Plato, Descartes, and "The Matrix" - A Problem of Philosophy

 

I. Question: What do an ancient Greek philosopher, a seventeenth-century French philosopher/mathematician, and a popular science fiction movie made in the 90s have in common? Answer: All three explore the idea of our world as an illusion, and question the relationship between our senses and reality. 

The most obvious similarity between the movie The Matrix, the cave analogy of Plato, and Descartes’ Meditation, is that all of these works doubt the reality of the world around us and call into question the validity of our sense perceptions. “Let us suppose,” says Descartes, “that we are dreaming, and that all these particulars – namely, the opening of the eyes, the motion of the head, the forth-putting of the hands – are merely illusions” (Descartes, 1641, Meditations on First Philosophy). Likewise Plato proposed an interesting hypothetical situation of a cave where men lay bound up in chains, able only to perceive the shadows of figures on the walls as they passed by. Plato concluded that “in every way such prisoners would deem reality to be nothing else than the shadows of the artificial objects” (Plato, 514 – 518, The Republic, Book VII). In the 1999 movie The Matrix, a giant computer system has taken over the earth and controls all of humanity’s minds in a virtual reality world. “What is the Matrix? Control. The Matrix is a computer-generated dream world built to keep us under control” (“Orpheus”, The Matrix, Wachowski, 1999). Thus, all three of these sources are asking important questions about our reality; is the world that we perceive as reality actually real? Or is it all simply a dream or a hoax conjured up by some Being who is having a good laugh at our expense? And how do we know for sure? Plato, Descartes, and the makers of The Matrix propose situations in which our minds are being controlled by something outside of ourselves, (whether it be a computer, shadows on a cave wall, or an invisible demon,) that determines what we perceive to be real.

However, though all three of these sources are asking similar questions, it is mainly their way of answering these questions that distinguishes them from each other. The movie The Matrix portrays a society that has been duped and taken over by a computer system, while a small group of dissidents band together to fight its control – while this band recognizes that the world they believed in for so long was not actually reality, they have managed to extricate themselves from the Matrix’s grasp. However in both Plato and Descartes’ hypothetical situations there is no way to escape the prison of our false perceptions, because the entire world that we see and know is one big virtual reality game. Plato describes what would happen if a prisoner in his hypothetical cave was released – “he would find it painful to be so hauled along, and would chafe at it, and when he came out into the light, his eyes would be filled with its beams so that he would not be able to see even one of the things that we call real” – but he does not tell us whether this “real world” consists of our spiritual afterlife or some other world more “real” than this one  (Plato, 514 – 518, The Republic, Book VII). We do not, in fact, ever find out from Plato or Descartes what happens when we “wake up”, so to speak, (if all of the reality we know is simply one fantastic dream.) Imagine how complicated The Matrix’s plot could have become if the rebels found out that the real world to which they had escaped was, as Descartes and Plato proposed, also a grand illusion of our senses?

Thus the main difference between The Matrix, Plato’s cave analogy, and Descartes’ hypothetical “malignant demon” is that while the movie shows a way back into the real world, Descartes and Plato merely throw out the suggestion that we are dreaming or have been duped, and leave us to wonder how and if there is any way to escape back into reality. They suggest that the real world we know is not real at all –“I will suppose that the sky, the air, the earth, colors, figures, sounds, and all external things, are nothing better than the illusions of dreams, by means of which this being has laid snares for my credulity” (Descartes, 1641, Meditations on First Philosophy).  However even Descartes admits that to continue thinking this way is impossible, and is not a practical way to live. 

II. So... which is better: the harshness of reality or the “ignorance is bliss” of illusion?

One of the most famous lines in the movie The Matrix is spoken by the character Cypher as he questions his decision to escape from the Matrix to reality. “I know what you're thinking,” he says to Neo, “'cause right now I'm thinking the same thing. Actually, I've been thinking it ever since I got here…why, oh why didn't I take the blue pill?” This is indeed a valid question. If this whole world we know is one big dream why not stay asleep, rather than awaken to a harsh reality that might not turn out to be as comfortable as our dream world? However in God’s eyes, the harshness of reality is always much more important than the ignorance of bliss. This is obvious for two reasons – the very essence of our God’s character, which is truth, and the fact that our lives shouldn’t be determined by physical comfort and blissful illusion alone – we attain to a higher goal.  

First of all, our God is one of truth as it states in Devarim 32:4, “All His ways are justice, a God of truth and without injustice; righteous and upright is He.” To choose a life of lies over one of emet would be to go against the character of the God we serve. There are many ways to vary from the path of truth, and all of them are despised by God. There are six things Hashem hates, among them a lying tongue and a witness who tells lies (Prov. 6:16-19) Clearly it would be wrong in God’s eyes to “take the blue pill” and spend the rest of one’s life living a lie instead of serving Him in truth.

Moreover, the main flaw in Cypher’s thinking in The Matrix is that he came to value the physical pleasures and comforts of the virtual world above the truth, and eventually above his own friends or morals: “You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? [Takes a bite of steak] Ignorance is bliss.” Cypher has obviously confused his priorities, leading him to eventually kill some of his teammates and meet a violent end. Our goals in life as religious Jews, however, are not merely to pursue pleasure or seek comfortable lives – they are to serve the God of truth, no matter how difficult or harsh this truth may be. As Socrates and Glaucon conclude: “Socrates: ‘Well then, if he recalled to mind his first habitation and what passed for wisdom there, and his fellow-bondsmen, do you not think that he would count himself happy in the change and pity them?’ Glaucon: ‘He would indeed’” (Plato, 514 – 518, The Republic, Book VII).

                                                                    

Sources:

Descartes, René. Meditation I of the Things Which We May Doubt. Excerpt from Meditations on First Philosophy. 1641 C.E.

Plato. The Allegory of the Cave. Excerpt from The Republic. Book VII. c. 514 - 518 B.C.E.

Wachowski, Andy, and Lana Wachowski. The Matrix. Directed by Andy Wachowski and Lana Wachowski. Los Angeles: Warner Bros. Pictures, 1999.

Simplifying Capitalism - Part/Chapter One

Relating Economic Freedom & Political Freedom

Assuming all my readers are conservative Americans, such as myself, I'm pretty sure you all agree with me on several basic political principles...that Americans should be free to buy/sell what they want, that freedom of speech and opinion are fundamental natural rights, that we should not oppress one another, and that we should abide by the laws of our country. These are principles that are found, not only in the ideas and writings of the Founding Fathers, but in the Torah as well. In the Communistic governments of China and Russia we have seen examples of political systems which flout these principles of human rights and individual freedom.
        How does the economy relate to these? How can our system of buying and selling affect our political freedoms of speech and thought? And vice versa - how do politics affect the economy? Do labor unions, wage standards, and the price of laundry detergent have anything at all to do with voting, the Constitution, or America's laws? In Milton Friedman's first chapter of Capitalism and Freedom, he demonstrates that political freedom and economical freedom are intimately related, and explores the relationship between the two entities. Also in this chapter Friedman discusses the market as a direct part of freedom, the relation between market arrangements and political freedom as well as briefly tracing the development of free trade concepts and outlining the ideal economy promoting a free society.       
        First of all, Friedman states that only certain arrangements between these two freedoms are possible - more specifically, that only a competitive capitalistic economy ensures political freedom. (Big surprise.) In other words, a country where people are free to start their own private businesses, compete with other businesses, buy what they want, and sell what they want, all without restrictions of the federal government or anything else, is the only kind that also ensures political freedom. We will be free to live securely in liberty if a capitalistic infrastructure is in place.
        In the early 1800s, the trend was laissez-faire economics, ("LAH zay fair", French for basically "do what you want,") which seemed to work very well and greatly improved the conditions of the masses. But then the trend changed, and government began to interfere in the economy more and more - "Welfare rather than freedom became the dominant note in democratic countries." And after World War Two, this collectivist trend was briefly interrupted by a reversal in economic policies and an increased emphasis on private markets. Now we are back to more government and less individualism once more. During these twists and turns in the economy, political freedom has fallen suit - strangely enough, whenever the market was left alone and individuals were free to compete in trade, the nation's population did very well and enjoyed greater freedoms. Whenever welfare prevailed and government stepped into private business affairs, the people suffered, politically and economically. 
       Next Friedman states that there are two ways to manage the economic activities of the masses - either military/totalitarian coercion, or voluntary individual cooperation; "the technique of the market place." He is saying the government can force people to buy and sell what the government wants them to, or they can allow the natural laws of supply and demand to determine the market. Obviously the latter is the most appealing mode of management...
     What does a "free private enterprise exchange economy" look like, and why is it so desirable? These are questions that Milton Friedman will spend the rest of his book answering in detail, but he also briefly and simply answers them in a few paragraphs in the first chapter. Essentially, capitalism in action is - a business that uses the resources it controls to produce goods and services, which, in turn, it exchanges for goods and services produced by other businesses, on terms mutually acceptable to both. Money is the exchangeable commodity that makes this transaction that much easier.
      On a very simple level, let's take a very simple example of a free-enterprise market. Let's say I run a butcher shop. You need meat, so you come into my butcher shop and I provide you with the resources, (meat,) and skills, (preparing and packaging the meat,) that you cannot provide for yourself, because you don't have the resources, skill, or time. In return, you give me money, which I can then use to provide for myself the things I need. I go to the bakery and buy bread with that money, because I don't have the resources (flour, ovens, bakers, etc.,) or the time, or the skills, to bake bread myself. Thus you have provided me with something I don't have, and I have provided you with something you don't have. That is a mutual exchange. This is capitalism in its purest and most basic form.
       Maybe another butcher opens a similar shop down the street. Maybe he has a larger variety, or cheaper prices, or better quality of meats - so you go to him to buy meat instead. That's free choice. You can decide which butcher you like better. I want more money so I can buy bread for my family, so I lower my prices, or I expand my variety, or I better my quality of meat to bring in more business. That's competition. Does this competition hurt you, the customer? On the contrary, it lowers prices and improves quality/quantity for you, which is very beneficial for you. These laws - the laws of mutual exchange, free choice, and competition - are the basic tenets of capitalism. It is obvious how letting these laws alone to freely balance and improve the market in turn lead to greater freedom of choice and a more prosperous economy. Adam Smith called these natural laws "the invisible hand" of the market.
      What does this have to do with politics? History may prove that people are more free when they can buy/sell what they want, but why is this so? Well, for once thing, minorities are more free under a free market because the market is impartial. When you buy bread at a bakery you don't know if the flour was grown by a black person or white person, and you probably don't care. Thus minorities are less likely to be discriminated against in a free-enterprise society. Also, the market naturally "gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want... each man can vote, as it were, for the color of tie he wants, and get it; he does not have to see what color the majority wants and then, if he is in the minority, submit."
        For another thing, the economy has long been a powerful source of coercion by despotic governments - Communist governments make their people their political slaves by determining what they can or can't buy, what occupations they can or cannot hold, what they can sell or not sell. They take away their political freedoms by taking away their economical freedoms. In a society where the government doesn't interfere with the economy, this source of force is gone.
       In conclusion, the principles and ideas outlined in this chapter are extremely important to our understanding of what a capitalistic economy should look like. It is vital for Americans to grasp the basics. Friedman covered numerous extremely significant points about economics and politics, and I hope that my interpretation of his thought is accurate and made good sense. Questions/criticisms/praises are encouraged below! :)

Simplifying Capitalism - Introduction

If I stopped the average American on the street and asked them what they thought of Communism, nine times out of ten the reaction towards this institution would be negative.

Most Americans are afraid of Communism for many reasons, the main one being that they have very recently been eyewitnesses to its oppressive and destructive effects on the peoples/economies of China, Russia, and others in the forms of censorship of the press, violent authoritarianism, harsh quenching of liberties such as liberty of speech and thought, savage anti-religion campaigns, etc. McCarthyism in the 1950s was one example of how Americans feel about Communism - so was the largely unsuccessful and embarrassing Vietnam War of the 60's and 70's - and so was the Cold War of the 80's. Fear of 'Commies' pervades this nation.

Yet how many of us really understand the philosophies of Karl Marx in all of their complexity? What element(s) of Communism make it so repressive of mankind's natural rights and liberties? Americans understand from the examples of China and Russia that Communism is wrong, but do they ultimately recognize why? Something vital to understand is that Communist theories are fundamentally unsound, which has in turn led to phenomena like censorship of the press in Russia and 70 million deaths under Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong (1893-1976.) These cases of massacre and oppression are not radical, rogue events perpetrated by insane leaders - they are the results of an economic philosophy, one that blatantly contradicts the guiding premises of the Jewish Torah.

In summary, to understand why "Communism is bad" one must first understand what Communism essentially is. However that is a study for another post. At present, I'm going to take the opposite side and discuss what Communism is not.

Communism's nemesis, as you probably know, is capitalism. There are many definitions of this word, and for the time, I'm going to put those aside and look at capitalism how the Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman understands it in his book Capitalism and Freedom. I'm reading this book for my literature class at the moment, and to better understand it (not exactly Dr.Seuss level stuff, just sayin'!) I'm planning on blogging my notes. You may not be a politician or Barack Obama's economic adviser, yet I think it's still important that everyone understand what a free market should look like and why Communist economic thought is fundamentally wrong. In any case it will be interesting to learn more about what one of the greatest thinkers of the century has to say about Communistic fallacies and how our government could be doing it better.

Happy Hanukkah

"Miracles are the retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see." (C.S. Lewis)

           Hanukkah is the season of miracles. Every year, for as long as I can remember, the melodies of “Maoz Tzur” and “Hanukkah, Oh Hanukkah”, the smells of latkes and sufganyot, the sights of the lit hanukkiah in the window and falling snow, yes even gentile Christmas lights, have served to recall to mind miracles of the past. As we sit around the table and sing and light the hanukkiah with friends and family, we recount the great works of Hashem and the things He has wrought, not only in our lives, but in those of our ancient ancestors – the Maccabees, David, Moses, Abraham – in the life of every Jew throughout the ages. Moreover, we do not only reminisce about the past, but we pray for miracles to be wrought for us once again during this season.

            Meditating on miracles, have we ever asked ourselves what a miracle actually is? Have we contemplated the nature of what we deem “a miraculous act”, an “act of God”,  etc.? Do miracles consist of small things that are initiated by God, such as a sunrise or a rainbow, or are they only apparent in the big things, the out-of-the-ordinary events, the unexplainable occurrences, like the splitting of the Red Sea? Is the ebb and flow of the ocean’s tide miraculous, or can we only call an amazing feat such as David’s felling of Goliath, a miracle? Are some miracles more miraculous than others, i.e., are there “levels” of miracles? Do miracles consist of interruptions in God’s laws of nature?

            To answer these questions, we must define what a miracle is. To do this, I will rely mainly upon C.S. Lewis’ book “Miracles”, his classic work in defense of miraculous happenings. Without going into the heavily sophisticated philosophical thought into which Lewis delves (which includes the ideas of Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine,) I will attempt to outline his definition of the events which we call “miracles”. (Lewis goes on to argue that miracles prove the existence of God, but there’s no need to discuss that aspect of his argument.)

            Lewis begins his discussion of miracles by first stating what a miracle is, what it isn’t, and why. The most comprehensive passage answering these questions is the one in which he states, “I use the word Miracle to mean an interference with Nature by supernatural power…It is therefore inaccurate to define a miracle as something that breaks the laws of Nature. It doesn't. ... If God creates a miraculous spermatozoon in the body of a virgin, it does not proceed to break any laws. The laws at once take it over. Nature is ready. Pregnancy follows, according to all the normal laws, and nine months later a child is born. ... The divine art of miracle is not an art of suspending the pattern. ... The great complex event called Nature, and the new particular event introduced into it by the miracle, are related by their common origin in God, and doubtless, if we knew enough, most intricately related in his purpose and design, so that a Nature which had had a different history, and therefore been a different Nature, would have been invaded by different miracles or by none at all. In that way the miracles and the previous course of Nature are as well interlocked as any other two realities, but you must go back as far as their common Creator to find the interlocking…The rightful demand that all reality should be consistent and systematic does not therefore exclude miracles: but it has a very valuable contribution to make to our conception of them. It reminds us that miracles, if they occur, must, like all events, be revelations of that total harmony of all that exists. Nothing arbitrary, nothing simply “stuck on” and left un-reconciled with the texture of total reality, can be admitted. By definition, miracles must of course interrupt the usual course of Nature; but if they are real they must, in the very act of so doing, assert all the more the unity and self-consistency of total reality at some deeper level. ... In calling them miracles we do not mean that they are contradictions or outrages; we mean that, left to her [Nature] own resources, she could never produce them.”

            In other words, Lewis is rejecting the idea that supernatural intervention disrupts God’s creation.  He states there are “rules behind the rules” – instead of portraying a God who must mess with His Creation in order to correct its mistakes, miracles reveal a God who can basically do what He wants with His Nature because, while miracles to us seem to be an interruption of the “Laws of Nature”, they are not interruptions but rather intricate and vital pieces of God’s bigger plan. In fact, it is rather arrogant of us to assume that we know so much about the flow of God’s system that we view anything out-of-the-ordinary as a snag in a fabric that is not our own.

            In the latter part of this passage – which can be a little difficult to follow – Lewis is arguing that if a miracle were an invasion from a hostile outside source, Nature would not be as accommodating as it is. Using his example of the virgin birth, in which the “Laws” of Nature immediately take over once the miracle has occurred, we see that Nature is, as he puts it, “an accomplished hostess.” Does this accommodation thus point towards a hostile invasion? No, I believe it implies the opposite; “If God annihilates or creates or deflects a unit of matter He has created a new situation at that point. Immediately all Nature domiciles this new situation, makes it at home in her realm, adapts all other events to it.”

In a chapter on “Natural Laws” Lewis again addresses this issue – whether or not miracles are incompatible with the “Laws of Nature”. If they are incompatible, then God would not allow them to happen, because that would be a disturbance of the systems He has set in place. But if they are compatible, then miracles are definite "interventions" that go beyond natural laws. Thus miracles are consistent with nature, but beyond natural law. Ergo, they point to a new law, a different law, one that transcends the laws of Newton and science's fundamental absolutes. This Higher Law is revealed through miracles. In a miracle such as the splitting of the Red Sea, (an occurrence that is definitely impossible when we take into account the “laws” of water molecules, hydrogen bonding, and gravity,) we see a greater Power at work than that with which we are commonly familiar. As Lewis stated in the passage above, “left to her [Nature] own resources, she could never produce them.”

So back to my initial question – is a sunrise a miracle? According to this definition, that miracles are interventions in the commonly accepted Laws of Nature, I would say not. Is the splitting of the Red Sea a miracle? As it goes against the known Laws of Nature, yes, it is one of the most obvious exemplifications of a miracle. But with this definition, we must not see miracles as God’s abeyances or interferences with the day-to-day occurrences of His Creation. Exceptions, yes – disruptions, no. Even these exceptions are not God saying, “Well I suppose I can change My Law of gravity for you this one time…” Rather He is communicating to us; “These are My Laws – this is My Creation and I can do with it as I wish, and so doing, reveal My immeasurable power.” As the book of Job queries: “Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea…” (Job 11: 7, 9)

Much of society has ceased to believe in miracles, because they have ceased believing in God. They do not understand how the laws of science can be “broken” by the Being who set them in place. As C.S. Lewis said, “Belief in miracles, far from depending on an ignorance of the laws of nature, is only possible in so far as those laws are known. We have already seen that if you begin ruling out the supernatural you will perceive no miracles. We must now add that you will equally perceive no miracles until you believe that nature works according to regular laws. If you have not yet noticed that the sun always rises in the East you will see nothing miraculous about his rising one morning in the West.” The atheists have observed these natural laws but have failed to recognize the Prime Mover.

But as us Jews meditate on the mighty deeds of Hashem in our people’s past and present, we can’t help but see the God who has done so much for us throughout the ages – we can’t help but see the bigger Picture behind these events – and we can’t help but recount His acts with wonder and gratitude. This definition of miracles, which reveals the large and powerful God running our world, gives an even deeper meaning to the awesome deeds He has performed.

Happy Hanukkah.

Reflections On Turning Eighteen

Eighteen is a landmark age. It seems so… old!! 

If I so desired, I could smoke cigarettes, have an unrestricted driver’s license, and join the military without my parents’ permission! Such exciting times.

            Unlike most teenagers however, I find myself looking at my birthday with a little sadness and apprehension. So much is expected of us eighteen year-olds in the adult world… So many standards have been set for the things I am supposed to have accomplished, the challenges I am supposed to have faced, the degrees and accreditation I am supposed to have earned. Why so much pressure on living? Why does everyone I meet find it imperative to know where I’m going to college, if I am driving, if I am working, when I finish high school, if I have a boyfriend; what exactly the blueprint for my future looks like? I don’t understand why They feel like They have a right to critique my choices as a neo-adult, just because I seem to have survived another 365 days on this planet we call Earth. From whence springs this attitude?

            Funnily enough, I display the same attitude towards other eighteen-year olds… “What are you going to do with your life? That? Oh, that’s… interesting…” - while the script in my thought bubble is running something like this… “What an idiot. He/she will never get anywhere in life.” Then again, where exactly are all us teens supposed to be “going” in life anyway? The Ivies?

       
 This mentality, this emphasis on SAT scores and diplomas and degrees and GPAs and titles, is undoubtedly not an exclusively American attitude, but it seems to seriously pervade American culture and living more than any other nation’s. I never noticed it before high school, but as soon as my freshman year began, I started to hear and perceive this attitude everywhere, even, eventually, in myself. Americans really are obsessed with the idea of legitimacy – whether you can prove “it” by official-looking papers or sheets of numbers doesn’t matter, as long as you can prove “it.” One of my favorite movies, Catch Me If You Can, makes much fun of this attitude – its famous and appropriate phrase is, “looking at the pinstripes”… Do we not all look at the pinstripes, the letters after the name, the biographies, the test results, the uniform… just a little too hard, while excluding the important things - the conversation, the personality, the good deeds, the speech…? As I reflect on turning eighteen, I become conscious of this exclusion more than ever.

            These pinstripers believe, not so much that you are what you have done, but that you are the hoop through which you have jumped, like a circus dog or something.  These pinstripers can be partially excused for this mentality for two reasons – a), in some cases, there really is no way of measuring a person’s ability and intelligence from a distance unless they pass a certain standardized test that will give the tester some idea as to what the testee is capable of: and b) because, to a certain extent, tests such as the SAT, or college degrees such as the master’s, do prove that you have worked hard to do well and obtain a certain legitimacy. But in many ways They have taken this rationale too far… as have many of us. I believe firmly that institutions such as public school have only exacerbated the shallowness and rigidity of this approach.

           It isn’t only outside pressure that causes me apprehension about my maturing age… It is the realization of how time marches on and we are powerless to stop, or to even slow, its winding course. I realize of course that I have my entire life in front of me and that it’s pointless to moan about having one foot in the grave when I’m only eighteen. But it is good for us, whether we are eight years old or eighty, to occasionally stop and contemplate the futility and terminality of this play we call Life, on this stage we call World, in which, as Shakespeare famously put it, we are but actors. Looking back upon my first act, I realize that I have some regrets, along with a bit of wistfulness – after all, I can never get that time back, and that is somewhat a depressing thought.

            When I think about being older, sometimes it frightens me. This is because it seems as though an older “me” won’t really be “me” at all – that in reality I am who I am now, and when I become an old woman, it will be like I am disguised as someone I’m not. This idea of course, like all fear, is illogical. Though I was Anna when I was eight, I am still Anna ten years later, and I will still be Anna when I am twenty-eight, no matter how much my persona has altered. If our powerlessness to halt Time is a problem, the solution is to make the most of the Time we do have, and to “let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change.” Is that not all we can do?

            So, I conclude these musings with excitement, for eighteen is an exciting age, on the brink of the real adult world, full of promise and uncertainties and hopeful dreams. My personality is virtually formed. Hopefully I possess that common sense which is, according the Einstein, “the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
And to put this excitement into yet another quote, this one by my favorite poet….

 “So many worlds, so much to do, so little done, such things to be!”