation to the concept of the cave or any such theory of our existence for that matter.
I personally agree with Maya that both the film and the story of the cave allude to the common conclusion that there are is a higher being/s who control our actions and our thoughts and therefore we don't exist as an individual. This completely questions our existence as it suggests that we do not think off our own accord and have emotions that are personally triggered by us. This is in relation to Elaine's point about Descartes statement - ‘I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am’. I personally feel that in relation to the Matrix this means that because we are able to doubt our existence as the matrix presents it, we are therefore not a part of it as our so called 'rulers' would surely not let our minds doubt them!
“The Matrix” is an action film written and created by the Wachowski brothers; the film explores many different themes, and questions many aspects of human nature and that of reality. Yet fundamental to both the story and Plato’s cave allegory are two questions:
1. Is one’s experience of ‘reality’ illusionary? 2. Does it matter?
When considering the question of whether this ‘reality’ is illusionary all ‘truths’ except those which are self evident must be ignored, as there is a possibility they are illusionary. The problem is that there are no self evident truths upon which to base a logical argument for either the existence of reality or illusion. Although it is believed that the act of thinking is to prove existence, to quote Descartes “I think, therefore I am”. This in fact relies on the premise that something with the ability to think must exist, but this cannot be proven as self evident because it must be doubted at the beginning of the argument. Therefore as there are no self evident proofs it is impossible to tell whether one’s experience is ‘reality’ or illusionary.
As there are no self-evident truths to base a logical proof for the authenticity of ‘reality’, it is impossible to tell whether ‘reality’ is in fact false. As there are no ‘truths’ within this ‘reality’ it must therefore be concluded that there is no means to escape to true ‘reality’ if this is illusionary. Thus it does not matter whether our perceived ‘reality’ is true because this situation cannot be changed, as one either lives in a true ‘reality’ or inescapable illusion.
The same way Plato's cave is simply an interesting idea. He has not experienced this different reality nor has any proof that it exists. It is simply a thought that promotes more thought. The matrix is similar, made to make the audience think. Socrates said "I know that I know nothing".
I agree with Mr. Huggins. In my opinion the other posters were beating around the bush and not getting to the point. People could say a lot more with a lot less... its not an essay competition guys. There's no use in re-stating what the movie stated.
The movie is indeed just a proposition of a possibility to promote deep thought in audiences. It reminds us to not fully trust everything we perceive to be 100%, and always question what we "know" to be as true. Nothing is 100%
Pretty much everyone has covered most of the key points presented in the film. The questions of our free will, our existence, and that of all around us are not easily answered, namely because our own judgments are hindered by who we are and how we perceive that which is around us.
Take a simple example, if one was to measure the length of rope, one would need a rule against which to record the length of the rope. The same applies to humanity; we measure all that we encounter to what we regularly perceive and our own reason.
The matrix SEEMS like the only reality applicable to Neo, as that is what he regularly senses, and he therefore does not realise, like most other human 'batteries', that he lives in a virtual world until he is given the pill by Morpheus. As Arabella stated above, this therefore begs the question, are we only freed of the chains in which we are confined only if another is freed first?
Of course, this would logically imply that at some point, a person must have freed themselves of the chains at some point before proceeding to release the others. But of course, how does the first person, who is accidentally set free into reality, know that he is in reality to begin with?
In fact, if all that we perceive is governed by human limitations, then how does one realise that they are enlightened? If one sees new things, hear new sounds, smell new odours in the 'reality', this does not for certain determine that one belongs truly to 'reality' - could one not be dreaming and be imagining these sensations?
Hence, the allegory of the cave answers: ‘If he had to discriminate between the shadows, in competition with the other prisoners… would he not be likely to make a fool of himself?’ The answer is obviously yes, as most of the prisoners only base their perception against that of the majority – which are other prisoners. This applies in our world as well; assuming that one believes that other human beings exists and are not a fragment of one’s imagination. Of course, if he were to do the same against himself, he would understand how sunlight, that is the reality, would project shadows (the hallucination) against objects, and thus realise that his original reality was nothing but a mere by product of the truth. Yet, he can never be sure of what he sees, as once again the light and the shadows he experiences are only limited to the functionality of his senses, in this case, his eyes. Thus, both do not necessarily need to be true.
What the film "The Matrix" portrays is another reality. For example, if there is one reality, why shouldn't there be more than one reality in which we exist in both.
As Georgina has said, the core question is "Do we humans exist?" Do we really exist or are we merely people with an illusion of free will? In shorter terms, are we acting out what must happen? So as seen in the matrix, we exist in one version of reality, and only one at a time. Do we then not exist in the alternate reality? So say there are two realities, like the matrix and the "Real world". (R1 and R2) If you exist in R1, do you not exist at all in R2?
17 comments:
The film 'the matrix' raises many questions but the core question being: 'Do us humans really exist, and if so is the world we seem to be living in reality?'. There weren't particular answers so to speak mentioned in the clip but the whole concept of 'the matrix' being that if we indeed are not in reality, then we are probably hear for someone elses gain of power.
The first sub-question that was raised was: 'What are the real limits and bounds on our own behavior and actions?'. I feel that we are in reality and if not, that our minds cannot fathom the true means for our so-called existence.
The director of this film stated that people generally allow themselves to be subjected to institutionalized control and rigid thinking and I believe that this is true as most people do not like to question the world in which we live in philosophically as it scares them.
Another question that was sort of raised was that 'if we are 'asleep' to reality, then are we being exploited?'. I think that in the matrix's case, that the people in Neo's world weren't particularly being hard-done by as the people were unaware, weren't arguing against this and all but a very few were living normal happy lives. How can you be being exploited if you are happy?
The character Morpheus said that this world Neo was living in was a 'prison' for his mind. This i kind agree with because although the world he is living in wasn't reality, it was far from a prison, seeing that he seemed to have more freedom in that world then in reality.
'The only thing we know for certain is that nothing is certain' Socrates idea is definitely important in the context of this film and its links to the cave allegory. I agree that the cave idea and the matrix are plausible but only because we simply cannot disprove them. Therefore, I do not agree or disagree with the idea of the cave allegory or disagree with the ideas that 'the matrix' represents but i find it rather hard to imagine that the matrix does exist.
I agree with Georgina on the fact being that one of the major questions raised from the Matrix is: 'Do we exist, and is the world we're living in actually reality?' However, I also believe that there are a few other questions that the Matrix raises, being equally important. Some of the questions raised: Are we as submissive a species as the film suggests? How can that be if we have free will? Or, is our individuality merely a characteristic that we possess keeping us from thinking there is anything more than what is perceived as 'reality'? The film provides one answer to all these questions: that there are higher beings which control us and use the human race as 'batteries' for their own production in their world. Even though the film did provide an answer, depending on the individual, it would be open to interpretation and opinion; there really is no ONE truth to any of these questions.
According to my interpretation, the answers you get from the questions raised in this film depend on what kind of questions you are asking. Many of the questions raised in this film are on different levels of thinking: some being basic and less philosophical such as, questioning who we are as individuals and what stance we have in, and as, a society. Others requiring much deeper consideration such as: is our universe all there is, and if not, could Plato's analogy of the cave be something close to the truth? The film has already raised a single truth that answers all these questions, but as I said before, it is very much open to interpretations, and nobody can really give answers that will be agreed on by everyone.
The clip suggests that we are all 'slaves' living in a world being a 'prison' for our minds. Georgina agreed by saying that maybe this isn't our reality, but disagreed on the fact that it may be a 'prison'. I disagree with her because even though we may be satisfied and prisoners in our world are generally not happy being imprisoned, we are trapped and have limited free will. What I am trying to say is that, if it were assumed that the Matrix was the ultimate truth, then we are prisoners because we would not have quality of life, we wouldn't be the highest beings in our universe, and we wouldn't be able to escape from being in this universe. IF the Matrix were assumed, then we all would be prisoners albeit how we felt about it.
In my opinion, the Matrix (although an adaptation of the allegory of the cave) is a much more complicated hypothesis of Plato's cave analogy. It goes further than just asking 'what if?'. I do agree with the idea Plato suggests; that there is definitely more than our 'reality' and all we see, but the Matrix goes ahead and assumes a new reality, so as to not just question 'what if?' but to also add to that and ask 'what if THIS were true?'
I do not believe that what the Matrix is saying is true as there is no evidence to back it up and it is also a film made for our entertainment. However, in assuming such a vivid image of such a disparate reality to our own, it should be said that, as Georgina said, although it cannot be proven, it cannot be disproven either. Even though I do not believe in what the Matrix is implying, I do appreciate this film as it challenges one to think against everything they know and against what they believe to be actuality; something that not many people are willing to do.
How do we know that what we perceive as reality is reality?
Short answer: we don't.
Reason, perception, emotion and language are the only paths to knowledge (according to TOK, anyway). Obviously, language wouldn't help unless somebody who had experienced (perceived) the true reality communicated this information. In the movie, Morpheus reveals the truth to Neo, suggesting that the makers of the film think this is the only way of knowing. Reason cannot help beyond suggesting that there is no evidence to the contrary. Perception is useless, as we already know, because our possibly illusory reality is convincingly all-encompassing. Our perception could easily be very limited or quite whole, but we have no way of being sure about this. Emotion could indicate that there is more to reality than we think. In the film, Morpheus tells Neo, "You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life: that there is something wrong with the world, you don't know what it is." Unfortunately, this would not hold up in a court of law and has to be dismissed. Consequently, the only way to know the truth is to get someone to tell you it or, even better, release you from your misperception and show you the true reality.
What are the limits to our knowledge?
The majority of our knowledge comes from our perception and experience of the world around us, which is, naturally, extremely limited in the perspective of the whole universe and the past and future. We have only experienced the places we have been to and those we have seen on television. Even the well-travelled can only claim to have seen a tiny minority of the entire world and very few of us have been beyond this planet, considering it is so tiny in relation to the universe trillions of times its size. All of this does not take into account the miniscule amount of time that we have to experience things anyway which limits us in two ways. The first being that we cannot experience any of the future or past beyond our measly 100 years or so. The second being that to experience all of the universe it would take far, far longer than we live. Needless to say, it would be impossible to experience all of time and space as one could not reasonably be in all places at all times nor have the memory or brain capacity to take in this much information. The point about the limits to knowledge highlighted in this clip, however, is that even if we were not restrained by the limits stated above, we still could not ever assure ourselves that what we see is real or true.
Is being "unplugged" by someone who is already free the only way we could free ourselves?
This question is best answered in terms of the allegory of the cave. The prisoners are trapped inside the cave and chained so they cannot move their heads or legs. Similarly, our reality could be a form of prison, but if it is, we can't escape and even if we had the key, we wouldn't know how to untie ourselves. Morpheus tells Neo that he was born into a prison that he can't observe through his senses. This means that the makers of the film agree that a person could not escape without help from someone outside of the system.
I definitely think that the allegory of the cave makes a valid point about how we can never know the truth about what the nature of reality is, but I think when it comes to the sorts of questions Plato is raising, at the end of the day we have to assume that the simpler option is the one that is more likely to be true. For that reason, I believe that it unlikely that there is that much more to reality than we believe there to be.
'The Matrix' raises many basic, yet crucial questions about our existence, reality and our personal freedom. The director mentioned that he wanted his film to stimulate people to question the world and all that is in it, instead of give in to institutionalized thinking.
The film portrays an 'ordinary' person who one day is told that he has been living in an almost virtual world in which nothing is real. This then serves raise the question, 'is our world a reality?'. Since we as humans really only have access to the content of our own minds, how can we even begin to comprehend things in the external world?
This question was first raised in Descartes' book Meditations when he considered the possibility in which the entire material world was an illusion and that we are merely ghosts deceived by an evil demon to believe that we had a body and that what we believed to be real was actually reality - ensuring that our reasoning was just as flawed as out perception. Such a question can never have an answer as reality will always be whatever we perceive it to be.
Another question raised in the movie is 'are we merely submissive, acquiescent beings being controlled by a larger force? What are the limits and bounds of our own behavior?'. Firstly, I must argue that it is quite impossible for one to be such acquiescent beings as it is obvious that one thinks, and therefore one cannot be a mere a submissive, passive being. In addition, if we were indeed being controlled by a large, deceiving force, how could it allow us to question and ponder the possibility of being controlled by a large, deceiving force as we are doing right now?
I disagree with Maya and Georgina in saying that a fundamental question in the Matrix is whether we, as human beings really ‘exist’ as I believe that is one thing that we cannot doubt. To doubt the existence of oneself is virtually impossible as there must exist a being or self which is doing the doubting. As Rene Descartes said ‘I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am’, a philosophical statement that is now one of the most fundamental element of western philosophy.
The Matrix seems to be a more modern depiction of the Allegory of the Cave, an analogy constructed over 2000 years ago by Plato. Both The Matrix and the Allegory of the Cave cannot, as Maya and Georgina said, be proven nor disproved. I agree that it is not an impossible feat, however I concur with Arabella in saying that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one as it requires the least amount of assumptions.
After watching that segment from the film, 'The Matrix', I felt the main question asked was not whether we actually exist, but whether the reality we (seemingly) exist in, is a true objective reality opposed to an illusion. It seemed that 'The Matrix' makes the assumption we do exist, on some level at least, and instead solely questions the reality/ies in which we do exist in.
This film clip suggest that the reality in which Neo awakens from is simply an illusion in which we as humans believe we exist objectively in, when in fact it is 'fantasy' world, where the higher beings acquire energy from our inert actual entities. This concept bares countless similarities to Plato's Philosophical concept of the Allegory Of The Cave, as mentioned in the clip.
Neo represents a prisoner who has escaped from the cave and/or learned the truth of the actual reality lying outside of the cave. We (as well as the rest of the human race) represent the rest of the prisoners, still shackled within the cave although in this case specifically, still thriving within the small embryo-like pod's within the Matrix.
It seems to me, that this idea of another separate TRUE reality in which we can awaken into is perfectly plausible due to the fact we cannot disprove it, although since we have not had any experiences or sights into the true reality, we cannot be certain of this notion. The way in which I like to think of it, and how it seems fairly logical to me, is comparing this awakening into the true reality to awakening from a dormant-state dream. For example, I (and most certainly everyone else) have had experiences in dreams where I believed what was happening was true, and I was convinced it was. Once you wake up though, you realise it had simply been a vague, unclear dream, and most certainly not reality. What I'm trying to say is that, as long as we don't awaken from this reality we are experiencing right now into the true reality , we cannot be sure of a separate reality. However, I still believe 'The Matrix' and 'The Allegory Of The Cave' are extremely feasible theories.
The girls before me all mentioned an idea relating to the clip of this reality being a prison to our minds and also the notion of whether we have free will or not. I think we have to look at how we imagine the idea of a prison in this context. I can see how we can be imprisoned or incapsulated within this reality, although I think being imprisoned in this context means simply not being exposed to the true authentic reality, not being prohibited from free will. Although we must also consider what we perceive free will to be.
Elaine mentioned the impossibility of us being acquiescent, passive beings due to the fact that we think. I would have to disagree with this as we can think and still conform and be indoctrinated to the reality we experience. Also, we may only believe we are thinking, when in fact we are programmed to think, or some other entity is controlling our 'thinking' mechanisms externally. Of course, this is going to extremely vague and broad measures, but again, this theory within itself cannot be disproved.
I do not firmly agree or disagree with the ideas of the Matrix or the Allegory Of The Cave. I believe that this theory of a true reality is definitely possible, as I have stated previously, although I believe that unless we experience it, or learn more about this external reality, then we can assume logically it does not exist, or it does not exist to us at least.
(This Is Josh Clewes, by the way)
As everyone has pointed out, the matrix does raise many questions that clearly wants us to question both our existence and our perception of reality. One question the movie wants you to ask yourself is: How you know you're not in something like the Matrix program? However, to believe in the matrix, one has to truly believe that their are robots in this world? Is it really possible that robots exist, and live amongst us 'humans'?
I disagree completely with Georgina's statement that humans do not like to question - but then, are all of us supposed to really critically analyse the world we live in today. If we did, we would be forced into NIHILISM. If we questioned our existence together with reality, would one persons answer be the same as anothers, probably not. This leads on to Human perception, we know this is not the same. Some people do not even have answers, people would rather live their lives not knowing than fear that aliens may one day take over the earth. Others simply believe that God made the world, it must be real.
The clip raises quite a few controversial statements, one of which is raised is the fact that we are blindly submissing to authority. This is true, in a sense that we all the governments around the world, and the worlds history of dictators, this is proven to be correct, but then what CHOICE do we really have? Can we fight back, just because ONE person thinks its wrong? Is that person right?
What Maya said, I agree with to some extent, apart from the fact that are we really the most superior beings in our universe? Do we really not believe that there is something else out there who is far more intellectual than us? Forget computers and Robots, but could there be another life form that used HUMANS as developments to further better their species??
I didn't quite understand Arabellas comment about being unplugged by someone who is already free...Do we really believe that we aren't free? Aren't we given freedom to live on this earth. Aren't we given free choice? Options?
I completely agree with Elaine, if we were to doubt our existence on earth, would be stupid. Then what are we on the earth for? Show? This is the one thing we really cannot question, and retrieve an answer. Some people may form opinions, and we cannot truly say whether they are correct or not..there is no right or wrong.
Josh mentioned illusions. Then how do we know illusions really exist? How do we know what is an illusion and again, what is reality?
It seems strange to me that we can have parallel universes, or this idea that there is another reality other than ours, I'm not saying it couldn't happen. But does it seem plausible to assume so? What evidence does mankind have to back this statement up?
Kant said: “All the interests of my reason, speculative as well as practical, combine in the three following questions: 1. What can I know? 2. What ought I to do? 3. What may I hope?” This I believe sums up the matrix and the allegory of the cave, in some ways. I do not truly believe either one could be feasible. I think that the matrix was made to question our existence rather than give us a possible reason for believing in another realm.
Something we must question is whether the Matrix really is "less real" than the world outside the Matrix? This sums it up.
"The Matrix" raises many different questions based on the idea of our reality and perception of the real world. As everyone above has stated, how do we know whether the so called "reality" that we perceive is real and not an illusion pulled over our senses?
The film provides serveral answers to the question, but which can be different depending on each person's interpretation. The Matrix Program depicts the reality that we perceive as a mere illusion to allow us thinking we're living in a normal life, while in reality humans are just batteries for the machines. This idea allows everyone to question their own world and perhaps, "think outside the box" to the subject of perceiving reality.
The characters represents people who have found "the true reality" and are trying to rescue others from this prison for human minds. However as the character Morpheus stated in the clip, "...so hopelessly dependent on this system, that they will fight to protect it.", it raises other question such as whether if others would really want to see the true reality, or stay inside the illusion and continue on their lives. Would others be happier to live a lie or face reality? Is it right to force others into the truth?
I agree with Georgina and Maya's points on linking the Allergory of the Cave with The Matrix as being a complicated interpretation, and that such ideas are possible, but only because they cannot be disproved. Josh's points on the possibility that we are programmed to think and that our thinking are actually controlled by a higher force is also a valid point, which raises the question if the "truth" that we discover behind the illusion would actually be real or not, as we may just be programmed or controlled to believe that we have found the ultimate truth, but actually its just another big illusion.
I believe that it is possible for us to find out that our reality is false, and that there will be some that would try to bring everyone to the truth, the Allegory of the Cave is a good description of this idea. However I don't think that everyone would agree to coming into the truth when they're used to the reality they've perceived, as some may be afraid of what they dont understand in their realm of knowledge. And even if everyone does leave the cave and see the outside world, what then? Will we be overcomed by joy? or perhaps lament by the very fact that the outside world is not as good as being in the cave? Some may even go back into the cave despite discovering the outside world, as Arabella has stated that at the end of the day we have to assume that the simpler option is the one that is more likely to be true. Perhaps that despite discovering the truth, it may be too complex for us to regard it as true? Is the simpler, fantasy world that we dwell in more "true" as we understand and experienced it more?
The matter of whether our reality is a "fake" like the Matrix Program and that we should all head towards the "real" reality is debatable. I personally feel that if such a "real" reality exists, discovering it may be a harsh journey and those who do it may be mocked and laughed at like those coming back into the cave, but perhaps that by discovering that reality, we may be able to find answers to the life questions we never understand, and ultimately be beneficial to individuals.
The individual courage and actions to discover and face the truth may be more admirable than thinking ignorance is bliss.
I agree that the film 'The Matrix' raises many controversial issues. Personally i feel that whether it is true or not comes down to the individual or faith and where i stand on this matter is that, we can not question that we actually exist however we can question the purpose of our existence, how we got here, and where we will go after. Our existence is set in stone.
When watching The Matrix i think it is important to bear in mind that the film presents ONE view of our existence. It is not factual as it is not backed behind any certain evidence. Therefore it is not possible to be certain of it so believing in it comes down to your faith in the idea. This is in similar relation to the concept of the cave or any such theory of our existence for that matter.
I personally agree with Maya that both the film and the story of the cave allude to the common conclusion that there are is a higher being/s who control our actions and our thoughts and therefore we don't exist as an individual.
This completely questions our existence as it suggests that we do not think off our own accord and have emotions that are personally triggered by us. This is in relation to Elaine's point about Descartes statement - ‘I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am’. I personally feel that in relation to the Matrix this means that because we are able to doubt our existence as the matrix presents it, we are therefore not a part of it as our so called 'rulers' would surely not let our minds doubt them!
“The Matrix” is an action film written and created by the Wachowski brothers; the film explores many different themes, and questions many aspects of human nature and that of reality. Yet fundamental to both the story and Plato’s cave allegory are two questions:
1. Is one’s experience of ‘reality’ illusionary?
2. Does it matter?
When considering the question of whether this ‘reality’ is illusionary all ‘truths’ except those which are self evident must be ignored, as there is a possibility they are illusionary. The problem is that there are no self evident truths upon which to base a logical argument for either the existence of reality or illusion. Although it is believed that the act of thinking is to prove existence, to quote Descartes “I think, therefore I am”. This in fact relies on the premise that something with the ability to think must exist, but this cannot be proven as self evident because it must be doubted at the beginning of the argument. Therefore as there are no self evident proofs it is impossible to tell whether one’s experience is ‘reality’ or illusionary.
As there are no self-evident truths to base a logical proof for the authenticity of ‘reality’, it is impossible to tell whether ‘reality’ is in fact false. As there are no ‘truths’ within this ‘reality’ it must therefore be concluded that there is no means to escape to true ‘reality’ if this is illusionary. Thus it does not matter whether our perceived ‘reality’ is true because this situation cannot be changed, as one either lives in a true ‘reality’ or inescapable illusion.
guys......its just a movie.
co-wrote by James Cook
The same way Plato's cave is simply an interesting idea. He has not experienced this different reality nor has any proof that it exists. It is simply a thought that promotes more thought. The matrix is similar, made to make the audience think.
Socrates said "I know that I know nothing".
I agree with Mr. Huggins. In my opinion the other posters were beating around the bush and not getting to the point. People could say a lot more with a lot less... its not an essay competition guys. There's no use in re-stating what the movie stated.
The movie is indeed just a proposition of a possibility to promote deep thought in audiences. It reminds us to not fully trust everything we perceive to be 100%, and always question what we "know" to be as true. Nothing is 100%
Pretty much everyone has covered most of the key points presented in the film. The questions of our free will, our existence, and that of all around us are not easily answered, namely because our own judgments are hindered by who we are and how we perceive that which is around us.
Take a simple example, if one was to measure the length of rope, one would need a rule against which to record the length of the rope.
The same applies to humanity; we measure all that we encounter to what we regularly perceive and our own reason.
The matrix SEEMS like the only reality applicable to Neo, as that is what he regularly senses, and he therefore does not realise, like most other human 'batteries', that he lives in a virtual world until he is given the pill by Morpheus. As Arabella stated above, this therefore begs the question, are we only freed of the chains in which we are confined only if another is freed first?
Of course, this would logically imply that at some point, a person must have freed themselves of the chains at some point before proceeding to release the others. But of course, how does the first person, who is accidentally set free into reality, know that he is in reality to begin with?
In fact, if all that we perceive is governed by human limitations, then how does one realise that they are enlightened? If one sees new things, hear new sounds, smell new odours in the 'reality', this does not for certain determine that one belongs truly to 'reality' - could one not be dreaming and be imagining these sensations?
Hence, the allegory of the cave answers: ‘If he had to discriminate between the shadows, in competition with the other prisoners… would he not be likely to make a fool of himself?’ The answer is obviously yes, as most of the prisoners only base their perception against that of the majority – which are other prisoners. This applies in our world as well; assuming that one believes that other human beings exists and are not a fragment of one’s imagination.
Of course, if he were to do the same against himself, he would understand how sunlight, that is the reality, would project shadows (the hallucination) against objects, and thus realise that his original reality was nothing but a mere by product of the truth. Yet, he can never be sure of what he sees, as once again the light and the shadows he experiences are only limited to the functionality of his senses, in this case, his eyes. Thus, both do not necessarily need to be true.
What the film "The Matrix" portrays is another reality. For example, if there is one reality, why shouldn't there be more than one reality in which we exist in both.
As Georgina has said, the core question is "Do we humans exist?" Do we really exist or are we merely people with an illusion of free will? In shorter terms, are we acting out what must happen? So as seen in the matrix, we exist in one version of reality, and only one at a time. Do we then not exist in the alternate reality? So say there are two realities, like the matrix and the "Real world". (R1 and R2) If you exist in R1, do you not exist at all in R2?
Post a Comment