|
Post by pennyxdreadful on May 27, 2008 18:35:19 GMT -5
Honestly, I get the impression that you seem to think your theories and opinions are much more important/deeper than they really are. I understood your "message" just fine, there was wasn't much substance to it.
My best friend is working on her masters in religious studies. I've heard more than my fair share of religious musings. Roughly, 8 minutes to make a simple Matrix/Garden of Eden connection is unnecessary.
... as has anything allegorical pertaining to the Matrix. I mean, seriously, if you were going for something snappy and hip and new, let's go for something a bit more relevant in the realm of pop culture.
|
|
|
Post by 2X the All-Powerful! on May 27, 2008 19:27:26 GMT -5
I think this is all rich, considering Zen was the one who initiated the argument. Therefore he has every right to tell you all to stay relevant to the argument.
This is not about just bringing up anything related to Christianity, the Matrix or both. This is a specific discussion about a specific argument.
It's also rude to try to diverge, you know.
|
|
|
Post by pennyxdreadful on May 27, 2008 23:38:32 GMT -5
It's also rude to try to diverge, you know. I didn't realize stating my opinion was "diverging". Seriously, if the topic was - "Is Ignorance Really Bliss?", I would be completely off-topic. Unfortunately, we have an allegorical story involving "The Matrix" floating around in the mix which opens up debate for - "Why no, I didn't think that about the movie at all. I thought ______." Granted, I could be "diverging" now because I posted in response to the accusation that I was. In order to avoid spinning myself off into a weird little paradox, I'll add something I forgot to respond to before... I never said Christ. Neo = resurrecting god doesn't correlate with your "Ignorance is Bliss"/"Knowledge is Power" spiel, but it is significant as far as random allegorical stories go.
|
|
|
Post by 2X the All-Powerful! on May 28, 2008 10:10:11 GMT -5
So with your logic, does that mean debates revolve around the "name" of the argument instead of the argument itself?
This is surrounding a guy's video and the argument it is related to. This is not about Christianity and the Matrix in general. Otherwise I would be in my rights to ramble about how Morpheus's name is similar to Moses and I think there's a connection (and no, I don't think there's a connection)
|
|
Zenjamin
Ba Sing Se Zuko
Toko supporter
Posts: 2,617
|
Post by Zenjamin on May 28, 2008 11:07:59 GMT -5
o8, 2x, and beautyfrpain:
Those were all well excellent thought-out and relevant posts. Karma on the way.
It will take be some time to respond though, and as I have a presentation today, and a test and two papers tomorrow, im not sure when that will be.
Kaneda: Responded via PM... Penny: If you feel this topic too specific or confining, feel free to make your own topic. But as o8, 2x, and beautyfrpain all found enough substance to make rather detailed responses....
"Free will." "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 existance?" "is it truly evil or a sin to disobey god, if doing so makes you more in his image? or at least to have the knowledge of his imperfection?" These are all questions which are "on-topic" and which books could be written about.
Whatever... I have edited the first page to provide some guidance.
Will respond when I have time. This is the last week of the first summer semester.
|
|
|
Post by pennyxdreadful on May 28, 2008 11:08:50 GMT -5
So with your logic, does that mean debates revolve around the "name" of the argument instead of the argument itself? This is surrounding a guy's video and the argument it is related to. This is not about Christianity and the Matrix in general. Otherwise I would be in my rights to ramble about how Morpheus's name is similar to Moses and I think there's a connection (and no, I don't think there's a connection) I was referring to the video, actually. When I say "topic" I don't mean "title", I mean the subject up for debate. However, my mind tends to form a connection between the two. I do believe the title should be specific unless you want to mislead readers. But, that's just personal preference... And this is diverging. I think I'll be avoiding this thread until there's something for me to respond to without running off on a tangent. Edit: My best friend is in the master's program for religious studies. The video popped up in a conversation we were having, and after watching it she offered up her own response... "First and foremost: The Matrix was not intended by its makers to be a comparison to Jewish or Christian religious history. Instead, they took the idea from Descartes, the founder of modern Western philosophy. Descartes, in his Meditations, considered how we can know what we know. He concluded that the mind can be easily fooled in to perceiving things that are not there. He also said that since we cannot conclusively dismiss the possibility of an evil demon causing us to experience the material world as we do, (a brain in a vat is another image, or in the Matrix’s case, a machine) we cannot be certain that the reality around us is real. We therefore cannot gain any true knowledge through what we experience. He did, however, argue that we can know our own existence, because we are able to contemplate it. I think, therefore I am. Second, while on face value, this video has some good points, it’s off. The choice to take the blue pill or the red pill is certainly comparable to the choice of eating the forbidden fruit in the Genesis, other parallels don’t fit. Eve never told Adam, as Zenjamin said, that she could give him all the truth. That was the snake. And the snake told Eve, who after eating the fruit, convinced Adam. The snake would be the parallel to Morpheus, then, and God to the agents and the machines that run the Matrix. Also, the point of the story of the forbidden fruit in Genesis is that humans had paradise, but lost it because of the disobedience of God. They saw what was “true” or “real” at the cost of losing what was desirable. Only after they ate the fruit did they feel that things were “wrong.” Zenjamin claims that Adam felt things were wrong before hand, but if you read Genesis, you find that Adam and Eve only felt wrong and exposed after eating the forbidden fruit. One could argue, though, that the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge put you into a reality in which you could not be certain what the truth is. Those who pursue philosophy, after all, are more uncertain that those who do not. The Matrix is not a tale of disobedience and punishment, but of freedom and the fight for it. The Matrix is evil, not Morpheus. God is evil, it follows, not the snake. A better parallel would be the Garden of Gethsemane in Mark. Since Neo is a Messiah character (Adam was never a Messiah), a parallel with a story of Jesus would always be better. In the Garden, Jesus prays to God that he would be allowed not to go up on the cross. He has the choice, in Mark (now, Luke does not have the prayer) to not be a Messiah. He can choose to take the red pill or blue pill, and either continue to live or die for the sins of others. It is his choice that allows others to experience true reality, one could say. Just as it is only when Neo chooses to take whichever pill (I can’t remember which color is which) does the resistance have any hope of defeating the Matrix machine, so is it only when Jesus decides to go up on the cross do believers have any chance to experience true paradise. Only Neo had to really choose, and only Jesus had to really choose. I’m not saying the Zenjamin didn’t have good points. But, when Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden, they did actually leave the Garden. It wasn’t a myth inside a myth inside a myth, that while it said that they left the Garden they actually just saw how difficult it was only after eating the forbidden fruit. It was a straightforward myth in that they ate the apple and were kicked out. The truth behind the myth was that it was disobedience that caused humanity to lose Paradise. It is better to obey God then to defy Him. I am no Jew and no Christian, so I have no real stake in this. Zenjamin had some good points, but his conclusion was mistaken. He over read some iffy parallels. If anything, the apple put Adam and Eve into the sort of malaise that Zenjamin claims was cured by it. However, as is more likely, Adam and Eve were thrown out of the Garden for disobedience. The realities were just as real on either side of the fence. All this is irrelevant, though, as it’s not really a religious parallel. It’s an overwrought and particularly bad movie about the possibility that the material world as we know it does not actually exist. "
|
|
|
Post by username on May 29, 2008 23:00:25 GMT -5
Choice is a major theme in many movies. The Matrix just brings it to the surface and makes it more obvious than in most movies. Painfully obvious in the sequels. The Garden of Eden is one of many other stories about choice. And like with The Matrix, it makes it more obvious than most.
That's why the similarities are especially easy to see between The Matrix and The Garden of Eden stories in particular, because those two stories make their themes regarding choice incredibly obvious.
The similarities are a coincidence, and analogies like that can be found in countless other movies and books.
|
|