The Matrix

How do we know that what we see is real?

There are several conflicting views regarding the way we accept certain things or events as truth. One of them is the way of thinking proposed by Rene Descartes, which is rationalism. He argues that we can only conclude, or at least consider, that an object is real if the doubting of that same object is present. This is in line with his central ideological statement “Cognito, ergo sum”. On the other hand, John Locke suggests that we can only gather knowledge through empiricism, meaning, the experiences recorder by the brain serve as the greatest pieces of evidence we can use for considering something as real. This proposition gives greater emphasis on the sensory aspect of gathering truth in comparison to Descartes’ rationalism. Another form of criticizing truth is Berkeleys’ idealism. There exist only entities that think and the objects, places, or events perceived by those entities.

I believe that those main doctrines of philosophy mentioned best serve as guides for our own perceptions of truth – none is necessarily true. I, however, firmly believe that we are not “brains in vats” as proposed by the Matrix. It is argued that we can never really know if we are not “brains in vats” since everything we conceptualize and therefore believe as real, is a preselected stimulus by some evil scientist that maintains us in our vats. This idea is too far fetched in my opinion and is only a result of our over analysis of deceptively simple things. It, therefore, should be dismissed in my humblest opinion.

What I think is real is anything I can perceive using my senses or anything I can conceptualize or put under scrutiny using my reasoning. I am more inclined to empiricism and rationalizing, both being extremely contrasting to one another however. Furthermore, I believe that if a certain thing or phenomenon can be sensed, experienced, or reasoned by another being besides myself, then it is real. I believe in the veracity of the collective thoughts, regarding the existence of something, conjured by multitudes of thinking entities.

We can infinitely argue about the truthfulness of things but one concept always stays – We can only argue about things that we have some knowledge of, and those, I think, should already be considered real.








Why is it better to live in the real world despite its inability to make us always happy, instead of an illusory, dream like world where everyone can experience what he or she wants?

In the movie, Neo took the red pill with hopes getting answers for the questions and feelings that have been haunting him for most of his life since he feels that his life seems like a dream and, more intriguingly so, he feels more awake as he dreams in his sleep. He then had received all the answers he ever needed and seemed to have fallen on his face with the inconceivable reality he learned. Now we ask our selves, should we or should we take the red pill instead of the blue pill?

Agent Smith said that the matrix was originally a perfect world where every single human being, powering the matrix, is happy. That first matrix, however, failed and many people died. He was implying that man simply cannot be absolutely happy – there must be some sort of suffering in order for him to avoid decay. Having that said, I think it is better to live in the real world even if it is void of all the luxuries of the illusory world.

The freedom of man to think and act for themselves can never be achieved if every single one of them is to be placed in a human-powered energy generator. Furthermore, if every man or woman were to have what he or she wants, then there would not exist an equilibrium between satisfaction and dissatisfaction, which would ultimately cause the permanent prevailing absence of the desire to evolve intellectually and emotionally. Thus, society will fall.

The purpose of the mind is to think freely and create ideas for whatever purpose its possessor deems necessary. To be situated in a world that is controlled by a novel set of rules beyond man’s capacity to comprehend, is outright atrocious. It defeats the purpose of the mind.

If we had taken either the red pill or the blue pill, we could always wonder what could have happened if we had done the contrary, which means that we are thinking, doubting beings that absolutely exist.

References:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/berkeley.htm
http://skepdic.com/empiricism.html
http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/brainvat.htm