Zenjamin
Ba Sing Se Zuko 
Toko supporter
Posts: 2,617
|
Post by Zenjamin on May 26, 2008 10:33:49 GMT -5
Ok, Its not exactly unique to Christianity... so ya... watch, rate, comment, discuss. www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2i193Sp9QkEDIT: I made the description intentionally vague... so after watching it, if you still didnt quite the direction I was meaning to go with this, just read the following posts first. EDIT: So ya... Aparently I should have given more guideance... So ya. in the scenario: God/angels= The agents. Neo= Adam. Trinity= Eve. The red pill= The Red apple from the tree of knowledge. and Morpheus= Satan. I know there are some disparities in these parallels, and I know that the fruit of knowledge wasnt specified as an apple. This is mainly meant to stimulate some questions such as: "Can you have free will without knowledge of what is right and wrong? what is real and false?" "what is sin?" "Is blissful ignorance morally acceptable if it is promoted by those in power?" "is knowledge/education of evil a good or bad thing?" "which is the more fulfilling life, resisting evil? or to be ignorant of its existence?" "is it truly evil or a sin to disobey god, if doing so makes you more in his image? Or to have the knowledge of his imperfection?" "Why was it morally right for Neo to seek knowledge of right and wrong? but not for Adam/Eve?" ... among other things |
|
|
|
Post by pennyxdreadful on May 26, 2008 10:41:08 GMT -5
I think you might have linked to the wrong video here...
|
|
Zenjamin
Ba Sing Se Zuko
Toko supporter
Posts: 2,617
|
Post by Zenjamin on May 26, 2008 10:55:27 GMT -5
sorry bout that... fixed it now.
|
|
o8jedi
Jet 
Please, call me "o8"
Posts: 364
|
Post by o8jedi on May 26, 2008 16:31:40 GMT -5
Every philosophy professor I've ever had loved The Matrix (first one, that is) because of how it ties in so many different philosophical viewpoints.
As for Neo's Christ-like status, I contend that he's one of a hundred thousand different heroes that could fit the bill.
|
|
Zenjamin
Ba Sing Se Zuko
Toko supporter
Posts: 2,617
|
Post by Zenjamin on May 26, 2008 16:52:11 GMT -5
um... ya.
Thats not what this is about at all...
maby watch the vid I posted?
|
|
|
|
Post by pennyxdreadful on May 26, 2008 19:04:04 GMT -5
Don't be rude, man.... o.O
jedi is right. Neo has more in common with the resurrecting god archetype than Adam. Plus, that video is quite long for such a short message.
And a tiny nitpick - Adam and Eve didn't eat an apple. It was never actually stated what fruit grew from the Tree of Knowledge.
|
|
o8jedi
Jet
Please, call me "o8"
Posts: 364
|
Post by o8jedi on May 26, 2008 19:14:09 GMT -5
I did and, like every philosophy professor I've ever known, he's just another guy who can use the film to fit his framework.
Seriously, though, there's hundreds of influences and theories that it applies to. Off the top of my head, I can see Zen Buddhism ("There is no spoon"), Dualism a la Descartes (that mind and body are separate and the only thing that is certain is that I [my mind/soul/thing] exist), and Hedonism (Mouse the "digital pimp"). If you look hard enough, you can pretty much apply The Matrix to any religion or philosophy in existence.
Furthermore, The Matrix is an example of knowing the great epics and stories to be able to fit in familiar character archetypes to create a sense of timelessness and universal applicability. George Lucas did this with Star Wars and it's such a huge phenomenon partly, if not mostly, because of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by 2X the All-Powerful! on May 26, 2008 19:19:41 GMT -5
For the sake of argument, we will ignore that the Genesis story is debated as completely allegorical, that creation may not have happened the way it was written.
Now, the real question is, was the paradise of Eden a lie? The Matrix provides for you, but everything that is provided for you isn't real. Can you argue that Eden was also just as unreal or unfulfilling? By definition of God Himself, what he provides for you should not leave anyone feeling unfulfilled. It was not until the serpent put the idea into their heads that they can have the knowledge of God (not just realizing the knowledge of good and evil, but acquiring the same knowledge God had, making themselves gods) that they took "the red pill." They didn't feel unfulfilled, they just wanted the feeling of being more than fulfilled.
And to answer your last question, why can't God be all powerful AND be benevolent and only wish for His children to be enlightened? Ironically, I got this from Dan Brown's Angels and Demons, but a character said that God is a parent who lets his kid skateboard, even when it's dangerous.
Plus it's been argued to hell that God intentionally left the tree there for Adam and Eve to sin, so that they would have to earn their place in heaven.
And Zenjamin might've been rude, but this is critical thinking after all, this is for debates, keep it relevant to the argument. This is about choosing God or reality.
And btw, I'd choose God, mainly cuz as my english teacher puts it, "I'd rather not get my butt smited." Not to mention that I do truly believe that God is as real as anything, if not more so because He created it.
But I'm crazy, you don't have to agree with me.
|
|
|
|
Post by username on May 26, 2008 22:05:55 GMT -5
The Matrix is about choice... and The Garden of Eden story is about choice?
Wow, amazing job figuring that one out!
|
|
Zenjamin
Ba Sing Se Zuko
Toko supporter
Posts: 2,617
|
Post by Zenjamin on May 27, 2008 0:21:25 GMT -5
jedi is right. Neo has more in common with the resurrecting god archetype than Adam. yes, but the neo/christ thing has been done to death, and is not of any real significance... also, I could argue that Neo has even more in common with my good friend Bob... but it would not have any relevance to the conversation. And yet, the point of the message was either completely lost by you and jedi, or ignored completely. I did and, like every philosophy professor I've ever known, he's just another guy who can use the film to fit his framework. umm... ya. Using a hypothetical fictional scenario to look at philosophical or social ideas in a new light... Philosophers have been doing it since ancient Greece. Stop... I know all about it. As I said in the vid description, I read a big book on the issue. and I have since then done two papers on it.... This scenario I am presenting is about the only one that was not in that book. I know all the different contexts, and religions, and myths that have been contrastd with the matrix. We are not talking about that. we are talking about the arguement that has not been explored by countless professors. we are discussing what I came up with. Im sorry if that sounds too rude, put as I made this thread, I can choose the topic, and as this scenario seems original, I would like to explore it some. If you want to make your own thread of general "the matrix and philosophy, I invite you to do so. The questions are, "what makes a figure worthy of faith?" "Does power determine ones ability to decide what is good and lawful?, or is it benevolent intentions that should matter?" "If a being procures your obedience and holds dominion over your because of your ignorance, is that a just ruler?" "Does knowledge of evil equate to evil itself?" "Is it noble to seek the truth, even if you are commanded not to by an authority figure" Any one of those discussions(and more) can provide excellent discussion, and are thrown into a new contrast with this hypothetical scenario. "who is Neo most like?" is not one of them... Ya, I actually did know that... but most people dont, they readily identify a red apple with the fruit of the tree of knowledge because it was depicted in art. what the fruit looked like doesnt really matter though, only what it symbolized. Ok, here we go. For the sake of argument, we will ignore that the Genesis story is debated as completely allegorical, that creation may not have happened the way it was written. of coarse. I personally think its completely BS in the literal sense... however, it does seem to illistrate that whoever taught this story in pre-Abraham times, seemed to promote blind faith and obedience over curiosity. Thank you. As shown, I did take some slight liberties with that story to better draw parallels between the two stories. But there were no doubt numerous amendments to the story from when it was origionally told, to the King James version of the bible. however, even with this difference pointed out, the question then becomes, "is it so wrong to tell a person they are living a lie, even if they completely believe it to be the truth?" Im not quite sure I get this one... are you saying that "enlightenment" or knowledge of right a wrong is a dangerous thing? Personally, ignorance is not only more dangerous, but also a tool/pawn for others to use. Yes... but what hasnt been argued to hell is weather or not Adam and Eve sined at all... What hasnt been argued to hell, Is weather or not heavan is just blissful ignorance. Heavan, this thing desired by all christians, was described to me as a place where you feel no fear, or hate, or pain, or doubt... It was described to me in catholic school as, not a place, but a state of being... where you are drugged out on God's presence, lose all sense of individuality, and are just blissfully happy to be there. and Eden and Heaven have been paralled quite allot. Honestly, if that is what is like to be freed from the original sin... I pray for purgatory. Honestly... I belive in god as well, but I have created him in my image... sort of like an imaginary friend... But I belive only is being spiritually close to god because he is good, and a reflection of the good in you. Being powerful and the creator of the universe means little in my book, not when your followers have to be ignorant of evil (reality) to be able to truly follow you. PS: Karma for the good points, looking forward to response. PPS: all hypotheticals of coarse  |
|
o8jedi
Jet
Please, call me "o8"
Posts: 364
|
Post by o8jedi on May 27, 2008 10:22:25 GMT -5
Well, then. Now that your argument has been presented I can officially say . . . that you've got some pretty valid points on the nature of Heaven that I almost wholeheartedly agree with. Seriously, I've got nothing to argue against in those points.
On another note, it does seem a little rude to set up a quote of mine only to interrupt it and make a rhetorical point. It's borderline ad hominum and straw man, in my opinion. Okay, I admit it: I am no philosopher. I merely find it interesting. I am, however, a filmmaker and that is where my point of view stems from. I'm more interested in how the characters parallel other characters in other stories.
Perhaps, for future reference, you could put exactly what's in the description in the thread so that people like me understands the direction of the thread instead of:
Pretty ambiguous. I have no problem with you leading the discussion. The least you could have done, though is set up some guidelines to follow from the word "go," rather than blowing up about it. So, to quote the film Stripes, "Lighten up, Francis."
|
|
Zenjamin
Ba Sing Se Zuko
Toko supporter
Posts: 2,617
|
Post by Zenjamin on May 27, 2008 11:37:36 GMT -5
Ya, perhaps I was alittle rude... sorry.
And I made the desription so vague because when I have used this arguement before with my christian friends, its the twist that gets them... given each scinario individually, they would seek noble truth in the matrix reality, and content obediance when given obvious religious implications.
my bad there.
|
|
|
|
Post by 2X the All-Powerful! on May 27, 2008 13:38:58 GMT -5
No, it is not wrong to tell someone what they believe to be true is a lie. You just better be able to back it up with everything you've got, with the assumption that you know the real truth that contradicts theirs or at least prove that what they believe is unreasonable. And I know I can't honestly tell you what the truth is, I certainly have no right to tell you what truth to believe, all I can tell you is that I believe that what I believe in is true, even if I can't prove it to you; I can only show people it's reasonable.
And as for people who believe what they believe in to be true, I know I will die and live for what I believe in. It was either Emerson or Thoreau that said don't let your beliefs be bounded by other people's prejudices, especially your own; you need to hold your convictions.
It'd be weird for me to say so, but yes, the knowledge of good and evil is dangerous, especially considering when "knowledge of evil" can be interpreted as realization of the temptations around you; Adam and Eve didn't feel lustful until they felt the temptations after realizing that the other person was naked.
God gave us reason, which is why I really dislike Fundamentalist ideas (no offense)
As for ignorance being dangerous, there's ignorance being not knowing what you must and need to know in order to survive, and then there's ignorance in what you do not need to know. If we are unsatisfied until we know everything, can we ever be truly satisfied?
And from a literary standpoint, Eden is not so much heaven as much as a place on Earth when humans were still sinless. It wasn't until sin that humans were punished and paradise was lost. Heaven as described to me in my catholic school days was a place where you could finally feel the presence of God, not about losing negative feelings (although you naturally would, in the presence of goodness), and what is Hell is not everlasting torment, just the pain of being in a place where not even God would be present.
Cup half full, I say.
As for the thing from Angels and Demons, I was just saying that God is a powerful God who could probably give us all eternal happiness or erase us off the face of the earth. But He is also a compassionate creator who wants to fulfill our free will. He could have easily stopped the Adam and Eve story from happening and let us live happily, but he let us sin, probably so we could work harder to earn Heaven and deserve it more.
People say the concept of God is restricting; do what God says or you're burned. I say that God let's us choose our actions, but we have to be responsible for those actions. Free will does not mean freedom from responsibility. Just wanted to throw that in here.
|
|
|
|
Post by beautyfr.pain on May 27, 2008 16:24:02 GMT -5
Before I start, I just want to say I actually enjoyed your video. It didn't seem long to me or anything, but I usually hate vids like that, so me staying interested was quite a foreign feeling. Oh and I have never seen the whole Matrix movie. Not any of the three, just the awesome fight in the end of one of them, so I'm going with what you've said and maybe a plot synopsis on the internet. In the book, he was saying that God was powerful and benevolent because he gave us choice, knowing we'd better ourselves from making mistakes. (Heh..I found the excerpt!)
“Father,” Chartrand said, “may I ask you a strange question?”
The camerlengo smiled. “Only if I may give you a strange answer.”
...
Chartrand took a deep breath. “I don’t understand this omnipotent-benevolent thing.”
The camerlegno smiled. “You’ve been reading Scripture.”
“I try.”
“You are confused because the Bible describes God as an omnipotent and benevolent deity.”
“Exactly.”
“Omnipotent-benevolent simply means that God is all-powerful and well-meaning.”
“I understand the concept. It’s just . . . there seems to be a contradiction.”
“Yes. The contradiction is pain. Man’s starvation, war, sickness . . .”
“Exactly!” Chartrand knew the camerlegno would understand. “Terrible things happen in this world. Human tragedy seems like proof that God could not possibly be both all-powerful and well-meaning. If He loves us and has the power to change our situation, He would prevent our pain, wouldn’t He?”
The camerlegno frowned. “Would He?”
Chartrand felt uneasy. Had he overstepped his bounds? Was this one of those religious questions you just didn’t ask? “Well . . . if God loves us, and He can protect us, He would have to. It seems He is either omnipotent and uncaring, or benevolent and powerless to help.”
“Do you have children, Lieutenant?”
Chartrand flushed. “No, signore.”
“Imagine you had an eight-year-old son . . . would you love him?”
“Of course.”
“Would you do everything in your power to prevent pain in his life?”
“Of course.”
“Would you let him skateboard?”
Chartrand did a double take. The camerlegno always seemed oddly “in touch” for a clergyman. “Yeah, I guess,” Chartrand said. “Sure, I’d let him skateboard, but I’d tell him to be careful.”
“So as this child’s father, you would give him some basic, good advice and then let him go off and make his own mistakes?”
“I wouldn’t run behind him and mollycoddle him if that’s what you mean.”
“But what if he fell and skinned his knee?”
“He would learn to be more careful.”
The camerlegno smiled. “So although you have the power to interfere and prevent your child’s pain, you would choose to show your love by letting him learn his own lessons?”
“Of course. Pain is part of growing up. It’s how we learn.”
The camerlegno nodded. “Exactly.”[Chartrand - Swiss Guard; Camerlengo - chamberlain of the Roman Church] It seems to me that the biggest difference is that the red pill releases you from your perfect "Eden", or the Matrix, to the real world with sin and suffering, while before the apple, there was no sin at all. The taking and eating of the apple was when Adam and Eve fell for temptation, forsaken (forsook?) God's rules and brought sin into the world. It didn't really "open our eyes to good and evil", because it made good and evil, it "created sin". Neo had a simulated paradise, but Adam and Eve had something real. Satan's true goal wasn't to enlighten Adam and Eve, but to get them to go against God to anger him. Morpheus wanted to get Neo to realize what he wasn't real. I once read a book on an Atheist-turned-Christian journalist to find out why others believed, and he asked a theologist that if God knows what we're going to do before we do it, why did he let Adam and Eve sin and the theologist basically uses a similar example to the skateboard one. It's all about the free will. (Now one might argue how does destiny and free will coexist..) And out of curiousity, why did you film this outside?! The camera angle was very Survivor Man.  |
|
|
|
Post by username on May 27, 2008 18:29:14 GMT -5
Zennnn, you really should be a little more humble. You seem to think that every point you make is incredibly insightful and innovative, and when somebody doesn't reply to your point it means they skipped it or it was too deep for them. But the truth is that more often they simply find your point either poorly worded or not as revolutionary as you think it is.
|
|
