| Title | : | The Matrix and Philosophy: Welcome to the Desert of the Real |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 081269502X |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780812695021 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 280 |
| Publication | : | First published August 28, 2002 |
The Matrix and Philosophy: Welcome to the Desert of the Real Reviews
-
"...Isn't The Matrix one of those films which function as a kind of Rorschach test...?"
"The problem is not that ufologists and conspiracy theorists regress to a paranoid attitude unable to accept (social) reality; the problem is that this reality itself is becoming paranoiac"
Slavoj Žižek
Just a forenote
Actors in this movie had to read these books: “Simulacra and Simulations” by Jean Baudrillard, “Out of Control” by Kevin Kelly, and “Introducing Evolutionary Psychology” by Dylan Evans and Oscar Zarate.
"These would be the successive phases of the image:
1 It is the reflection of a basic reality.
2 It masks and perverts a basic reality.
3 It masks the absence of a basic reality.
4 It bears no relation to any reality whatever: it is its own pure simulacrum.
...Disneyland is a perfect model of all the entangled orders of simulation. "
in 'Simulacra and Simulations' by Jean Baudrillard
I could have never imagined a single movie* would cause such a plethora of philosophical essays.
Today that I got to know of an anticipated vision of a 2020 China, this same fact gives me more motivation to pursue on reading these essays on a sci-fi future embedded in The Matrix. I mean, by 2020, China wants to have its 1.3 billion citizens under a ranking system; this one will imply a "social credit score" for each citizen, based on: social connections, political ties, wealth, compliance, spending habits etc. Thus, those most trustworthy will have more chances getting a job, to travel and get a bank loan... and so on. WELCOME TO THE MACHINE! It's really up to you: take the red pill. Or the blue one.
A 101 Room will ever exist, right?
"The Oracle of the Matrix not only lives in a rough part of the virtual city, she is a grandmotherly black woman-not what you expect...
The red pill is a new symbol of bold choice and most people insist they would take it if they were in Neo's shoes."
Irwin's Introduction states a reflection of the Slavoj Zizek quote, that is, as an inkblot, the film allows you, any philosopher, to see your/his/her own favorite "ism" in the movie. So, the essays' viewpoints in the book range from Nihilism, Postmodernism and Existentialism, to Marxism, Feminism, Buddhism...and, you name it. His essay, is a wake-up call to the people: Neo's mission is like Socrates'. Yet, there are differences, between ancient Greece's time and Neo's.
"From time to time I have found that the senses deceive.”
René Descartes
"Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world? (Morpheus said)"
The essay by Gerald J. Erion and Barry Smith, offers an excellent discussion on Skepticism, both in the film and in several philosophers. How certain are you about what you know? Really uncomfortable questioning.
"Before offering Neo the blue and red pills, Morpheus tells him, “No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.”
...
Neo takes the red pill so that he can “see how far down the rabbit hole goes.”
David Mitsuo Nixon, ponders on the Possibility of himself, (and you, the reader) being "in" the matrix after having watched the movie. Does it make sense? Can you believe it? He arrives at the conclusion that: it's possible (§), though some of "your" premises/beliefs may be false.
Seeing, Believing, Touching, Truth
Carolyn Korsmeyer's Essay
Maybe this is my preferred essay. Because it tackles in a very elegant way the question of Proof, Reality and Truth, with recourse to a strange condition called 'Sudden Unexplained Nocturnal Death Syndrome '. The case is that more than 120 mysterious deaths were reported in the 80's and 90's in the Hmong community in the USA. People would just die over sleep, after experiencing nightmares, and some thought that "dreams could kill". The problem, Carolyn says: nothing "had touched you" over sleep. And from here she goes into one of the fundamental philosophical problems: perception. She enunciates the problem: "... for the experience of dreams can be so vivid that one is (temporarily) convinced they are real." Then several proximal and distal sensorial modalities are considered."MORPHEUS: What is real? How do you define real? If you’re talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."
...Carolyn concludes pointing to the resurrecting touch (kiss) of Trinity on a Neo laying down, inert. Senses (and feelings) are important."The love of Trinity for Neo resurrects both his real self and his digital self, bridging the divide between the two worlds, and Neo’s resurrection gives him the ability to will his way
(In The Metaphysics of The Matrix by Jorge J.E. Gracia and Jonathan J. Sanford)
beyond the rules of the Matrix, manipulating it to his own designs.""The idea of systematic deception even has cinematic precedents, Total Recall and Dark City, to name just two"
(in The Machine-Made Ghost: Or, The Philosophy of Mind, Matrix Style by Jason Holt; in his essay he reasons the premise of The Matrix is "conceivable,...it could happen")
... Remember Deep Blue, the chess-playing computer who defeated Kasparov? There’s no
question that Deep Blue has “intelligence,” but does it have intelligence? What about HAL 9000 in 2001, or the Matrix-making machines in The Matrix? What about Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation?"
Neo-Materialism and the
Death of the Subject
This is a radical essay, by Daniel Barwick. He's about to demonstrate that: "in a certain sense, The Matrix is a fake.... the existence of a Matrix as depicted in the film is impossible (§)" ...though plausible (§). He questions the moral purpose of the characters.
Fate, Freedom, and
Foreknowledge
by Theodore Schick Jr."Knowing the future has an air of paradox because it seems to violate the principle that an effect cannot precede its cause.... The Oracle doesn’t tell us how she knows the future"
This is a powerful essay on God's qualities and a questioning of the powers of the oracle in The Matrix.
"The most profound use of mirror-reflection takes place in the Oracle’s apartment. A boy who sits in a full lotus posture, garbed as a Buddhist monk, telekinetically bends spoons.
This is from an essay by Michael Brannigan on the parallels of Buddhism in the movie. A 'Buddhistic essay', I venture to say. Maybe one of the best in the collection.
...
The Matrix underscores these two sides of the mirror—reflecting and no-reflecting—through its numerous Buddhist allusions: the world as we know it as illusion..."
...
...
Commenting on 9 essays is enough for me, for now. Those 11 ahead, include Philosophers such as Kant, Sartre, Heidegger, Marx, as well as themes like Religious Pluralism, De-construction and much, much more. I didn't see two issues being approached as they are so obvious in the movie : (1) violence sometimes in a gratuitous way and guns, guns and guns, and bullets, many bullets flying all over
(2) the special-effects themselves as they often challenge Physics' laws as we know them. The physicality of the movie, the impossibility of some moves, those slow-motion scenes and the Kung Fu prowess, as well as those impossible jumps and kicks, would deserve an essay per se. "Philosophy of physics in The Matrix" would sound a good title. Or "You've been fooled by the so-good special effects". Or "It's just a movie" ...WAKE UP!
PS I should have talked about the Bullet-time effect.
*Even its sequel:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/24/mov...
(§) I find pretty interesting Nick Bostrom's ideas on "reality simulation". His article 'ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION', speculating on possible scenarios for a post-humanity and computing power, is worth reading. There's a chance we may be living in a simulated reality: or will. Or some of us; or some....of them.
https://www.simulation-argument.com/s...
https://www.salon.com/2002/12/05/matr...
UPDATE
Red pill, or blue pill, any political connotation?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-ma...
UPDATE
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outloo... -
اين كتاب در حقيقت مجموعه مقالاتي هست كه توسط افراد مختلف پيرامون ابعاد فلسفي، روانشناختي ، جامعه شناسي ، نظريات رسانه و... فيلم ماتريكس حرف ميزنه وبراي كساني كه فيلم رو ديدند حتما جذاب خواهد بود
-
I was scared to read this, assuming I wouldn't remember much from my college days. But I'm actually doing quite well, and this is pretty interesting. My favorite in college was philo of the mind, which is totally what the Matrix is about, and probably why I liked the movie so much.
The only thought I've had worth noting at this point is that I just gone done reading a book discussing the concept of false/ignorant happiness (Farenheit 451), and now I'm reading about the Matrix, where you have to decide if it matters if it's real. Like when Cypher is meeting with Angent Smith and eating the huge steak, saying he knows it's not real, etc but doesn't care. In F451, many people knew 'something was missing', but couldn't put their finger on it. In the Matrix, except for the people that have been unplugged, no one knows they are missing anything. So is that somehow better? I don't have any final thoughts on this yet (no idea if I will), as I'm still reading.
So far the most interesting essays to me were 9 and 10 on religion/religious principles in the matrix. The next one on Happiness has taken me the longest to read, as I've had to stop and contemplate a few things. It was interesting all in all, but I think I've finally decided I disagree with that view. It's a lot easier to read the essays I either agree with or don't have a decided view, but this I just had a hard time following it to the conclusion.
I've skipped a couple essays towards the end that are on topics that are just not grabbing my interest, and I'm just working on finishing the last two that I plan to read. All in all, I've really enjoyed this, and plan to (after a couple other books) dig into my Buffy and Philo book by the same editor.
Ok, last update. Just finished the last one this morning. The essays about topics that are new to me were definately a bit harder for me, I couldn't just blow through them. But I learned a lot, and they gave me lots to think about. And now, of course, I have to watch the movie again! -
Descartes this...blah, blah, blah,....brain in a vat that...blah, blah, blah. Yeah, I get it. It is just so incredibly dull. Plus the fact that each article is written by a different person (often a student) leads to a lot of repeated themes and authors trying to sound impressive rather than informative and entertaining.
Unlike The Dharma of Star Wars, this book added nothing to the enjoyment of the film. -
This one was actually quite good! It was super in depth and definitely had a lot of good points about specific philosophy theories and reasonings. One of the essays even had me laughing out loud because of how frank it was. The last essay kind of lost me though. Overall, I enjoyed the details and the expanded thoughts provided by each essay. Kind of a harsh read for quarantine though when you're stuck inside all day with few choices but to live semi-virtually but I digress.
-
The Matrix and Philosophy (best read with the original soundtrack) is a compilation of essays consisting of many different philosophies and ideas in relation to the first movie. For the viewer, it provides great insight into the origins of certain metaphors and symbolism that could be missed otherwise. The wide range of essays on simulation theory, skepticism, morals, freedom, fate, biblical symbols (and more) are a great addition to the movie, in my opinion.
-
it was very interesting to see the philosophy of this movie
-
As someone who is a pretty regular reader of the pop culture and philosophy series of books [1], I have in mind a certain standard of excellence or at least amusement in the series. But every series has to start somewhere, and this book is certainly evidence that at the beginning of the series the various authors were not yet fully aware of the sort of writing that would be necessary to both bring at least some honor and glory to themselves as philosophers while simultaneously appealing to a mass audience of readers. This book manages to fall into the uncanny valley of writing, both too wonky to appeal to widespread readers and not sufficiently glorious to benefit the c.v. of the vast majority of the writers here. In general, what one tends to find here is rambling essays that go on for way too long and people who can't stay on topic, as well as the usual biases in the approach of the authors and conflicting positions held by different people about the same topics of study. Unfortunately, this book doesn't provide much to enjoy, and its subtitle is definitely all too accurate.
The contents of this book are a bit over 250 pages divided into twenty essays that deal with only the first of the Matrix movies. These essays are divided thematically into five "scenes." The first four essays look at questions of epistemology and how it is that anything can be known in the Matrix, along with some tie-ins to Socrates and other philosophers. The second part of the book examines the desert of the real and looks at questions of metaphysics, the Matrix's philosophy of mind, materialism, and issues of fate and free will. The third part of the book looks at the question of ethics and religion in the Matrix, pointing out Buddhist and pluralist elements as well as the question of whether ignorance is bliss and Kantian approaches to ethics. The fourth part of the book looks at questions of nihilism and authenticity and the problematic nature of real response to fiction and the genre complexity of the Matrix story. The fifth and final section of the book subjects the Matrix to various types of deconstructionism, comparing the Matrix to a forgotten film released around the same time that one of the essayists prefers for its far more adventuresome and unconventional handling of sexuality, looking at a Marxian view of the Matrix, and wrestling with questions of postmodernism and perversion.
Overall, this book does not hit its mark. Even more than usual, the authors show a great deal of bias that makes this a much less enjoyable book to read than most of the books are in the series. For one, the book has too little of a context to deal with, as all of these essays draw their commentary on a small set of quotes and incidents in one movie. Later books in the series would have a larger scope to deal with, which made their books less monotonous and repetitive, even if not necessarily more true. The hype that came from the first movie was not supported by the sequels to the film, and that makes this book a bit too quick off the mark, and not of lasting enough value. This book neither has the style nor the substance to make it a truly worthwhile volume, and it was good that the editors of the series learned some lessons from the failure of this book to make better and more enjoyable books later in the series.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2013... -
Essendo un'appassionata di Matrix ed avendo una discreta curiosità per la filosofia pensavo che questa raccolta di venti saggi fosse una scelta piuttosto azzeccata. Purtroppo mi son dovuta ricredere. Se il curatore avesse avuto una visione d'insieme dell'opera si sarebbe certamente reso conto che c'è una ripetizione nauseante degli stessi concetti; si arriva all'ultimo saggio che al sol sentire nominare il demone malvagio di Descartes o la caverna platonica si avverte un irrefrenabile impulso di buttare il libro all'aria e di non aprirlo mai più. Nonostante sia diviso in cinque sezioni che danno la parvenza di una eterogeneità di argomenti, non posso non osservare che alla fine la parte metafisica riguardante la possibile esistenza o meno di matrix occupi ben più della metà del libro. Argomento che per un paio di saggi può rivelarsi interessante, ma che alla fine appare come una sterile speculazione che non porta a nulla di nuovo rispetto a ciò che si era già detto centocinquanta pagine prima.
Non do una stella perché cinque-sei saggi erano davvero interessanti e son riusciti a risollevare anche se di poco la mia opinione riguardo il libro. -
My rating is inflated by a strong Matrix Bias. I listened to the audiobook for a second time Oct 2021. I agree with my original review below:
If you like the Matrix or philosophy, this is a fun read. I love the Matrix Trilogy and these essays really increased my appreciation of the story. I especially enjoyed the critiques of the film, although I didn't necessarily agree with all of them, they were interesting points of view.
There a bunch of repeating ideas, but they didn't bother me. You're going to hear about Plato and Socrates a few times. Plus the authors are pulling the same quotes. But if you love the Matrix that won't be a problem because you love those lines and ideas. -
An interesting book which ties lines of philosophical reasoning to the highly symbolic Matrix movie. I thought that parts of it were quite insightful, but too many of the philosophers used the same 4 scenes of the movie to make their point that it became quite repetitive - Trinity bring Neo back to life, the choice of Red or Blue pill, the scene with towers of pod-humans energizing batteries for the AI world, and Cypher's betrayal.
Perhaps different writers could've analyzed different plot elements. -
a good comparative study yet the book could have been as less as half of its current thickness since the author repeats the same things over and over. it is like paraphrasing some main philosophical ideas within the framework of the film.
-
Sounds interesting.
-
It gets a little redundant and could have been organized better, but it’s an entertaining read for Matrix fans.
From the essay ‘Notes from the Underground” by Thomas S. Hibbs:
‘Rooted in the ‘desert of the real’ the rebel band struggles to ascertain clues about humanity’s past, to gain a clearer understanding of what their task is in the present, and to recover a positive orientation toward the future’
‘…there is a false sense of our own unity, self-control and dominion over the future. A more adequate conception of freedom grows from a sense of uncertainty and internal division and leads to a more complex appreciation of humanity. Morpheus asks Neo whether he has had the sense that ‘something is wrong in the world’, a sense that ‘you cannot explain but feel’. We must begin with a sense that something is awry, which, if invested further, will initiate a quest’. As Morpheus puts it, ‘it’s the question that drives us—what is in the Matrix? The answer is out there and it will find you if you want it”
I think these quotes gets to the heart of why so many people have connected with ‘The Matrix’. It’s art/sci-fi, but it taps into those existential questions and uncertainties if you’ve ever probed. I think what emerges is that quest towards confronting hard truths and becoming intellectually honest in order to gain a better understanding on what it means to be a human in this complex world that we live in and are co-constructing together. I think what the Matrix and philosophy does is that it challenges you to unplug, to notice the implications of social and unconscious forces that are seemingly determining our lives, to raise red flags on technology's deepening grasp on our lives and the varieties of 'Matrices' that are emerging, to reflect on our sense of freedom and the cause-and-effect nature of things, to take that birds eye view of the world, to look past the veil of life’s illusions in order to get a glimpse at what's real (if possible), and to then ultimately reintegrate as a wiser version of oneself in the stream of things towards something meaningful and better through that metamorphosis that occurs along the way. That is what the spirit of sci-fi and philosophy is to me—and is a testament to the power of art, cinema, and storytelling to merge all these things together in an entertaining way. -
As might be expected of a collection of twenty essays that try to squeeze every drop of philosophy out of a two-hour movie (or to criticize each drop,) some of the chapters are much more compelling and pertinent than others. One could argue that some of the chapters are of sounder quality than others (and I would make that claim,) but even if you take them as a collection of high-quality philosophy essays, it’s hard to deny that some of the chapters are germane to the story the filmmakers created, while others try to use the film to get across an idea they find worthy – regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with the film, per se. More simply, the book comments on “The Matrix” through the varied lenses of a wide variety of philosophical branches and schools, most of which have something to say about the movie, and others… not so much.
Few films have achieved the mix of popularity and philosophization of 1999’s “The Matrix.” The movie imagines a world in which the simulation hypothesis is true – i.e. there are people living in a simulated / virtual world that is so convincing that they are unable to tell that they aren’t going about their lives in “base-reality.” The movie’s central question is: should one prefer an existence that is real -- if grey, dismal, subterranean, and hostile – over one which is illusory -- but one has all the modern comforts, delicious virtual steaks, and one isn’t being hunted by killer machines? Over the course of the story we see two divergent perspectives on this question. The lead character, Neo, chooses to leave the Matrix to enter the real world. Meanwhile, one of the crew members of the ship Neo finds himself on, Cypher, betrays his shipmates in order to get back into the Matrix. It’s clear from the fact that Neo is the lead and Cypher is portrayed as a treasonous scoundrel that opting for “the real” – warts and all – is viewed as the correct position on the matter. However, the fact that we see Cypher in relatable circumstances, ones that engender some empathy for the character, means that answer isn’t meant to be taken as a forgone conclusion.
The movie’s premise engages a couple branches of philosophy – notably, epistemology (asking what, if anything, can one know to be true?) and metaphysics (asking, what is real?) While there are a number of philosophical ideas that recur in the book, the most repeated is Plato’s cave? Based on the ideas of Socrates, Plato described a situation in which people live chained in a cave in which they can only see silhouettes moving about on the wall from a light source behind them. What happens when one becomes unchained and leaves the cave into the “real world?” How is one received by people when he returns and tells the story of what one experienced? Is anyone interested in following in one’s footsteps, or do they believe it’s a lie, or the ramblings of a madman?
The twenty chapters of the book are divided into five parts. Chapters one through four consider the epistemological questions raised by the film. Chapter one sets the scene and gives the most extensive discussion of the comparison of the movie to Plato’s cave. Chapter two takes an anti-skeptical turn. It argues that, if one isn’t a philosopher, one has little reason to view the world skeptically. The world works, why question it? The argument is both true and not particularly useful. Chapter three proposes that one cannot make sense of a world in which all or most of a person’s beliefs are false. Like the previous chapter, this one boils down to: we can’t eliminate the possibility of a Matrix-like truth, but neither do we have any good reason for giving it a second thought. Chapter four focuses on sensory perception and what it says (and / or doesn’t say) about what we know. In daily life, we intuitively (if not explicitly) base a lot of what we “know” on our sensory experience -- even though most of us know it is flawed. Perhaps the most intriguing issue raised by Chapter 4’s author was about the Hmong people, and their increased incidence of dying during sleep – in conjunction with a folk belief about malevolent spirits who attack during sleep. (Thus, it’s suggested that the mental world and the physical world aren’t separated such that the former can have no influence on the latter – i.e. the materialist take.)
[Note: The reason the point about the Hmong is salient is that there is a scene in which Neo asks whether dying in the Matrix means dying in the real world. Morpheus answers “the body cannot live without the mind.” From a storytelling perspective, it’s easy to see why the filmmakers created this rule. There would be zero tension in any scene that takes place inside the Matrix (i.e. where almost all the action takes place) if it weren’t the case that people could die from what happened inside. However, from a philosopher’s (or scientist’s) point of view the statement is problematic. Every night our conscious minds go “dead” and yet we wake up just fine. However, the Hmong issue raises an interesting point, suggesting maybe we don’t understand the issue as clearly as we feel we do.]
Part two of the book (ch. 5 – 8) shift from epistemology to metaphysics. Chapter five lays out the basic metaphysical issue, asking how effective a two-category classification scheme of real and unreal is, and where it runs into problems. Chapter six shifts focus to the mind-body problem (does physical matter generate subjective experience, and – if so – how,) and asks what minds are and whether machines can have one. Chapter seven rejects the film’s notion that mental states can be reduced to physical states, but ventures into interesting territory by evaluating the ethics of “imprisoning a mind” -- if it were possible. Chapter eight explores questions of fate and determinism, which is also a central premise in the film. The appeal of the real world in this film is obviously not that it’s better, bolder, brighter – it’s none of those things – a major part of the appeal is that in the real world it seems one is free (i.e. one has full free will.) Whereas inside the Matrix, a least much of one’s life is deterministically dictated by computer programs.)
Up to this point, whether or not I felt a given essay said anything interesting, I believed they were all addressing this film’s philosophical underpinnings. From part three, we see a shift. For example, chapter nine asks, is “The Matrix” a Buddhist film. Not surprisingly (given – to my knowledge – none of the filmmakers ever said it was,) the authors conclude that it’s not, but that it has touches of Buddhist influence (also not surprising, given they aren’t hidden or subtle.) Chapter ten discusses the problems of religious pluralism. Because this film presents not only the aforementioned Buddhist influence but also Christian influence (Neo as savior) and bits from all-manner of ancient mythology (starting with character names / roles, e.g. Morpheus,) it’s proposed that it’s advocating a kind of pluralism. [Given that the movie exists in a fictional world, the fact that it draws ideas and names from various sources, doesn’t seem to me to be a suggestion that the filmmakers are advocating a particular hodgepodge, pluralistic, Frankenstein’s Monster religion.] I do think the author did a fine job showing that pluralistic “religions” tend to be logically inconsistent and systemically untenable. Where he lost me was in the suggestion that individual religions are logically consistent. The one I was raised in had an all-powerful god who couldn’t contradict human free will, and one god that was simultaneously three separate and distinct entities. In short, the religion I had experience with is chock-full of logical inconsistency. I burst out laughing when I got to this statement, “Is it really the case that the evidence supporting the truth of, say, Christianity is no stronger than that supporting the truth of, say, Buddhism or Jainism?” Given that (at least the schools of Buddhism closest to what Gotama Buddha taught) pretty much only ask one to believe that if one meditates and behaves ethically one can achieve a heightened state of mind free of the experience of suffering, and Christianity asks one to believe in a God[s] and demons and miracles and sundry ideas for which there is not a shred of evidence, I’d say it really is the case.
Chapter eleven examines the question of happiness, and concludes that: 1.) happiness “is the satisfaction that one is desiring the right things in the right way”; 2.) that one can’t have happiness without a “right understanding of reality.” I don’t think its convincingly conveyed that either of those two ideas is true, but the question of happiness as it pertains to Cypher’s decision is an interesting one. I found chapter twelve to be one of the most intriguing and thought-provoking of the book. It focuses heavily on the teachings of Kant, and it discusses how important features we see with the Matrix (e.g. illusion and enslavement) aren’t features projected from an external source but are imposed by oneself. I think this is a useful way to think about how the film can be related to one’s own life – i.e. thinking about the Matrix world as symbolic for an illusory mental world.
Part IV is entitled “Virtual Themes” and it looks at “The Matrix” from the perspectives of nihilism, existentialism, and then takes a step back and asks questions about the usefulness of studying philosophy through a fictional device (i.e. film.) Chapter thirteen looks at “The Matrix” through the lens of nihilism, putting it beside Dostoevky’s “Notes from the Underground.” Chapter fourteen is similar in that it compares / contrasts “The Matrix” with another philosophical literary work, the existentialist novel by Sartre, “Nausea.”
I thought the questions taken up in the second half part IV were important ones. These two chapters (i.e. 15 and 16) deal with what is the proper relationship – if any -- between philosophy and the product of storytellers. I say this is important because the discussion throughout the book is contingent on there being some value in philosophical ideas in fictional accounts that aren’t optimized to conveying philosophy, but rather are optimized to building an entertaining story. Some of the critiques lack effectiveness because they seem to accept there is value in considering philosophy in fiction, but the correction to make it more effective philosophy would make it useless as story. I would hazard to say that any film that would receive a thumbs up as a conveyor of philosophical ideas from a panel of 24 philosophers (the number involved with these chapter) would be fundamentally unwatchable. But does that mean the bits and pieces of philosophy one gets are worthless? I’d say no, but opinions may vary. Chapter fifteen asks why philosophers should engage with works of fiction, as wall as considering the value of story. Chapter sixteen focuses on genre, concluding that “The Matrix” is a work of real genre, but virtual philosophy.
That last section includes analysis from the perspective of what I would call the single-issue schools of philosophy (feminism and Marxism,) as well as postmodernism (which is said to have been a major influence on the directors) and other twentieth century philosophers. The two single-issue schools do what those schools often do, which is to myopically focus on what is interest to them (regardless of that issues importance to the film, or lack thereof) and pick and choose examples that seem to support their idea. The feminist essay reduces the story to an attempt to be un-raped (i.e. unplugged) and catalogs all the instances in which some “penetration” took place, be it characters being jacked into the Matrix hardware or shot. The author compares “The Matrix” to “eXistenZ,” a film with similar themes that she prefers (though, given the relative popularity of the two films, she may be the only one who feels that way.) The chapter on the Marxist perspective isn’t as poorly related to the film. However, I doubt the essay would exist if the Wachowskis had stuck to their original plan. I read once that the filmmakers originally had a different (and more sensible) rationale for why the machines had humans in a vat. The idea that appears in the film is that humans are used to produce bioelectricity (probably the most scientifically ridiculous idea in the film) and this forms the basis for the Marxist critique of the pod people as exploited labor.
The penultimate chapter is probably the most relevant of the last section. It discusses postmodern philosophy, notably Baudrillard’s “Simulacra and Simulation” which is said to have influenced the Wachowskis and it [the book] even had a cameo appearance in the film. The last chapter is the most convoluted read, but probably by the most prominent author in the book. It’s by Slavoj Zizek and it critiques the movie from the perspective of the ideas of Lacan, Hegel, Levi-Strauss, and Freud.
I found lots of interesting nuggets of food-for-thought in this book. As I said, the effectiveness of the chapters varies tremendously. This isn’t so much because the quality of authors varies. It’s just that some of the work gets off topic – kind of like if there was an analysis of “My Friend Flicka” and it was decided that the thoughts of a Marine Biologist were essential -- you’d be like “what am I reading, and why?” That happens sometimes as one reads this book. But, if you like the movie and want some deeper insight into it, this is a fine book to check out. It’s also a good way to take in various philosophical ideas, leveraging one’s knowledge of the film. -
Hell of a lot in here. Worth it for the pronunciation help on Slavok Zizek alone.
-
Bazı bölümleri çok ilgi çekici ama bazıları da çok sıkıcı bir kitaptı. İlk filmden sonra yazıldığı için devam filmlerinden faydalanamamış ayrıca. Bu yüzden aynı konular üzerinde dönüp durmuş.
-
Interesting set of essays by solid scholarship.
-
2.5 stars, YMMV
The Matrix is one of those movies that definitely offers a lot of food for thought. So when I discovered this installment in the Pop Culture and Philosophy series, I was super excited to read it. The movie gives countless philosophical perspectives to ponder, and this book seems like the perfect place to explore all of that.
Unfortunately, I think the film's richness in philosophy is partially what made the book less pleasurable. TMAP is a collection of essays written from many different people (mostly philosophy professors/students), and it seems like despite having a broad pool of contributors, most of the essayists focused on the same few scenes, quotes, and topics in the movie ("There is no spoon", "What is real?", "A splinter in your mind", "A prison for your mind.") Also, while many of the contributors have different philosophical perspectives, more often than not, the whole film gets reduced to either Plato's Cave (seriously, if I read about Plato's cave in books one more time...) or Descartes' Demon God. By the end of the book, I couldn't help but think that if I picked up one of the less philosophically loaded shows in the series (The Walking Dead and Philosophy perhaps, or Breaking Bad), I would've had more enjoyment from reading, since the philosophical conclusions wouldn't be as obvious. With a book based on a movie so strong in philosophy, it ended up coming off redundant.
Also, despite these books being marketed for complete novices, I found that some working knowledge of philosophy increased or decreased my enjoyment and engagement with the essays. For example, I consider myself familiar with feminism, and interested in class struggles, and so those essays that examined the Matrix from those perspectives were the most enjoyable and interesting for me to read. In those contexts, I found the book pleasant and entertaining. But with Cartesian viewpoints or epistemology, for example, I found myself bored and best and utterly confused at worst.
Another sad drawback is that several essayists rely heavily on the reader not only being familiar with common philosophy topics, but with cross-references in pop culture as well. The expect the readers to have seen Fight Club and eXistenZ, and if you haven't, the whole essay kind of goes out the window since the point they're trying to strengthen by introducing those comparisons becomes lost. I also noticed many writers for this volume deviated in a similar way: they used the reader's familiarity with the Matrix as a very loosely related jumping off point to discuss a deeper, more complex philosophical issue that ended up hardly relating to the film at at (these points were the most difficult for me to grasp).
However, I do think the Pop Culture and Philosophy franchise as a whole is clever, and I enjoyed reading this volume enough to where I'm curious to read other editions. Its tempting to go for the most philosophically rich choice by picking the Matrix and Philosophy, but I think a lot of the whimsy of combining pop culture with philosophy was lost in something so pointed. I'm curious if the "lighter" shows/movies covered by the series bring more to the table. -
Another entry in the "Popular Culture and Philosophy" series that uses a pop culture phenomenon, in this case the 1999 movie The Matrix, to examine philosophical topics (see also my reviews of books in this series covering the TV show
Lost,
Monty Python, and
Harry Potter).
Not surprisingly, these essays by a variety of philosophers and academics focus on topics such as the nature of reality, true knowledge, fate, and religion. Generally, the quality of the essays is good and the material is readable and understandable. There is some repetition of themes; Plato's Allegory of the Cave is mentioned often, as is Descartes' "mischievous demon".
My favourite essay was "Real Genre and Virtual Philosophy", which looks at The Matrix in terms of the various film genres that it combines. The essay, and several others, conclude that the movie asks many valid questions, but they are not new questions and it provides no real answers. The film's philosophical profundity is in fact more virtual than real (a conclusion I agree with).
One of the odder entries was one looking at the movie from a feminist standpoint (apparently, The Matrix is typical chauvinistic fantasy). But the most incomprehensible was the final essay, which is written in philosophical gobbledygook. A typical sentence, selected at random: "In other words, does the externalization of the big Other in the computer not account for the inherent paranoiac dimension of the wired universe?" Huh? -
The Matrix and Philosophy:
Welcome to the Desert of the Real is a really interesting and fun book. It is about the first Matrix movie and how the Wakowski Brothers incorporated many different aspect of philosophy into the movie. The book examines various scenes from the movie and then explains how they are related to fascinating philosophical concepts. Some of the philosophers that the different authors who contribute to individual parts of the book delve into include: Socrates, Kant, Descartes, and many more. The editor, William Irwin, who has done a bunch of other philosophy books, for example, Seinfeld and Philosophy: A book about Everything and Nothing, has wonderfully put together all of the sections of the book and made for an excellent and complete philosophical understanding of The Matrix. -
Today, someone txt'd me out of the blue and asked what Neo's name was in The Matrix.
The Matrix and Philosophy:
Welcome to the Desert of the Real is a good introduction to some of the more common threads of philosophy. The pop-culture references make it easy for the philosophical layman to get his or her head around tricky concepts like the nature of reality, fate and consciousness, whilst also addressing issues of ethics and morality within the construct of the film.
If you like the Matrix films and you are interested in dipping your toe in the philosophical pond, I'd definitely recommend The Matrix and Philosophy. -
we come to the cave of Plato, where you find yourself bound in chains, knowing only the shadows on the wall and contemplating the nature of a spoon.
The Matrix and Philosophy is part of the Popular Culture and Philosophy series published by Open Court. Within you’ll find a series of essays discussing the philosophical themes of the Matrix trilogy and how they relate to the broader topics of free will, reality and if it really matters if we’re all just plugged into a massive multiplayer existence.
I think he Matrix and Philosophy is an interesting book to introduce someone to the concepts that it covers but it lacks a certain depth. I’m giving it a rating of just “ok” at two of five stars. -
This is a fairly decent text. Out of all the pop culture and philosophy volumes, this is among the better ones.
The papers presented span over a broad range of philosophical perspectives-from metaphysics to deconstructionism, classical to postmodern.
i particularly appreciate that many of the essays are critical of the film as a work of art philosophy.
A good read if you're the nerdy sort. At least a very basic grasp of philosophy is probably required if you want to enjoy reading it. Otherwise, a lot of the language and framing will be nonsense, especially the postmodern and deconstructionist pieces. -
This book demonstrated that the questions of philosophy can be as inspiring as the answers to the questions. It had been a long time since I saw the movie and this book has added more depth to the reflection of the story. i found this book to be enjoyable as it take the reader through motive, action, and perspective action through the story line. That prospective action is broken down into examples that could apply to many arguments and questions for one's own life. This was a good read for the curious as well as the students of philosophy.
Mr. Joe -
A collection of essays that analyzes philosophy using the film, The Matrix as the common ground. Some just went over my head while others were able to keep my interest. I particularly liked : the religion of the matrix and the problems of pluralism, happiness and cypher's choice: is ignorance bliss?, notes from underground: nihilism and the matrix, the matrix Marx and the coppertop's life....
But if you don't like philosophy or the Matrix, don't come near this book! -
Loved reading this book, as it gives you great insight into the entire concept of the Matrix. Based more on the philosophical concepts and how they could be applied to life as we know it. It is not an easy book to read (Just as with all Philosophy), and you have to read it slowly to digest it all. But if you've got extra time on your hands and want to take a trip "down the rabbit hole" then give it a shot.
