[lit-ideas] Re: Decisions, decisions

  • From: Robert.Paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Robert Paul)
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: 24 Oct 2004 14:13:46 PDT

For some reason Mike Chase has gratuitously assumed that I am an 'analytic
philosopher,' but let it pass.

Let me respond to two things Mike says. I wrote that 'there's an answer in the
film to one of the film's questions.' There is. It's the answer to the Cartesian
question, Real or not? The Matrix answers it: the experience of 'most people' is
illusory and we know how (aside from the, well, finer details) how the illusion
is brought about. 

How is this different from Descarte's Evil Genius hypothesis, which he presents
as the last of his increasingly sceptical suppositions (which up to this point
have been disposed of rather easily)? Just this way. Descartes never pulls back
the metaphysical curtain and reveals the Evil Genius doing his evil work. Nor,
of course, does he pull it back and reveal that there _is_ no Evil Genius. What
he does is argue (that is, do a bit of philosophy) that such a being could not
destroy one last bit of certainty, namely, that he, Descartes, can, through
doubting, be said--as a doubting (thinking) thing--to exist. There is,
eventually, a further argument about God, the idea of perfection, and much more.
Whether these are good or bad arguments would seem irrelevant.

Thus 'the Cartesian question' is answered in The Matrix, although, as I said,
the answer is a bit short on technical details. We are shown and we are told
that for 'most people' (why call them 'people, really?) there is no way of
finding out, but we are also shown and told that their experience _is_ an
illusion, and moreover, we're shown (sort of) how the illusion is produced. The
question of why people would or would not prefer reality to illusion isn't the
one I had in mind.

Second, Mike finds it strange that I continue to deny that The Matrix is of much
philosophical interest. (I really think it's of _no- philosophical interest, but
let's go with the weaker assumption.) He says this in part because some trendy
famous people like David Chalmers, have written philosophically interesting
papers about the film, and about the issues allegedly found in it, and because
we've been having a philosophical discussion of it here on the list (QED). Mike
has the advantage of me here, for I haven't read Chambers, et al, on, but I
wonder which of Eric's paths they've taken. I suspect it's that of '[using] the
film as a tabula [rasa?] on which to project philosophical themes not inherent
in [its] creation.' Well, of course, this will seem question-begging to those
who want to claim that the film _is_ fraught with philosophical issues, and that
these issues are set forth in it in provocative and challenging ways. I'm sure
I'm blind to a great deal in this much-praised, much interpreted masterpiece,
but despite what its defenders say it doesn't even come close to that great
philosophical classic 'What is it Like to be a Bat?' which I just watched for
the twenty-first time on the Discovery Channel.

Robert Paul
Reed College

(I've been told offlist that there is an entire book devoted to 'the philosophy
of The Matrix.')
 
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 10-2004