Thoughts on the Matrix

So I have seen Matrix one and three about three or four times each, but I only had seen the second movie when it came. I was pretty surprised when I watched it again. The scene with Neo and the architect is really important for understanding the plot and putting together exactly what is going on. One interesting thing that struck me on the second watch was that in some sense, Neo had become a computer program. Indeed, most of the characters in the movies are programs, just think about the agents, the Architect, the Oracle, and Smith. While Neo remains human there is a real sense in which he is part machine program, which is pretty weird to think about.

The other interesting aspect of the second movie was Neo’s decision to save Trinity instead of humanity. In it crazy to think that Neo would have forsaken humanity in some vain attempt to save himself and Trinity. However, the movie obviously couldn’t progress that way. However, from Neo’s point of view and with Neo’s knowledge the choice is incredibly selfish and a bit out of place.

One last thing to think about is the end game to the matrix trilogy. It ends with a peace between the humans and machines such that all those wanting to get unplugged from the matrix could leave. This implies that there will still be humans mined out as energy for the machines. Is this an equilibrium outcome that the humans are willing to live with? It seems not, if we understand the premise of the first movie, in which to goal of the pirates, or freed humans is to bring down the matrix and eventually free all the minds.

An excerpt from my thesis, enjoy:

Epilogue

I began this project not really knowing where I headed. I had always enjoyed reading Nietzsche, and after discovering and reading Kaufmann’s original works I knew that I had the perfect opportunity to incorporate two great philosophers into a single project in writing this thesis. In some ways the progress of the paper follows the same progress in my thinking about these two philosophers. I began with Nietzsche, moved on to Kaufmann, and then was left thinking about the way the two relate to one another. One thing that I remember from reading through Kaufmann the first time was my reaction that Kaufmann is really similar to Nietzsche, and was in some ways expanding on Nietzsche’s philosophic task. In several places within his works Kaufmann seeks to emphasize that there is a real divergence between his own views and Nietzsche’s, and that Kaufmann thought Nietzsche was wrong about certain issues. I never really gave this too much thought until grappling with both philosophers systems of value.

Indeed an ephemeral look at Kaufmann will leave one thinking that he adopts many of Nietzsche’s positions. A more thorough look will highlight the differences between Kaufmann and Nietzsche and perhaps leave one thinking that Kaufmann progresses over Nietzsche’s conception. Finally it is only upon reflection and thoughtful philosophic digestion that one can see that in the end Kaufmann was right when he said that he thought Nietzsche was wrong in certain aspects of his philosophy. Indeed there are points where Kaufmann adopts Nietzsche’s position, and others where Kaufmann progresses beyond Nietzsche’s conception. However, there also seem to be irreconcilable differences between the two philosophers. Through recognizing and understanding these differences we are able to more fully appreciate the significance of both philosophers.

Perhaps one of the most eye-opening experiences of writing this thesis was my discovery of the gap in the secondary literature about Kaufmann. Indeed it seems that Kaufmann has been recognized and lives on in the scholarly community as the translator of Nietzsche, who helped rehabilitate his reputation and generate serious discussion and reflection on his ideas. The extent to which Kaufmann presents a biased or unrepresentative or perhaps too reconciliatory view of Nietzsche may be the subject of ongoing debate, but surely his role and contribution to Nietzsche scholarship is unsurpassed. But even beyond Kaufmann the faithful translator of Nietzsche is Kaufmann the philosopher. It is this Kaufmann who remains in relative obscurity within the scholarly community and even in the philosophic community broadly speaking. This state of things is unfortunate because so much of Kaufmann’s philosophy has great import for modern man.

In philosophy we generally remember those philosophers who represent great paradigm shifts in thought, and who contribute in very unique ways to the philosophical discussion. In some ways this is easier to do at a distance. That is to look back and to analyze the path of thought, and to see where philosophers fit into the evolution of that tradition. Perhaps Kaufmann may be too close to our time to appreciate his own contributions to the philosophical discussion. Or perhaps Kaufmann is up to something more subtle. One thing seems clear between both Kaufmann and Nietzsche, through their philosophy they both seek to have an impact on the lives of others. Indeed, this is exactly the goal of both systems of value, to provide us with a way of viewing life which is affirmative and productive. In the end this must be the goal of all philosophical thought, to inform our actions and the way we choose to live our lives. “Man seems to play a very insignificant part in the universe, and my part is surely negligible. The question confronting me is not, except perhaps in idle moments, what part might be more amusing, but what I wish to make of my part. And what I want to do and would advise others to do is to make the most of it: put into it all you have got, and live and, if possible, die with some measure of nobility.”[1]

---

[1] Walter Kaufmann, “The Faith of a Heretic”, Harper’s Magazine.

The Faith of a Heretic - Kaufmann

This is the last section of an article by Walter Kaufmann in Harpers magazine 1959. I think this really helps focus our own attention on thinking about our role in life and the way we should live. To read it in full check out: http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kaufmann.htm

No one way is the best way of life for all. To me the Apology of Socrates, as immortalized by Plato in less than thirty pages, presents a challenge from which I cannot, and have no wish to, get away. Here is part of Socrates' answer to the charges of impiety and corruption of the Athenian youth, on which he was convicted and put to death:

I am better off than he is--for he knows nothing but thinks he knows, while I neither know nor think I know. . . . If you say to me, . . . you shall be let off, but upon one condition, that you are not to inquire . . . in this way any more, and that if you are caught doing so again you shall die--if this was the condition on which you let me go, I should reply: . . . while I have life and strength I shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy, exhorting anyone whom I meet. . . . Are you not ashamed of heaping up the greatest amount of money and honor and reputation, and caring so little about wisdom and truth? . . . 'The unexamined life is not worth living. . . . If you suppose that there is no consciousness, but a sleep like the sleep of him that is undisturbed even by dreams, death will be an unspeakable gain. Eternity is then only a single night.

It would be folly to wish to foist this outlook on everybody. Professors of philosophy discourage and fail a large percentage even of their graduate students and are assuredly not eager to turn all men into philosophers. In philosophy, as in religion, teaching usually involves a loss of dimension; and the Socratic fusion of philosophy and life, critical acumen and passion, laughter and tragic stature is almost unique.

One need not believe in Pallas Athena, the virgin goddess, to be overwhelmed by the Parthenon. Similarly, a man who rejects all dogmas, all theologies and all religious formulations of beliefs may still find Genesis the sublime book par excellence. Experiences and aspirations of which intimations may be found in Plato, Nietzsche, and Spinoza have found their most evocative expression in some sacred books. Since the Renaissance, Shakespeare, Rembrandt, Mozart, and a host of others have shown that this religious dimension can be experienced and communicated apart from any religious context. But that is no reason for closing my heart to Job's cry, or to Jeremiah's, or to the Second Isaiah. I do not read them as mere literature; rather, I read Sophocles and Shakespeare with all my being, too.

Moreover, I am so far quite unable to justify one of my central convictions: that, even if it were possible to make all men happy by an operation or a drug that would stultify their development, this would somehow be an impious crime. This conviction is ultimately rooted in the Mosaic challenge: "You shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy."

To communicate to others some feeling for man's religious quest, to arouse an aspiration in them which nothing but death can quell, and to develop their critical powers--that is infinitely more important to me than persuading anybody that Shakespeare was right when he wrote these lines:

The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples. the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve;
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.

I do not believe in any afterlife any more than the prophets did, but I don't mind living in a world in which people have different beliefs. Diversity helps to prevent stagnation and smugness; and a teacher should acquaint his students with diversity and prize careful criticism far above agreement. His noblest duty is to lead others to think for themselves.

Oddly, millions believe that lack of belief in God, Christ, and Hell leads to inhumanity and cruelty, while those who have these beliefs have a monopoly on charity--and that people like myself will pay for their lack of belief by suffering in all eternity. I do not believe that anybody will suffer after death nor do I wish it.

Some scientists tell us that in our own galaxy alone there are probably hundreds of thousands of planets with living beings on them, more or less like those On the earth, and that there are about 100 million galaxies within the range of our telescopes. Man seems to play a very insignificant part in the universe, and my part is surely negligible. The question confronting me is not, except perhaps in idle moments, what part might be more amusing, but what I wish to make of my part. And what I want to do and would advise others to do is to make the most of it: put into it all you have got, and live and, if possible, die with some measure of nobility

The role of scale

One reaction that I found myself having to both Aristotle and Plato was “wow this sounds awesome, but it would only work on a small scale.” Both Aristotle and Plato give accounts of what it means to be a good citizen and participate in a community. Politics in their time and society probably had little resemblance to what the term means in our own. Taking an active role in one’s city-state or local political forum was relatively easy since there were a limited number of participants. Indeed, there were probably many people, but not everyone could participate in politics as seen in Plato’s treatment of women in the Symposium. The political landscape was more homogenous than it is today. It seems that it would be vastly easier then to create laws aimed at promoting good habit, and benefiting the people since there was little heterogeneity of interests and aims.

Fast forward to our own day, and the political landscape is very different from ancient times. There are many more people, both who are under a certain government and who can also actively participate in politics. The very nature of politics has also changed, no longer are the best educated, and prominent members of society the ones running the show, but often those who happen to get elected. – granted, many of these people are very affluent – In any case we certainly don’t view politics in the same light as the ancients, and there seems to be a real disconnect that arises primarily from magnitudes of scale. Aristotelian conceptions of good politics get muddled when there are many varying interests and sections of the population. Hence, certain philosophical conceptions seem to be susceptible to changes in the scale of implementation. This is interesting to consider in our own day, when forces like globalization and technological advances bring nations closer together, and integrate the world. Perhaps there will be a time in the future when our own political system and underlying philosophy will become too constrained by the scale of implementation.

Aristotle's view on healthcare

One interesting topic of discussion that arises in Aristotle’s Ethics and that has important implications in our own lives is the scope and role of the state. Book ten highlights this distinction with an interesting discussion about the role and aim of law. Aristotle points out a function of law that still exists today, namely law as a power to compel action. Indeed, this is an obvious way that law operates even today. It provides a certain set of incentives to coerce or compel certain responses in people. Hence, the law can provide negative incentives, or punishments, for certain actions that deter people from committing those actions, or it can provide positive incentives that reward people for certain actions. By using these rewards and punishments the law is able to manipulate people’s behavior.

This function of law is predicated on certain assumptions about the role of the state or government. That is, being able to pass and enforce laws which have the effect of changing people’s behavior carries an immense responsibility. This raises questions about how much power and scope of authority the state should have in passing law. This is born out in our own time by the recent healthcare debates. After the bill was passed, there were several law suits filed that alleged the bill to be unconstitutional, insofar as the government didn’t have the power to make people buy healthcare insurance. Here is one instance in which some have viewed the state overstepping its bounds in the extent to which it can control people’s actions. More broadly these debates and objections highlight a more fundamental issue about what the acceptable realm of government should be and the extent to which it should be able to coerce the actions of its people.

Aristotle’s own opinion may strike some as odd. Indeed, Aristotle views the state as having a very active role in shaping and structuring the actions of its people. Book ten shows that Aristotle viewed law as a way to regulate the upbringing and pursuits of the youth so that they might be habituated into good action. This is also born out by Aristotle’s view that the goal of politics is to make laws that are derived from practical wisdom and intelligence to shape the populace. Hence, government for Aristotle was a way of implementing his ethical view and encouraging and structuring the populace accordingly. Applying this logic to our own time we might conclude that the government has the right to force us to buy healthcare, since it is conducive to maintaining a standard of life which allows us to habituate good conduct and achieve the good.

Selection Bias

Another interesting economic conception that has interesting implications for philosophy is that of a selection bias in philosophy. Selection bias is usually something that is taken into account with experiments and considering whether a group that is used in an experiment is representative of the population more broadly. One way to apply this conception to philosophy is to think about what kinds of students choose to study philosophy. Are the students that take philosophy courses in college those that would most benefit from taking them? Maybe, insofar as philosophy students have an interest in the subject matter and may have read extensively in philosophy and can therefore have more fruitful and interesting reflections.

However, in another way this may not be the case, specifically as regards ethical and moral considerations. Here we can think of Aristotle’s conception of virtue and proper conduct etc. Are philosophy students those who would most benefit from discussing Aristotle? Perhaps not, if we think about the way in which a knowledge and serious thought on Aristotle would be conducive to real-world conduct. In part this depends on what philosophy students end up doing with their life, namely whether they are in a position professionally to make important ethical or moral considerations. If we assume that these students end up becoming professional philosophers there seems to be a more limited scope for making such decisions. There seems to be more room for such decisions in a profession like business where there are lots of interactions and potential for moral or ethical dilemmas. Here I would argue that business majors and perhaps science majors also would benefit more from reading and thinking about Aristotle than would philosophy majors, at least at the margin. Hence it seems like there is a selection bias of sorts in philosophy.

I think this consideration can also apply to many other areas of study and majors. If you assume that there are diminishing returns to studying one area, then it seems that this same consideration might apply across the board. Hence, philosophy majors might gain enormously from taking a business or science class in the same way that they might gain from taking a philosophy class. This gives rise to interesting considerations about what classes we take in college, and achieving an optimal mixture that maximizes the benefit of our college experience.

The Opportunity Cost of Philosophy

I have been thinking recently about economics and the way it relates to philosophy. One interesting conception that has interesting implications in the philosophical realm is that of opportunity costs. In economics an opportunity cost is a cost that arises from the existence of mutually exclusive choices. That is, suppose that you have two choices, either work at a job or think philosophically at home. If you choose to sit at home and think philosophically, there exists a cost to this choice, viz. the wages that you could have earned if you went to work instead. Since you cannot do both, you have to choose between the options and incur the cost of the next best available choice.

This is interesting when you look at philosophy more broadly and its practice or lack thereof in our own day. To practice philosophy requires leisure, or at least time to think, read, reflect, etc. – To some extent I am supposing that you cannot think philosophically while you work or do other things – Having this time to practice philosophy requires you to forgo other activities and opportunities which constitute an opportunity cost to the practice of philosophy. In modern times it seems that the other possible choices that we face when deciding what to do with our time have grown enormously. That is, historically when we were not working we had a more limited choice set. This would imply that there was less of an opportunity cost to practicing philosophy. Today the choices facing us have changed, we can watch tv, go to a movie, shop, and do any number of other things with our leisure time. These various options provide a wider array of costs to practicing philosophy than has existed before. Given the higher opportunity costs it is not surprising that we see fewer individuals practicing philosophy in modernity.

Another application is the opportunity cost of work compared to philosophy. It seems in modern times we have become more productive as workers. That is, we earn higher wages, especially if we are educated – the educated are the ones most likely to practice philosophy. Stated negatively this means that leisure time or the time required to practice philosophy has become more costly. Given the rise in earnings and productivity it is not surprising that we might see the practice of philosophy decline since there seems to be larger costs associated with its practice.