The Matrix: How Do We Know What Is Real?

“You ever get that feeling where you’re not sure if you’re awake or still dreaming?” asks a bewildered Neo.  I can honestly answer, yes, I have on several occasions found myself pacing around my house, touching the furniture and smelling the fruit in the kitchen, seeing everything in what I believed at the time to be perfect and accurate detail, only to suddenly see something terribly wrong or out of place.  A complete inability to read words, the unexplained yet accepted presence of a complete stranger in the house, or doors in places they shouldn’t be.  However, unlike myself, Neo does not have these markers to make him doubt the reality around him.  

“The Matrix,” by Andy and Larry Wachowski raises several philosophical issues, one of which is ‘How do we know what is real?’  There are several ways we can address this question in the context of the film.  The first is through the use of Plato’s Cave.  Falzon’s description of Plato’s Cave bears a shocking resemblance to the operation of the Matrix within the movie.  Prisoners since childhood are bound so they can only see shadows on the wall in front of them, cast by unknown beings carrying artefacts before a fire, and accept without question that what they see is all there is to reality (Falzon, 2007).  In comparison, “The Matrix” depicts nearly the entire human race as prisoners, literally bound within coffin sized pods by cables and wires, electronically fed a false reality so believable that hardly anyone stops to question it.  The shadows on the wall is the Matrix itself, controlled and created by the Machine race; the carrier of artefacts and jailers of the human race.  

In the film, the rebels are certain that the Matrix is the illusory reality, and the harsh and scorched post-apocalyptic Earth is the actual reality.  But how do we discern reality from illusion?  As Morpheus says, “What is real?  How do you define real?”  “Real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.”  So how do Morpheus and the rebels know the real world from the fake one?  Falzon suggests the possibility that the protagonists of the film never truly escape the matrix, and they have moved from one false reality to another, a ‘higher level’ matrix as he puts it (2007).  It is entirely possible that the rebels’ fight against the machines is a contingency plan set up by the Machine Empire in order to satisfy those humans who reject the safer “reality” of 1999.  This idea lets us explore another philosophical view on how to discern reality: Descarte’s evil demon theory.  More sinister than a natural dream, the demon (the Machines) creates a realistic dream specifically designed to quell all thoughts about whether the dreamer is awake or not, usually with the intent on exploiting the dreamer, in this case the metabolic and electrical brain energy to fuel the robots that now rule the planet.  Part of this theory is that the demon (or genius, depending on sources) can tell when the victim starts to doubt the reality fed to them, and is able to alter that fed reality to satisfy the victim (Falzon, 2007) (Malcomson, 2004).  In other words, the human rebellion of “The Matrix” may think they have escaped the matrix and are satisfied in fighting against the machines, when in reality they are still captives in pods, completely unaware of their continued imprisonment.

This contrasts with Plato’s cave, in that prisoners who escape from the cave usually find the outside reality to be a more pleasant and enjoyable place, whereas the evil demon theory suggests that most humans are content to live in ignorance due to a fear that reality may not be as comfortable as their dream world (Malcomson, 2004).  Sypher is the representation of this view, with his willingness to betray Morpheus due to his belief that “ignorance is bliss.”

References

Falzon, C. (2007). Philosophy goes to the movies (2^nd ed.). New York: Routledge

Malcomson, P. (2004). The Matrix, liberal education, and other splinters in the mind. Humanitas, 17(1/2), 139-158. 

Bubba Ho-Tep: Personal Identity

 “Bubba Ho-Tep” (2002), directed by Don Coscarelli, explores the concept of personal identity through memories.  The protagonist is Elvis Presley, played by Bruce Campbell, who traded places with Sebastian Haff, an Elvis impersonator, during the 70’s to escape his life of fame and drugs and is currently residing in a nursing home and suffering simply from old age.  His friend in the nursing home is Jack, played by Ossie Davis, a black man who insists that he is former president John F. Kennedy and survived the assassination, but was dyed black and abandoned after being patched up.

Looking through the philosophical lens, this film offers an interesting discussion into whether these men are really who they claim to be.  How do we know who they really are?  How do they for that matter?  Descartes says that one has to have the same mind over a period of time to be the same person, and that a changing body has nothing to do with it (Falzon, 2007).  This gives some substance to Jack’s claim of being a former president.  Despite being completely the wrong colour, he appears to have vivid memories of being JFK.  Locke (as referenced by Falzon) has a similar view and believes that memory is the key to personal identity.  Falzon states that “Identity through memory can only be established by remembering ‘from inside’.  It is not enough to have external physical reminders…” (p.82, 2007).  By having memories of their experiences as the President and the King of Rock is enough, according to this theory, for them to be who they say they are, because memories are at the core of what makes a person an individual.  However, there are problems associated with Locke’s view, the most prominent being that of misremembering (Falzon, 2007).  

Humanity cannot escape age and the problems that come with it; physical and mental deterioration.  Assuming the film takes place in the year it was made, 2002, then Elvis would be 67 years old and JFK would be 85.  What is the possibility that both or one of them are suffering an age-related mental illness that affects the reliability of memory?  The audience is more inclined to believe Elvis/Sebastian’s claim as the film focalizes through his thoughts and memories.  Interestingly, the audience does not see many ‘visual’ memories of his experiences of Elvis Presley before the switch, only as Haff after the switch.  His job in earlier life was pretending to be Elvis, so could this false persona, in a deteriorating mental state, have overtaken the identity of Haff?  Does this, according to Locke, in fact make Haff Elvis?  If the real Elvis was still alive, would there be, in spirit, two Elvis Presleys?  Both could make claims in regards to physicality, personal knowledge, and personality.  The same reasoning could be applied to Jack/JFK.

Ganeri suggests there is a difference between remembering an event, and remembering experiencing an event (1999).  If anything this casts serious doubts on the identities of our heroes.  I can remember the assassination of JFK, not because I was there but because I have seen camera footage and read about the incident.  I did not experience the event first hand, but I can still remember facts and details of it.  It’s like seeing a picture of the Mona Lisa, but not ever seeing the painting first hand; you still know what it looks like.  Both Haff and Jack claim the identities of two very famous and well documented people, making it easier for them to assimilate knowledge and create false memories.  This is further suggested by another resident of the nursing home who believes himself to be the Long Ranger.  Unlike Haff or Jack’s identities, which are both very possible, the Lone Ranger is a purely fictional character.  This man, sadly, is suffering from a deteriorating mind, allowing the possibility that the same is true of Haff and Jack.

However, Ganeri also asks whether we truly remember an event if we have forgotten the emotions and perceptions of that event (1999).  This puts a more hopeful light on the real identities of Elvis and JFK.  Throughout the film, they don’t just remember and recount events and facts about their life.  They speak passionately about their views on their lives; Elvis becoming upset and regretful about his late ex-wife, Pricilla, and his estranged daughter; and the relief and happiness of his new life as Sebastian Haff back in the 70s.  As the two recall events with emotion and understanding of the experience, it is more likely they are drawing on actual experiences.

References

Falzon, C. (2007). Philosophy goes to the movies (2^nd ed.). New York: Routledge

Ganeri, J. (1999). Self-Intimation, memory and personal identity. Journal of Indian Philosophy 27(5), 469-483.  Retreived from: http://www.springerlink.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/content/h44r402185146q87/fulltext.pdf