Friday Fun
May. 16th, 2003 01:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
miko2My friend pointed this slashdot link out. It's a review of the Matrix, but what's more fun is reading the comments left by various people. Discussions on the philosophy used in the Matrix, whether any real philosophy was used, whether a philosopher can watch it and not laugh out loud, whether all philosopers are elitist jerks, etc.
Some of my favorite lines from the discussion:
Not actually having taken a philosophy class myself, I thought the first Matrix was fairly thought-provoking, and I assumed it derived much of its material from preexisting philosophical sources.
You would be equally correct in assuming that the notion of a virtual reality world created and maintained by a computer-based intelligence reflects actual work done by artificial intelligence researchers. Which is to say, you wouldn't be correct at all.
But in the end, "The Matrix" is about philosophy to about the same extent that "Raiders Of The Lost Ark" is about archaeology, which is to say not very much at all.
Oracular paradoxes -- "What's really going to bake your noodle later is if you would have done it if I hadn't have said anything" -- are part of greek mythology.
I think noodles were invented by the Chinese. How did the Greeks know about the Chinese? Do the Greeks even cook with noodles?
In the original classic text, the oracle uses the term "gyros", which translates as "spinning head". However, as Roman/Italic influences increased, especially the use of pasta, and the involved spinning upon implements of said pasta necessary to eat it, the terms for "spinning head" and "spun pasta" (or "noodle"), began to be conflated. Also, "pasta head" became something of a pejorative among the Greeks, once they saw how the Romans worked. Before long, the pejorative was dropped (somewhat like "Geek" and "Nigger", but especially as the concept of citizenship in the empire took hold), and further term conflation resulted in "noodle" being slang for the concept of brain/center of thought.
Plato's allegory of the cave is, just that, an allegory, a made-up story to explain a metaphysical hypothesis. You wouldn't ever ask your philosophy professor, "So where is this cave? Is it near here? Have you ever been there?"
To the extent that there is a "philosophical source" for "The Matrix," it's probably Descartes' "Meditations On First Philosophy":
I will suppose, then, ... that some malignant demon, who is at once exceedingly potent and deceitful, has employed all his artifice to deceive me; I will suppose that the sky, the air, the earth, colors, figures, sounds, and all external things, are nothing better than the illusions of dreams, by means of which this being has laid snares for my credulity ...
"The Matrix" goes on to ask, "What if we went after the demon? Could we kick its ass?"
You may not be surprised to learn that Descartes does not address this question.
Could it be that this movie merely touches on these works of philosophy in order to:
a) make the movie seem deeper than it is?
b) provide a vessel by which the layperson can get an introduction to such concepts, and drive them to learn more afterwards?
c) provide fanboys a set of discussion threads to illustrate their intellectual hubris?
d) all of the above.
Funny drivel. ^_^
Some of my favorite lines from the discussion:
Not actually having taken a philosophy class myself, I thought the first Matrix was fairly thought-provoking, and I assumed it derived much of its material from preexisting philosophical sources.
You would be equally correct in assuming that the notion of a virtual reality world created and maintained by a computer-based intelligence reflects actual work done by artificial intelligence researchers. Which is to say, you wouldn't be correct at all.
But in the end, "The Matrix" is about philosophy to about the same extent that "Raiders Of The Lost Ark" is about archaeology, which is to say not very much at all.
Oracular paradoxes -- "What's really going to bake your noodle later is if you would have done it if I hadn't have said anything" -- are part of greek mythology.
I think noodles were invented by the Chinese. How did the Greeks know about the Chinese? Do the Greeks even cook with noodles?
In the original classic text, the oracle uses the term "gyros", which translates as "spinning head". However, as Roman/Italic influences increased, especially the use of pasta, and the involved spinning upon implements of said pasta necessary to eat it, the terms for "spinning head" and "spun pasta" (or "noodle"), began to be conflated. Also, "pasta head" became something of a pejorative among the Greeks, once they saw how the Romans worked. Before long, the pejorative was dropped (somewhat like "Geek" and "Nigger", but especially as the concept of citizenship in the empire took hold), and further term conflation resulted in "noodle" being slang for the concept of brain/center of thought.
Plato's allegory of the cave is, just that, an allegory, a made-up story to explain a metaphysical hypothesis. You wouldn't ever ask your philosophy professor, "So where is this cave? Is it near here? Have you ever been there?"
To the extent that there is a "philosophical source" for "The Matrix," it's probably Descartes' "Meditations On First Philosophy":
I will suppose, then, ... that some malignant demon, who is at once exceedingly potent and deceitful, has employed all his artifice to deceive me; I will suppose that the sky, the air, the earth, colors, figures, sounds, and all external things, are nothing better than the illusions of dreams, by means of which this being has laid snares for my credulity ...
"The Matrix" goes on to ask, "What if we went after the demon? Could we kick its ass?"
You may not be surprised to learn that Descartes does not address this question.
Could it be that this movie merely touches on these works of philosophy in order to:
a) make the movie seem deeper than it is?
b) provide a vessel by which the layperson can get an introduction to such concepts, and drive them to learn more afterwards?
c) provide fanboys a set of discussion threads to illustrate their intellectual hubris?
d) all of the above.
Funny drivel. ^_^
