Love the channel? Want early access and other stuff? Check out the Patreon page 💸 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy ⌛ Timestamps: 0:00 Introduction 0:58 #1 The Misrepresentation of The Matrix 5:13 #2 The Matrix would love The Matrix 8:23 #3 A Glimmer of Irony 10:34 Why Baudrillard is Wrong 13:32 Final Thoughts
Can you redo Feminism v Womanism, I was very dissatisfied with it, and why is there no black philosophy, that is just as essential as continental philosophy
When people try to make the argument that we all may be dreaming without realizing it, they always seem to radically underestimate the difference in clarity between "reality" and dreams. Sure, you can be "convinced" in a dream that the dream is real, but not _explicitly_ . You _act_ as if you think it's real, but you usually lack the capacity to even question it, which is significantly different from the state of being awake. If you were to start rigorously questioning while in the dream, it would then morph into a lucid dream. This kind of thing just doesn't happen in real life. That's not to mention that reality is far more consistent than any dream. Physics in real life appears to be infinitely consistent, while in a dream you tend to see clocks being nonsensical, you can suddenly find yourself in random locations, no matter how far apart, etc. While I have had the very rare dream in which one of these things is consistent, I've never had a dream in which _all_ of them worked consistently. The argument often seems to boil down into something like "Well, they're kinda sorta similar," and I personally just can't buy it.
this makes me feel like any time I'm questioning my reality is when I'm really seeing it, and any time I take it for granted it could be considered a kind of "simulation"
As a person from the dream world, I gotta say this "real world" you speak of is far too consistent which seems highly improbably to me. Unlike the dream world, where I'm from, where the rules are constantly shifting around as one would expect. I'm surprised people from this "real world" believe themselves capable of rigorously questioning it's existence, even though anything that stable and subject to reason could only be a reductive simulation. Anything as real as the dream world would be to transcendent to be subject to such questioning
Sure. But what we consider reality is based on our experiences of that which we consider reality. For example, the foundations of logic itself, cause & effect (i.e., the arrow of time; "if, then"). However, it is possible for a logical set to be a member of an a-logical set. When comparing that which we call reality to that which we call a dream, modernly the point isn't always to say, "This could all just be a dream," but "just as this seems more real than dreaming, there could be a layer of reality that is more real than this." Sure, in dreams we tend not to question things and here we can (though most don't most of the time). But, without direct experience of a potential actual reality (or even without any memory of that experience) foundational to this one (just as this one is foundational to the dream state), then we don't know what we can do there that we can't here. How can we be sure there is no analogue of lucid dreaming to our everyday experience? "Lucid wake," I suppose. In the end, we cannot use the mechanics of a system to prove itself. Logic is foundation of physics; neither can say anything about that which is "beyond" or foundational or "more real than" them.
Ah well, Baudrillard famously crapped on everything. That was his thing. To expect him to do anything else would be unreasonable lol. The fact he took the time out to be critical of the film was probably to him high praise, as he saw it. Though I do agree with him to some degree, I thought the films took themselves and the mythology they were operating in a bit too literally. And the end of the third film where Trinity died in such a pathetic way seemed to undo the previous two films climaxes, where Neo and Trinity resurrected each other. Then to have Neo sacrifice himself to preserve the Matrix... it seemed like they had completely betrayed the earlier message of the first film. That he would now give in to his fate, thus proving the Architect was right all along. It's quite chilling in fact. The only happy aspect lies with the small hope that someday maybe the machines and humans could learn to coexist, after Neo sacrificed himself to save both worlds. That's the story they should have put more emphasis on, but it seems to have gotten lost in all the effects driven spectacle. In that way I have to agree with Baudrillard. The Matrix was in fact created by something that the Matrix would have created, and that is Hollywood. The Wachowskis for all their posturing as outsiders and rebels are only able to continue making horrible films that do horrendously at the box office because they are well connected with the Hollywood elites. If they were just regular people making activist type films critical of the status quo, they'd never be able to make huge blockbuster films. They are an inherent part of the system they are criticizing, and they are using the medium of the blockbuster action film to sell the idea of Resistance against the System, as a replacement for any real change to the system. People watch the film thinking they are now part of a virtual Resistance movement against the Matrix, when in fact that energy has been redirected to turn them into passive observers of a spectacle which sells them the Illusion of a Resistance Movement, not an actual one. So in some ways, the Matrix movies are even more diabolical than the Matrix itself. But that's what capitalism does, it monetizes everything, even rebelliousness against it.
I like to think individuals monetize themselves. And push come to shove most people who talk about rebellion don’t really believe in it at all. Hey his systems great, I get to line my pockets, live in a mansion, drive fast cars, and get hot chicks to ride my…. That I would not otherwise get without money. But hey I can look cool and pretend that I want the system destroyed but in reality I know the system will not be destroyed and I might even help to perpetuate it. These type of people create their own simulacrum and blur the distinction between simulation and reality, the hyper reality is I am good and I care.
Great to hear from someone with enough depth to see the whole trilogy as great and not just the first film. I watched all three on DVD for the first time around 2010. Perhaps that is why I like all three (I never got caught up in the whole discussion of them and didn't need to wonder what the sequels would be like). I am definitely not philosophically gifted, so I like when I hear philosophers happen to see things similarly to me (I think).
The latest movie started strong. It attempted to make you feel like you (the viewer) are in the Matrix - thus a strong feeling of hyperrealism. And it ended somewhat optimistic - the acceptance of Neo and Trinity being hyperreal, yet making the most out of it by designing the Matrix, even though the Analyst ridiculed it from a rational standpoint. The merging of reality and illusion doesn't seem that bad. Perhaps that was the intended message: Reality and illusion imploded. And we are left to make the most out of it. Neo and Trinity flew. And we enjoyed a hyperrealist movie.
Exactly. This is why Matrix 4 is a success to me. They finally captured the message of Simulation and Simulacra and yet also showed why it was ultimately a false message and premise whether intentionally or not.
It was an absolute farce, and was inteded to fail. I'm glad some redeeming philosophical points glimmered through, but ultimately it was a chore to watch and a very far cry from what made the matrix films good.
@@HolyMith Perhaps it was a childish response, but it was also a fitting one. Your comment boils down to "The movie was bad and meant to fail, there were some good philosophical points, but the movie sucked." -- I doubt the commenter disagreed with the part about good philosophical points, so... What more does someone need to say to disagree with such unsubstantiated claims? Sure, they didn't give you much to work with, but you didn't provide much to begin with ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Of course Baudrillard said that. He’s a self-admitted nihilist - why would he like a movie that’s supposedly about his works, that creates a new grand narrative (while relying on a relatable and classic mythos), where the machine world must be made to accept its human slaves? Or, in other words, what problem does Baudrillard find here, in a story where humanity creates the perfect slaves, who in turn enslave their former masters, yet the new masters still need (rely upon) their former slaves? This is the dichotomy of modern man being both slave and master, or, two souls occupying one body, where man cannot (morally) reconcile his position therein, ie, his own existence (cue the nihilists, pessimists, and religious thinkers to suffer the spinning of their own wheels), because even their own assumptions, definitions and aims begin to make no sense, and become irreconcilable. Answer: because Baudrillard sees the machine, the system, the state (ie, normal human life as it has generally functioned forever), as the problem, but as with most people of his temperament, he doesn't in fact have a real answer or solution to any of the problems he asserts as problems, which arguably, aren't problems - it's just what modern normal life is like. I don’t think Baudrillard even gets it, to be frank, and the Wachowskis also seemed to misunderstand or mistake their own genius in the Matrix trilogy as well (and yes, I say all this having watched the Wachowskis mistake what fans loved about the original movie, and I also watched Baudrillard chase his tail in Simulacrum and Simulation). I’m beginning to think if we put enough “posts” in front of modern, we’ll be back to normal again, and what I mean is, I question when people will stop being so astounded with inevitable change and flux, and accept their existence as “normal,” in the “normal” world, but I know thinkers like jargon and coining new “ages.” It reminds me that even the modern “rebel” or “revolutionary,” even crazy Uncle Ted - they want to smash the control machine? No they don’t. They feed it every day, just like we’re doing here, and that’s normal and “real life” every day, whether people like it or not (from moral or immoral perspectives). It’s a millennia old proposition, that the rebel rebels, until even he is accepted and assimilated, thus he is no longer a rebel, and the “system” (or state) must find its balance with him, lest he find it disagreeable to the point that it needs to be destroyed again, but if these are perpetual problems, they aren't in fact problems, but the nature of life (us, humans, as beyond tribal animals, but state-building ones). What postmodernists often miss, is that postmodernism itself is not an answer or solution in any real matter, but closer to cosmic horror and relativism finding it’s home in philosophy (Nietzsche threw these doors wide open). That is to say, perpetual rebellion is not meaningful rebellion, it's just chaos normalized, because all the things that the moralist (yes, many postmoderns are moralists, hence their endless concern trolling) philosophers supposedly care about (morals, justice, community, "the real," etc.) mean nothing, become impotent and ineffectual, when chaos and anarchy reigns, and you're left asking, yes, where to find the melody in the white noise of endless complaints, protests, and issues that are down the memory-hole before tomorrow even arrives? To quote David Foster Wallace - it’s like voting for Stalin, to end voting - just how does one do that? But as the other postmodernists make clear, the more broadcast signal we produce and hear, the harder it is to make sense of it all; the more people that connect to a system, increases the complexity and chaos, it doesn't decrease it. Our life as seen, viewed, consumed, and produced through televisual culture is our “new normal.” What would people even go back to, or what could they create anew, that they haven’t created yet? Just because the waters are muddied, and continually further muddied, doesn't mean people stop yearning for connection, the real, the sincere, the authentic. The Wachowskis were as sincere in the creation of the Matrix as Baudrillard was in S&S, even if Baudrillard clearly enjoys the fact that he can run intellectual circles around most people, delighting in his mischievousness. I mean, didn't Baudrillard read Plato? We've turned the bug into a feature, and we call it THE REPUBLIC, or in The Matrix's case, NEO AND THE HUMAN REBELLION. Or, how about Nietzsche's essays on the Early Greek Philosophers? Even a Baudrillard is advocating for the STATE and the SYSTEM, whether he realizes or acknowledges it or not, since the end result of all human systems, namely the state and its state-owned education, has been to constrain and regulate people to itself, forces that are often hostile and sketchy at best, and people pick up this task willingly and gladly, to serve said state and its people (if its not the present state, then its the bigger, better one to come). And if anyone is wondering why I bothered to post such a long reply, well, I love this topic, have written much about it, and even covered it in guest podcasts on other people's channels. Awesome video, TLP. Keep up the good work.
Fantastic. Starting Simulacra and Simulation today, and watching Matrix 4 soon: happy to be entering it with this new (to me) perspective to add to my appreciation.
Does Baudrillard ever propose a way out of the conundrum? Does he even think there is one? I don't see a way out other than being omniscient, and since we are not then we must just muddle through and enjoy the steak even though we are not sure it is real. At least it tastes good.
I had asked a similar question on the last video, and that was kinda the conclusion. Baudrillard’s idea (as it was explained) is that we couldn’t ever possibly “get out”, and any semblance of “getting out” would be akin to the “world” Zion exists in also having been part of the simulation, and only being a further part of the illusion.
Yeah he doesn't think there's any way back to the real as Mat pointed out but what he does see and I haven't fully understood this part of his thought yet but he sees a value in a certain sort of rebellion. He ends that 2004 interview with the line "For reversibility, challenge and seduction are indestructible" and it's his philosophy of seduction that holds the counterpole to the idea of the hyperreal. This is also where the idea of the “glimmer of irony that would allow viewers to turn this gigantic special effect on its head.” There's no chance of a reconnection with the real but there is a chance to rebel against the monopolistic power of the system. I'm probably misunderstanding him here without knowing enough but this is the general direction as far as I'm aware
john b was tripping. it's a movie. not a novel...get with the picture. missed the point? As if the movie was supposed to be an exact representation of his book. it was supplemented reading. not a movie on the book. appreciate his contribution but as an artist, guy needs to take a walk. also dude...like i think you could simplify the script a bit more.
I have started reading Badrillard and it’s true that his work makes the whole of Matrix meaningless. He disputes the reality of politics, media. Really his work is rather peacemaking while the movie is nourishing the conflict. I think everyone should read some parts from Badrillard
Baudrillard is a very interesting thinker. I think your analysis is quite biased and shows too much your love for these movies. The second criticism is evidently the most important and you agree with it, but just decided not to put the emphasis there. The movies are so popular because they exploit and enforce the fascination for the simulation. They are indeed not a real criticism of it. That should worry a philosopher who cares for truth. This hypocrisy can also be deduced from the fact that eventually there is no resistance allowed to be possible within this matrix universe that wants you to believe they can reduce everything to numbers. Apart from the terrible acting, the ludicrous fighting scenes, the depressive message and the religious fascination for technology and simulation, I never liked this story because it only helps to deepen the glorification for simulations in our lives. even more. If they would not have done so, and would have offered a real critic, they could not have become popular as they would have collided with the craving and addiction for simulations that exists in the general population. The fake hero Neo is just your average person who thinks he can “wake up” by taking a pill and download super powers, all without much effort. It already contains the ingredients that would manifest in the form of “the Secret” and other pseudo-spiritual programs based in simulation religion. Why would one expect a real thinker like Baudrillard to applaud such consumer goods? If it causes the same shallow reflections that have to pass for philosophy all over the world, they are merely part of the machinery that produces quantity but no quality.
This is why Baudrillard was the last vestige of the real in an age of hyper reality, Most thinkers would have been flattered, would have endorsed the movie, helped with publicity, basked in the fame - but not Baudrillard. And Baudrillard was exactly right, you don't resist the hyper real with the hyper real, with CGI, with cod Buddhist philosophy, with Keanu Reeves for fuck sake. Baudrillard would have seen The Matrix as a simulation of his ideas, a hyper real approximation. And not a very good one at that. The disturbing thing from Baudrillard's point of view, wasn't that popular culture was becoming hollow, as hollowness had always been part of pop culture, but rather the best cinema had to offer, the height of its artistic expression, was becoming more and more superficial. Films he admitted were brilliant - seemed too brilliant, films by Kubrick for instance, that are just artistically perfect, but ultimately soulless, Wherein the meaning plays second fiddle to the visuals. The meaning just a guise, a means by which to explore the post modern aesthetic. The meaning just part of the seamless modular. Or rather the message of the movie just becomes another aesthetic. Form and content morphing into each other in an immaculate rendition.
Well done. Now you’re just showing off and flexing that philosophical mind of yours…yes, I had a hard time keeping up and I still haven’t read his book.
Hahaha I'm just harvesting some of the head-wrecking studies of Baudrillard to try and make some fruit of them! I'm probably in the terrible middle ground where the people who understand him think I'm completely messing it up and the people who are just encountering him can't understand what I'm saying 😆
Pretty much. But not completely understanding him is a good thing. Kind of like Heidegger, I’m totally ok with not getting him…there’s ultimate no point, no truth to be found. A self aggrandizing sophist is easy to find and I cringe any time I catch myself. You do quite well not being one and I thank you for that
@@OneConsciousnessWithAaron Hahaha well I'm glad that my lack of understanding has a positive side effect then of showing that I'm not just talking out my ass that's good! Thanks Aaron!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy hi James. I still don’t know how to just email or message you outside of this medium. Stumbled across this documentary and was wondering if you were aware of it. Rather interesting and possibly relates to the subject matter. I think so. I remember hearing in your 10, 000 subscriber special that you have had a least one psychedelic experience. Let me know what you think. th-cam.com/video/SniI1RjTaL8/w-d-xo.html
Very happy you have (successfully in my estimation) defended the Matrix trilogy since they are some of my favorite movies. I seem to remember that Baudrillard declined to be involved in the making of the second and third movies of the trilogy because of the misinterpretation he saw in the first. My suspicion is that he might have changed his mind after seeing the finished product.
Ah thank you! They are indeed wonderful movies. I would have thought the same but in the interview he goes after the second just as much as the first. It almost seems like he was determined not to like them
Even if criticism #2 is in some sense "correct", I don't know that I'd call it valid. Literally *any* film capable of the sort of outreach The Matrix had in the late '90s was inevitably the sort of film about the Matrix that the Matrix would love. As Baudrillard himself points out: the system inescapably consumes all, incorporates everything into itself, including critiques of itself. I think it's a petty and unfair criticism. I think the only ultimate benchmark of the trilogy's success is its ability to inspire discussions of these difficult ideas in the general population. And it succeeded admirably, almost miraculously--not only did the notion that something like the Matrix exists in the form of ideology reach popular awareness, the more particular notion that it *might not be possible to escape it* even in principle reached popular awareness. That's quite a remarkable feat.
100% agreed. That's what I really admire about the Matrix - not that it's this perfect work of philosophical integrity but that it has done so much for the cause of philosophy itself. It has gotten people talking and thinking about this and it's incredibly valuable just for that. And it has also joined 1984 and Brave New World as part of the language of our culture when looking at possible futures
"the more particular notion that it might not be possible to escape it even in principle reached popular awareness" Maybe that's what Baudrillard hated about it? The notion that there is no hope of escape.
The movie references Popper. So applying poppers 3 spheres of reality would perfectly suggest the “real” world wasn’t real all along and the matrix was a smokescreen to keep the machines busy and the machines were stuck in this matrix NOT the humans. Possibly none of the characters even existed at all but to the machines they did
Wow. IDK how I never thought of this take! I suppose such a well constructed prison would never make mention of the possibility of this, so we the viewers wouldn't have anything directly indicating it. We'd have to come up with the solution ourselves (or otherwise come across the idea as I just have).
Das world is my ideas and their representations because what I believe about life and das universe becomes true for me since life is a dream comes true. Break de flower-tipped arrows of Mara and death will never touch me again.
I've only seen the first film so I can't comment on the other two, but it's disappointing to know that Baudrillard was offered to consult on the second film but turned them down. Film for me is an incredible medium to convey philosophy. For me this was clear in the films of Ingmar Bergman, Stanley Kubrick, and Paul Thomas Anderson. Sure there are limitations, you can't expect a large scale manifesto, but through visuals and storytelling these messages can be more easily pressed into our memory more so than a book can accomplish, in my opinion.
100% I really can't understand why he didn't get on board. But maybe it's for the best. I am amazed though that someone like him who loved movies so much and talked so much about them wasn't tempted with a little audacity and attempting to make a beautiful philosophical movie. Never seen any Ingmar Bergman actually. Any movies of his you'd recommend in particular?
It's understandable. As a writer you have your favorite medium that are book. Books existed before movies were even invented. Books are where good stories come from, not movies. Movies most often just adapt them. If you are a bit familiar with IT, transferring from analog to digital, some information always gets lost by the process. Same can be said here. If you adapt from a book to a movie, things that are open to interpretation get lost, cause you as a movie creator have to fill the gaps that otherwise your brain would fill. Therefore letting no room for subjective fantasy. Also just go to The Witcher. Also very famous game and show but the original writer of Geralt and his stories hates the others mediums. As a writer you often have other goals than as a movie creator. As a movie creator you need a shit ton of money, therefore you cant just make a movie and dont care how it will do on the box office. Writing a book often just takes time. You can totally focus on the purpose and why you want to write it. Keep in mind, theses are generalisations, doesnt mean there arent outliners or exceptions every now and then on both camps. Cause there are plenty.
@@drshepherd6567 Ah that's a great take. And funny you bring up the Witcher because I've watched the series and I've read the books and it's one of those rare examples where I love the tv adaptation far more than the books. I just find the books to be not quite as...coherent as a whole and the series seems to be tightening up his work. Haven't played the games so can't come. As for the books vs movies thing I guess you are right although publishing houses aren't so open to new talent and new ideas as they used to be given the nature of the market so maybe this is changing as well but definitely it's easier to make a book that nobody will read than to make a movie that nobody will watch. As you say though sometimes people find a way to make excellent art no matter the medium
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Can't say for sure what Ingmar Bergman movies PhilosophyToons was thinking of, but it was probably Seventh Seal, and I also recommend it.
Fudge! I didnt know half of the stuff discussed here and I consider myself an film critic and watched the movies as a teenager when they came out. I never knew they were based on a book prior to that so I never got that reference in the movie when he opens the book and the more shocking thing to me is, that I was sure there is a distinction between simulated and real. I never thought of that the rebellion world in the future 2199 could or is also simulated. Might be my brain not remembering it. I havent watched the movies since 10 years. Time to rewatch them. And I might order the book in my language.
Ah that's amazing! Well it'll give you a whole new way of looking at the movies this time round. Also interesting that the chapter On Nihilism that you see Neo flip open to is at the back of the book in real life so that's also significant. All sorts of little gems connecting the movies to Baudrillard. Great movies and it's a good time to do a rewatch with #4 coming out!
@Gwyddion Flint there is always someone nitpicky who has to take everything very literally. It was a figure of speech. it was "inspired" by the book! Happy now? They got many ideas and the main idea behind the matrix from the book.
@Gwyddion Flint Simple answer. The writers wouldnt make actors read the book before taping and even add scenes referencing the author if they had a super idea on their own and just accidently stumbled on the book later on in the process of making the movie. Its more likely the other way around and that they read the book, it gave them an inspiration and then came to the idea making a movie out of it. Why else even mention it.
I have an idea for a show. I just read Baudrillard's essay on transsexuality and it's more relevant than ever. I doubt I'm not the only centrist who is suspicious of transsexuality as ideology and even more suspicious of sexual liberation as ideology. It's a huge subject and might be tough to crystallize into something useful for beginners. The other idea for a show is What is Anxiety?....Kierkegaard, Lacan, Neitzche, Heidegger and Buddha all have wonderful insights into anxiety. Anxiety is more relevant than ever, too. Keep up the stellar work.
Thank you sir. I'm not sure about the whole one around trans as an ideology but I do like this anxiety one that kind of major overview of a key topic refracted through all these thinkers is massively ambitious but wow that would be an awesome bit of work!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I agree that transsexuality is too loaded, to hot, to discuss in any helpful way. It's funny because Baudrillard said in 1990, in the trans essay, everything that Peterson has said, or tried to say, yet Peterson considers all the French theorists to be imposters. This is my theory of Peterson, that his greatest fear is to be exposed as an imposter, a poser, and his fear met him halfway.
Awesome Danny it's funny just after you left this comment someone else messaged me about this creator. I'd never heard of him before but twice in one day very cool!
I’m curious to see if the 4th film will reveal itself as Neo’s deification being just another deeper level of the same simulation, and if there’s a sort of infinite # of levels the machines can populate, or if another “Neo” is needed to continue the fight. It’s kinda funny to think Baudrillard didn’t enjoy them simply for having misrepresented his idea, not enjoying an expansion of the conversation. You’d think imitation is at least somewhat flattering lol
Hahaha I know right! I'm the same. It got a lot of people talking about his work and he had the chance to get involved and bring it closer to his work but chose not to. It was an interesting decision to say the least. I'm also very curious to see what happens with Neo and simulation levels. Can't wait!
Good write up, i've always felt Baudrillard's critique was not of the best faith. As flawed as they are, the sequels were an attempt at criticising the first film and its central conceit That conversation Neo had with Councillor Hamman (who I speculated they wanted him for that role) in the second film was a quick boiling down of Buadrillard's central conceit of the first film. I suspected they wanted the whole council be casted as popular intellectuals but at the time I only recgonised Cornell West.
absolutely. I get it if he was just going off the first film but the second and third do a lot to honour his work. Interesting take with the council I hadn't thought of that before
"resistance is futile, the system is all engulfing". Isn't that a nihilistic vision? I mean, that is this way and just that? There is nothing to do? To cite another movie (a not good one): "We have front row tickets to the end of the Earth. It is time to embrace the horror." Just that? I remember watching (playing) Banndersnatch with my son and by 1 hour or so I said "this is an illusion, we have no real choice, we are not choosing any path, they cleverly makes us feel we are controlling the choices, but we aren't there is only one real path". And the character of the movie said: "I gave them the illusion of choice in the game.". My son got impressed. It took me to be 17 year or so to realize how manipulative movies and TV series are and how ironical is when they talk about those themes...just rambling...
The Matrix movies were great, but Baudrillard had the right to hate them as Wachowsky sisters (brothers then) quoted his work as the inspiration for a movie and a visual representation of the simulation, but matrix in movie isnt a simulation, it is an illusion, which is something totally different. You can see it especially in 2nd movie because we have matrix, the illusion the dream state and Zion the real world. With simulation there is no such distinction because as per Jean's definition, the real is something that can be copied, simulated, etc etc . The 2nd movie comes closer to some of Jean's thoughts how the two realities clashed and Neos powers actually crossed through to the real world via his connection to The Matrix (and agent Smith) hence having some access to machines mainframe. That being said Baudrillard was cynical and clearly stated that there is no actual escape from the simulation while Matrix message is incredible positive how you can break away from illusion free your mind. The world is big enough to both the phisolophy presented in the movie and Baudrillards to exist.
I didn't ever think the matrix was criticizing technology, tbh. At least not the first one. Being at war with sentient machines is not per se a condemnation of technology.
by his own reasoning his own book is a simulation - a tome of purported knowledge that, according to itself, cannot contain any because books are not themselves the thing they describe but only represent the thing. Thus upon completion or reading it, you may as well not have.
so overall, the movie directors took what they liked from his and such philosophies and made a movie that served theyr agenda and then claimed that were inspired of this and this work. its understandable that he doesnt like what they did. im sure hell agree with me when i say, the matrix is just philosophy porn.
Yeah.. I mean it’s his philosophy.. who is anybody to say anything about him having an opinion about interpretations of his personal philosophy.. you can’t say he’s wrong.. you can disagree.. but you’re bias due to your pop culture nostalgia..
I thought after the third movie it proved that zion is also a simulation and that we never saw a glimpse of the real world. Even Morphues said is this real at the end hinting that it's a simulation inside a simulation.
I see where you're coming from, but I can't help but feel he meant something like the difference between "real life" and what the metaverse will eventually look like, and that they'd in essence be indistinguishable. It seems a different take on a reality vs. simulation situation. I may be out of my depth but just felt like offering that perspective :)
@@sisyphus1326 yeah I hear you; it's like an extra layer of something indistinguishable that blocks access to that "real space", meant for authentic communication and exchange of emotions I see how like Instagram fakely showcases and monetizes how much happiness is expected out of its consumers through what's supposed to be people documenting their life experiences, the metaverse will push this to a new level. Does that track?
You make a valid point. That said I imagine JK Rowling's active involvement in the Harry Potter movies has left her quite happy while Baudrillard's aloofness was only ever going to leave a bad taste in his mouth
Thanks for the video! I found myself "wrecking my brain" just trying to read Simulacra Simulation. I don't know if it's the French to English translation, or Baudrillard being so cerebral my brain couldn't keep up.
I thought that Kant dispatched with notions of Reality quite nicely. Not sure what Baudrillard brought to the table beyond Representation (Schopenhauer), but I too found The Matrix a little dull.
Having imagination is like every other attribute of an Alpha species is a double-edged sword. Which does not make their products any more real. This preoccupation with the ‘possible’ underpins the post-modern distraction. Aka, Phenomenology. Where supermen exist and for the first time are dedicated to some higher vision of good. However the sole human ‘good’ is bright-mindedness in a system that prides humility. IOW thanks for any brilliant insight but it was never ‘theirs’, not to be owned by anyone because our outbreak of intelligence exists in an uncaring Cosmos and only a finely detailed understanding of its intricacy will provide a future. Reality remains constant, is linear, and progresses in one direction that we call time. Remember the dinosaurs, that is the only game in town. And not some hyper masculine fantasy. God cannot exist, by definition, so stop looking, especially under primordial rocks.
14:00 in terms of scale solely because of scale of coverage by basically any high budget hollywood movie? I mean, there's entire french new wave and film d'auteur in general, like Bergman, Robert Bresson, Pasolini, Tarkovsky etc. I think "in a way no other movie has" a bit of overstatement.
There is no actual escape possible from Baudrillard's concept of The Matrix. Seduction as a power of attraction and fascination able to subvert mechanical sexuality and "reality" could be part of the program (turtles all the way down) per the second film. One might even read the four films as ironic takes on this impossibility...very sexual and seductive takes on the banality of an escape.
He was not wrong per se though. While I do hold his whole premise and philosophy to be flawed, he was right about the first three failing to capture his ideas. However, Matrix 4 perfectly captured it and even moved past it whether intentionally or not.
I feel he was wrong about Postmodern art. Like he missed something. As for what that is, I cannot put my finger on it. But to reduce it down to a reflection of a reflection is to negate a lot of critical theory behind the art.
I think this would he great to revisit in light of the 4th Matrix movie. As a film I believe it goes straight to the issue of Baudrillard's criticism. In particular it is much clearer about the societal aspects of living in a simulation and persists at being vague about where the teal reality lies.
That would be an interesting topic Phil. I was thinking about his Disneyland spiel and the thought did cross my mind as potentially making a good video
14 years ago I never understood simulations of the hyper real. But since social media has taken over the world I have since understood it more completely
this was great, thank you so much for this vid. really enjoyed the concept here but id love to listen to them as well when i cant watch, are you on audea? was trying to find some of your content on there to listen to!
Thanks Jessie. I had been uploading them onto spotfy itunes etc but whatever I was using had a 90 day expiry. Been meaning to go back and reupload in a more permanent way. What's audea? Do you think that would work well?
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thanks for the reply. Perhaps A Clockwork Orange was more to Baudrillard's liking as a mirror of an actuality, the violence of a societal system in establishing an individual's identity before it's ready to emerge while being grudging with resources. Cheers.
In summary; to paraphrase Oolon Colluphid's trilogy: Where Baudrillard went wrong. Some More of Baudrillard's Greatest Mistakes Who is this Baudrillard Person Anyway
This was really interesting. Thanks for making this video. I don't know what to say besides the simulation is becoming aware of itself. I have seen behind the curtain and been outside the simulation (and I know of at least 2 others who also have). It shattered my ability to understand reality and took a couple years for me to be rooted back into my life. In the end, it doesn't matter that we are in a simulation, but being confronted by a truth you cannot comprehend will either deepen your understanding of the world or break you in the process. I don't really know who to speak with about this because to convince them would be to visit an unspeakable trauma upon them and things like this help me feel less alone with what I have seen.
Stephen King wrote Revival which i just finished, talks about this. Recommended. I had an experience last year that felt quite raw, and my evolution has been into a giving as much as possible person, like a pipeline opened and it'[s necessary to let the flow happen without assigning value too much, but observing the strong reactions and considering them. Being healthy is very helpful for instance processed sugar seems to leave an onion skin or mask, an overlay of cynicism, work with plants if possible. Light hand work is a blessing, it allows creativity to flow, the mind detached and wandering free. You've been given a great prize, lucky you.
Still unclear what he means by 'reality'. I imagine he means the enlightenment conception of that which can be objectively varified.. But perhaps I'll get a better idea of what he means if I examine his notion of Hyperreality. .
I can't resist this story from about the Sage Ashtavakra and King Janaka. One night this king Janaka is awakened by his servants telling him that the kingdom is under attack and he must get up and be ready for battle. However, his army is vanquished and he is made to leave his kingdom with just the clothes on his back. Hungry and in despair he comes to a kind of soup kitchen, but he's late so he's last in line. Finally he comes to the front of the line and although there is little left, they take pity on him, scapping the dreggs onto a banana leaf for him. But just as he's about to consume it a bird swoops down and knocks the food into the dust... Then Janaka falls to the ground in tears and despair.. and it's at that moment that he awakens in his bed, safe in the palace. The dream was so vivid however and being of a philosophical persuasion he can't get it out of his mind and so every time he's asked something he replies. "Is this real, or is that real" This goes on and finally word reaches this Sage Ashtavakra. Ashtavakra then asks Janaka if he has considered whether both are false. Since the one crying in the dust is no longer present and while in the dream there was no knowledge of being a King surrounded by luxury. Both belong to the world of ever changing appearances, of which one has no control.. waking or dreaming. The king astonished says. So what... is nothing real! Then Ashtavakra says, well king, there was one thing common to both states wasn't there and that is you, but not the you that is the waker or dreamer, you the unchanging Awareness. .
From what I’ve found online, the Baudrillardian Hyperreality is a/the real without an origin or reality. Consider our public images of people like Elon Musk; that is hyperreal. The idea of him being a Billionaire workaholic memelord isn’t actual Elon Musk if experienced in real time, but it is what is collectively perceived. Fast food is another example; the hyperreal being our perception of a thing that overwhelms an actual state of the thing. Politics as a whole covers hyperreal, in that, I’d imagine :P Cheekiness aside, I love the story of Janaka and Ashtavakra. Thanks for sharing it. I think his concept of reality is only conceptual, if the Simulation theory is taken as fact. Reality is something none of us has ever experienced, because post-modernism has wrapped us in perceived notions of things (hyperreal) rather than things themselves (real). I think?
@@matgonzalez6272 yeah, I see. It seems the concept of hyperreality is best applied to our cultural and political experience. That's what post modernism concerns itself with anyway, right? It's basically a critique of the certainties of modernism.. Cultural evolution could be seen as a process of more and more complexity. So that at the point of the post modern there is a highly conceptually layered, abstracted perception of everything. The idea of reality as the thing in itself is a very weak definition of reality. Its also very extroverted in orientation and away from any real examination of experience. I guess that was necessary for science in the enlightenment era to attempt a better level of objectivity, but obviously its something that post modernism can easily critique too.
@@michaelmcclure3383 I love that story of Ashtavakra and Janaka and actually I love this whole interaction in general. I think your last comment has put the right frame back on it. All of this is seeing a certain type of reality - the reality of modernity as you say. I'm moving back in a more Integral direction early in the new year going to look at Metamodernism and Wilber and especially Wilber's four quadrants in order to put this sort of stuff in a good frame because as you say in the story there's an experience there that never stops being real (and ironically Descartes pointed to it). Baudrillard is defeinitely focussed on this external intersocial idea of reality and that's just one part of the story so it'll be exciting to start looking at that and teasing it apart
I hated the Matrix for same reason that I hate Baudrillard's dismissal of the Matrix and why I am also suspicious of Baudrillard's entire project This quote by Simone Weil sums up my position, "Imaginary evil is romantic and varied; real evil is gloomy, monotonous, barren, boring." In my opinion, Baudrillard and the Matrix present fantastic, imaginary evils.
I'm a bit shocked that Baudrillard could watch a movie like the Matrix and take Morpheus's red pill/blue pill distinction as though it was meant to be taken literally. Actually, no, it isn't even assuming Morpheus is a word of God narrator establishing the mechanics of the movie's universe. The two options Morpheus presents are "wake up and believe whatever you want" or "see just how far the rabbit hole goes". Neither option is a cut and dry distinction between reality and illusion. Now I'm wondering if he actually watched the Matrix movies or merely created a simulation of them in his head based on reading about them...
Love the channel? Want early access and other stuff? Check out the Patreon page
💸 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy
⌛ Timestamps:
0:00 Introduction
0:58 #1 The Misrepresentation of The Matrix
5:13 #2 The Matrix would love The Matrix
8:23 #3 A Glimmer of Irony
10:34 Why Baudrillard is Wrong
13:32 Final Thoughts
We live in a stimulation. Now do something.
Can you redo Feminism v Womanism, I was very dissatisfied with it, and why is there no black philosophy, that is just as essential as continental philosophy
❤😊
When people try to make the argument that we all may be dreaming without realizing it, they always seem to radically underestimate the difference in clarity between "reality" and dreams. Sure, you can be "convinced" in a dream that the dream is real, but not _explicitly_ . You _act_ as if you think it's real, but you usually lack the capacity to even question it, which is significantly different from the state of being awake. If you were to start rigorously questioning while in the dream, it would then morph into a lucid dream. This kind of thing just doesn't happen in real life. That's not to mention that reality is far more consistent than any dream. Physics in real life appears to be infinitely consistent, while in a dream you tend to see clocks being nonsensical, you can suddenly find yourself in random locations, no matter how far apart, etc. While I have had the very rare dream in which one of these things is consistent, I've never had a dream in which _all_ of them worked consistently. The argument often seems to boil down into something like "Well, they're kinda sorta similar," and I personally just can't buy it.
this makes me feel like any time I'm questioning my reality is when I'm really seeing it, and any time I take it for granted it could be considered a kind of "simulation"
As a person from the dream world, I gotta say this "real world" you speak of is far too consistent which seems highly improbably to me. Unlike the dream world, where I'm from, where the rules are constantly shifting around as one would expect. I'm surprised people from this "real world" believe themselves capable of rigorously questioning it's existence, even though anything that stable and subject to reason could only be a reductive simulation. Anything as real as the dream world would be to transcendent to be subject to such questioning
Sure. But what we consider reality is based on our experiences of that which we consider reality. For example, the foundations of logic itself, cause & effect (i.e., the arrow of time; "if, then"). However, it is possible for a logical set to be a member of an a-logical set. When comparing that which we call reality to that which we call a dream, modernly the point isn't always to say, "This could all just be a dream," but "just as this seems more real than dreaming, there could be a layer of reality that is more real than this."
Sure, in dreams we tend not to question things and here we can (though most don't most of the time). But, without direct experience of a potential actual reality (or even without any memory of that experience) foundational to this one (just as this one is foundational to the dream state), then we don't know what we can do there that we can't here. How can we be sure there is no analogue of lucid dreaming to our everyday experience? "Lucid wake," I suppose.
In the end, we cannot use the mechanics of a system to prove itself. Logic is foundation of physics; neither can say anything about that which is "beyond" or foundational or "more real than" them.
Ah well, Baudrillard famously crapped on everything. That was his thing. To expect him to do anything else would be unreasonable lol. The fact he took the time out to be critical of the film was probably to him high praise, as he saw it. Though I do agree with him to some degree, I thought the films took themselves and the mythology they were operating in a bit too literally. And the end of the third film where Trinity died in such a pathetic way seemed to undo the previous two films climaxes, where Neo and Trinity resurrected each other. Then to have Neo sacrifice himself to preserve the Matrix... it seemed like they had completely betrayed the earlier message of the first film. That he would now give in to his fate, thus proving the Architect was right all along. It's quite chilling in fact. The only happy aspect lies with the small hope that someday maybe the machines and humans could learn to coexist, after Neo sacrificed himself to save both worlds. That's the story they should have put more emphasis on, but it seems to have gotten lost in all the effects driven spectacle. In that way I have to agree with Baudrillard. The Matrix was in fact created by something that the Matrix would have created, and that is Hollywood. The Wachowskis for all their posturing as outsiders and rebels are only able to continue making horrible films that do horrendously at the box office because they are well connected with the Hollywood elites. If they were just regular people making activist type films critical of the status quo, they'd never be able to make huge blockbuster films. They are an inherent part of the system they are criticizing, and they are using the medium of the blockbuster action film to sell the idea of Resistance against the System, as a replacement for any real change to the system. People watch the film thinking they are now part of a virtual Resistance movement against the Matrix, when in fact that energy has been redirected to turn them into passive observers of a spectacle which sells them the Illusion of a Resistance Movement, not an actual one. So in some ways, the Matrix movies are even more diabolical than the Matrix itself. But that's what capitalism does, it monetizes everything, even rebelliousness against it.
I like to think individuals monetize themselves. And push come to shove most people who talk about rebellion don’t really believe in it at all. Hey his systems great, I get to line my pockets, live in a mansion, drive fast cars, and get hot chicks to ride my…. That I would not otherwise get without money. But hey I can look cool and pretend that I want the system destroyed but in reality I know the system will not be destroyed and I might even help to perpetuate it. These type of people create their own simulacrum and blur the distinction between simulation and reality, the hyper reality is I am good and I care.
Don't blame it on Capitalism.
@@anthonyagureyev307curious what would you blame it on instead? if anything?
@@mabonman Rejection of Jesus Christ (the Word of God - the truth).
@@crutherfordmusicWhat is the word of god? Have you heard it?
Great to hear from someone with enough depth to see the whole trilogy as great and not just the first film. I watched all three on DVD for the first time around 2010. Perhaps that is why I like all three (I never got caught up in the whole discussion of them and didn't need to wonder what the sequels would be like). I am definitely not philosophically gifted, so I like when I hear philosophers happen to see things similarly to me (I think).
Yeah I agree Philip I think you gotta see them as a trilogy and then a lot of the criticisms meet their response
The latest movie started strong. It attempted to make you feel like you (the viewer) are in the Matrix - thus a strong feeling of hyperrealism. And it ended somewhat optimistic - the acceptance of Neo and Trinity being hyperreal, yet making the most out of it by designing the Matrix, even though the Analyst ridiculed it from a rational standpoint. The merging of reality and illusion doesn't seem that bad.
Perhaps that was the intended message: Reality and illusion imploded. And we are left to make the most out of it. Neo and Trinity flew. And we enjoyed a hyperrealist movie.
Exactly. This is why Matrix 4 is a success to me. They finally captured the message of Simulation and Simulacra and yet also showed why it was ultimately a false message and premise whether intentionally or not.
It was an absolute farce, and was inteded to fail. I'm glad some redeeming philosophical points glimmered through, but ultimately it was a chore to watch and a very far cry from what made the matrix films good.
@@HolyMith wrong
@@kotzupdates Well that was childish. Care to enlighten me?
@@HolyMith
Perhaps it was a childish response, but it was also a fitting one.
Your comment boils down to "The movie was bad and meant to fail, there were some good philosophical points, but the movie sucked." -- I doubt the commenter disagreed with the part about good philosophical points, so...
What more does someone need to say to disagree with such unsubstantiated claims?
Sure, they didn't give you much to work with, but you didn't provide much to begin with ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Of course Baudrillard said that. He’s a self-admitted nihilist - why would he like a movie that’s supposedly about his works, that creates a new grand narrative (while relying on a relatable and classic mythos), where the machine world must be made to accept its human slaves? Or, in other words, what problem does Baudrillard find here, in a story where humanity creates the perfect slaves, who in turn enslave their former masters, yet the new masters still need (rely upon) their former slaves? This is the dichotomy of modern man being both slave and master, or, two souls occupying one body, where man cannot (morally) reconcile his position therein, ie, his own existence (cue the nihilists, pessimists, and religious thinkers to suffer the spinning of their own wheels), because even their own assumptions, definitions and aims begin to make no sense, and become irreconcilable. Answer: because Baudrillard sees the machine, the system, the state (ie, normal human life as it has generally functioned forever), as the problem, but as with most people of his temperament, he doesn't in fact have a real answer or solution to any of the problems he asserts as problems, which arguably, aren't problems - it's just what modern normal life is like.
I don’t think Baudrillard even gets it, to be frank, and the Wachowskis also seemed to misunderstand or mistake their own genius in the Matrix trilogy as well (and yes, I say all this having watched the Wachowskis mistake what fans loved about the original movie, and I also watched Baudrillard chase his tail in Simulacrum and Simulation). I’m beginning to think if we put enough “posts” in front of modern, we’ll be back to normal again, and what I mean is, I question when people will stop being so astounded with inevitable change and flux, and accept their existence as “normal,” in the “normal” world, but I know thinkers like jargon and coining new “ages.” It reminds me that even the modern “rebel” or “revolutionary,” even crazy Uncle Ted - they want to smash the control machine? No they don’t. They feed it every day, just like we’re doing here, and that’s normal and “real life” every day, whether people like it or not (from moral or immoral perspectives). It’s a millennia old proposition, that the rebel rebels, until even he is accepted and assimilated, thus he is no longer a rebel, and the “system” (or state) must find its balance with him, lest he find it disagreeable to the point that it needs to be destroyed again, but if these are perpetual problems, they aren't in fact problems, but the nature of life (us, humans, as beyond tribal animals, but state-building ones). What postmodernists often miss, is that postmodernism itself is not an answer or solution in any real matter, but closer to cosmic horror and relativism finding it’s home in philosophy (Nietzsche threw these doors wide open). That is to say, perpetual rebellion is not meaningful rebellion, it's just chaos normalized, because all the things that the moralist (yes, many postmoderns are moralists, hence their endless concern trolling) philosophers supposedly care about (morals, justice, community, "the real," etc.) mean nothing, become impotent and ineffectual, when chaos and anarchy reigns, and you're left asking, yes, where to find the melody in the white noise of endless complaints, protests, and issues that are down the memory-hole before tomorrow even arrives? To quote David Foster Wallace - it’s like voting for Stalin, to end voting - just how does one do that? But as the other postmodernists make clear, the more broadcast signal we produce and hear, the harder it is to make sense of it all; the more people that connect to a system, increases the complexity and chaos, it doesn't decrease it. Our life as seen, viewed, consumed, and produced through televisual culture is our “new normal.” What would people even go back to, or what could they create anew, that they haven’t created yet? Just because the waters are muddied, and continually further muddied, doesn't mean people stop yearning for connection, the real, the sincere, the authentic. The Wachowskis were as sincere in the creation of the Matrix as Baudrillard was in S&S, even if Baudrillard clearly enjoys the fact that he can run intellectual circles around most people, delighting in his mischievousness.
I mean, didn't Baudrillard read Plato? We've turned the bug into a feature, and we call it THE REPUBLIC, or in The Matrix's case, NEO AND THE HUMAN REBELLION. Or, how about Nietzsche's essays on the Early Greek Philosophers? Even a Baudrillard is advocating for the STATE and the SYSTEM, whether he realizes or acknowledges it or not, since the end result of all human systems, namely the state and its state-owned education, has been to constrain and regulate people to itself, forces that are often hostile and sketchy at best, and people pick up this task willingly and gladly, to serve said state and its people (if its not the present state, then its the bigger, better one to come).
And if anyone is wondering why I bothered to post such a long reply, well, I love this topic, have written much about it, and even covered it in guest podcasts on other people's channels. Awesome video, TLP. Keep up the good work.
"Of course Baudrillard said that. He’s a self-admitted nihilist" OMG. after that point, reading your crap is useless.
@@thibaulta.6167 You're useless.
Fantastic. Starting Simulacra and Simulation today, and watching Matrix 4 soon: happy to be entering it with this new (to me) perspective to add to my appreciation.
Delighted to hear it! Hope this helps you on your journey a little!
You've come a long way from Nickelback.
Well I never made it as a wise man and I couldn't cut it as a poor man stealing. So I decided to become a youtuber 😆
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Brilliant! Love your work, by the way!
Does Baudrillard ever propose a way out of the conundrum? Does he even think there is one? I don't see a way out other than being omniscient, and since we are not then we must just muddle through and enjoy the steak even though we are not sure it is real. At least it tastes good.
I had asked a similar question on the last video, and that was kinda the conclusion. Baudrillard’s idea (as it was explained) is that we couldn’t ever possibly “get out”, and any semblance of “getting out” would be akin to the “world” Zion exists in also having been part of the simulation, and only being a further part of the illusion.
Yeah he doesn't think there's any way back to the real as Mat pointed out but what he does see and I haven't fully understood this part of his thought yet but he sees a value in a certain sort of rebellion. He ends that 2004 interview with the line "For reversibility, challenge and
seduction are indestructible" and it's his philosophy of seduction that holds the counterpole to the idea of the hyperreal. This is also where the idea of the “glimmer of irony that would allow viewers to turn this gigantic special effect on its head.” There's no chance of a reconnection with the real but there is a chance to rebel against the monopolistic power of the system. I'm probably misunderstanding him here without knowing enough but this is the general direction as far as I'm aware
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Sounds like another video on Baudrillard is needed :)
@Gwyddion Flint very good point. It is the same problem associated with oppression-narrative-based negative identities.
Labor struggle.
john b was tripping. it's a movie. not a novel...get with the picture. missed the point? As if the movie was supposed to be an exact representation of his book. it was supplemented reading. not a movie on the book. appreciate his contribution but as an artist, guy needs to take a walk. also dude...like i think you could simplify the script a bit more.
I have started reading Badrillard and it’s true that his work makes the whole of Matrix meaningless. He disputes the reality of politics, media. Really his work is rather peacemaking while the movie is nourishing the conflict. I think everyone should read some parts from Badrillard
Baudrillard is a very interesting thinker. I think your analysis is quite biased and shows too much your love for these movies. The second criticism is evidently the most important and you agree with it, but just decided not to put the emphasis there. The movies are so popular because they exploit and enforce the fascination for the simulation. They are indeed not a real criticism of it. That should worry a philosopher who cares for truth. This hypocrisy can also be deduced from the fact that eventually there is no resistance allowed to be possible within this matrix universe that wants you to believe they can reduce everything to numbers. Apart from the terrible acting, the ludicrous fighting scenes, the depressive message and the religious fascination for technology and simulation, I never liked this story because it only helps to deepen the glorification for simulations in our lives. even more. If they would not have done so, and would have offered a real critic, they could not have become popular as they would have collided with the craving and addiction for simulations that exists in the general population. The fake hero Neo is just your average person who thinks he can “wake up” by taking a pill and download super powers, all without much effort. It already contains the ingredients that would manifest in the form of “the Secret” and other pseudo-spiritual programs based in simulation religion. Why would one expect a real thinker like Baudrillard to applaud such consumer goods? If it causes the same shallow reflections that have to pass for philosophy all over the world, they are merely part of the machinery that produces quantity but no quality.
This is why Baudrillard was the last vestige of the real in an age of hyper reality, Most thinkers would have been flattered, would have endorsed the movie, helped with publicity, basked in the fame - but not Baudrillard.
And Baudrillard was exactly right, you don't resist the hyper real with the hyper real, with CGI, with cod Buddhist philosophy, with Keanu Reeves for fuck sake.
Baudrillard would have seen The Matrix as a simulation of his ideas, a hyper real approximation. And not a very good one at that.
The disturbing thing from Baudrillard's point of view, wasn't that popular culture was becoming hollow, as hollowness had always been part of pop culture, but rather the best cinema had to offer, the height of its artistic expression, was becoming more and more superficial.
Films he admitted were brilliant - seemed too brilliant, films by Kubrick for instance, that are just artistically perfect, but ultimately soulless, Wherein the meaning plays second fiddle to the visuals. The meaning just a guise, a means by which to explore the post modern aesthetic. The meaning just part of the seamless modular. Or rather the message of the movie just becomes another aesthetic. Form and content morphing into each other in an immaculate rendition.
Well done. Now you’re just showing off and flexing that philosophical mind of yours…yes, I had a hard time keeping up and I still haven’t read his book.
Hahaha I'm just harvesting some of the head-wrecking studies of Baudrillard to try and make some fruit of them! I'm probably in the terrible middle ground where the people who understand him think I'm completely messing it up and the people who are just encountering him can't understand what I'm saying 😆
Pretty much. But not completely understanding him is a good thing. Kind of like Heidegger, I’m totally ok with not getting him…there’s ultimate no point, no truth to be found. A self aggrandizing sophist is easy to find and I cringe any time I catch myself. You do quite well not being one and I thank you for that
@@OneConsciousnessWithAaron Hahaha well I'm glad that my lack of understanding has a positive side effect then of showing that I'm not just talking out my ass that's good! Thanks Aaron!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy indeed!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy hi James. I still don’t know how to just email or message you outside of this medium. Stumbled across this documentary and was wondering if you were aware of it. Rather interesting and possibly relates to the subject matter. I think so. I remember hearing in your 10, 000 subscriber special that you have had a least one psychedelic experience. Let me know what you think. th-cam.com/video/SniI1RjTaL8/w-d-xo.html
Very happy you have (successfully in my estimation) defended the Matrix trilogy since they are some of my favorite movies. I seem to remember that Baudrillard declined to be involved in the making of the second and third movies of the trilogy because of the misinterpretation he saw in the first. My suspicion is that he might have changed his mind after seeing the finished product.
Ah thank you! They are indeed wonderful movies. I would have thought the same but in the interview he goes after the second just as much as the first. It almost seems like he was determined not to like them
@@TheLivingPhilosophy My theory is that he just got old and stubborn.
No he still hated it lol
Were the Matrix movies at some point against technology?
Even if criticism #2 is in some sense "correct", I don't know that I'd call it valid. Literally *any* film capable of the sort of outreach The Matrix had in the late '90s was inevitably the sort of film about the Matrix that the Matrix would love. As Baudrillard himself points out: the system inescapably consumes all, incorporates everything into itself, including critiques of itself. I think it's a petty and unfair criticism.
I think the only ultimate benchmark of the trilogy's success is its ability to inspire discussions of these difficult ideas in the general population. And it succeeded admirably, almost miraculously--not only did the notion that something like the Matrix exists in the form of ideology reach popular awareness, the more particular notion that it *might not be possible to escape it* even in principle reached popular awareness. That's quite a remarkable feat.
100% agreed. That's what I really admire about the Matrix - not that it's this perfect work of philosophical integrity but that it has done so much for the cause of philosophy itself. It has gotten people talking and thinking about this and it's incredibly valuable just for that. And it has also joined 1984 and Brave New World as part of the language of our culture when looking at possible futures
"the more particular notion that it might not be possible to escape it even in principle reached popular awareness"
Maybe that's what Baudrillard hated about it? The notion that there is no hope of escape.
The movie references Popper. So applying poppers 3 spheres of reality would perfectly suggest the “real” world wasn’t real all along and the matrix was a smokescreen to keep the machines busy and the machines were stuck in this matrix NOT the humans. Possibly none of the characters even existed at all but to the machines they did
Wow. IDK how I never thought of this take!
I suppose such a well constructed prison would never make mention of the possibility of this, so we the viewers wouldn't have anything directly indicating it. We'd have to come up with the solution ourselves (or otherwise come across the idea as I just have).
Das world is my ideas and their representations because what I believe about life and das universe becomes true for me since life is a dream comes true.
Break de flower-tipped arrows of Mara and death will never touch me again.
Will Braudilliard feel more represented by Schwarzenegger's Minority Report?
That was Tom Cruise.
@@anubusx 😂😂 oh true, I forgot that movie exist! The Schwarzeneggers version is previous to that, and an amazing action-sci-fi movie!
@@PabloskyS84
Same with how Judge Dredd and The Demolition Man are so alike.
The guy was wrong because you apparently know his ideas better than him.
like 99% of people talking about Baudrillard's work
I've only seen the first film so I can't comment on the other two, but it's disappointing to know that Baudrillard was offered to consult on the second film but turned them down. Film for me is an incredible medium to convey philosophy. For me this was clear in the films of Ingmar Bergman, Stanley Kubrick, and Paul Thomas Anderson. Sure there are limitations, you can't expect a large scale manifesto, but through visuals and storytelling these messages can be more easily pressed into our memory more so than a book can accomplish, in my opinion.
A movie worths 1111111 words if it is good.
100% I really can't understand why he didn't get on board. But maybe it's for the best. I am amazed though that someone like him who loved movies so much and talked so much about them wasn't tempted with a little audacity and attempting to make a beautiful philosophical movie. Never seen any Ingmar Bergman actually. Any movies of his you'd recommend in particular?
It's understandable. As a writer you have your favorite medium that are book. Books existed before movies were even invented. Books are where good stories come from, not movies. Movies most often just adapt them.
If you are a bit familiar with IT, transferring from analog to digital, some information always gets lost by the process.
Same can be said here. If you adapt from a book to a movie, things that are open to interpretation get lost, cause you as a movie creator have to fill the gaps that otherwise your brain would fill. Therefore letting no room for subjective fantasy.
Also just go to The Witcher. Also very famous game and show but the original writer of Geralt and his stories hates the others mediums.
As a writer you often have other goals than as a movie creator. As a movie creator you need a shit ton of money, therefore you cant just make a movie and dont care how it will do on the box office. Writing a book often just takes time. You can totally focus on the purpose and why you want to write it. Keep in mind, theses are generalisations, doesnt mean there arent outliners or exceptions every now and then on both camps. Cause there are plenty.
@@drshepherd6567 Ah that's a great take. And funny you bring up the Witcher because I've watched the series and I've read the books and it's one of those rare examples where I love the tv adaptation far more than the books. I just find the books to be not quite as...coherent as a whole and the series seems to be tightening up his work. Haven't played the games so can't come. As for the books vs movies thing I guess you are right although publishing houses aren't so open to new talent and new ideas as they used to be given the nature of the market so maybe this is changing as well but definitely it's easier to make a book that nobody will read than to make a movie that nobody will watch. As you say though sometimes people find a way to make excellent art no matter the medium
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Can't say for sure what Ingmar Bergman movies PhilosophyToons was thinking of, but it was probably Seventh Seal, and I also recommend it.
Fudge! I didnt know half of the stuff discussed here and I consider myself an film critic and watched the movies as a teenager when they came out. I never knew they were based on a book prior to that so I never got that reference in the movie when he opens the book and the more shocking thing to me is, that I was sure there is a distinction between simulated and real. I never thought of that the rebellion world in the future 2199 could or is also simulated. Might be my brain not remembering it. I havent watched the movies since 10 years. Time to rewatch them. And I might order the book in my language.
Ah that's amazing! Well it'll give you a whole new way of looking at the movies this time round. Also interesting that the chapter On Nihilism that you see Neo flip open to is at the back of the book in real life so that's also significant. All sorts of little gems connecting the movies to Baudrillard. Great movies and it's a good time to do a rewatch with #4 coming out!
@Gwyddion Flint there is always someone nitpicky who has to take everything very literally. It was a figure of speech. it was "inspired" by the book! Happy now? They got many ideas and the main idea behind the matrix from the book.
@Gwyddion Flint Simple answer. The writers wouldnt make actors read the book before taping and even add scenes referencing the author if they had a super idea on their own and just accidently stumbled on the book later on in the process of making the movie. Its more likely the other way around and that they read the book, it gave them an inspiration and then came to the idea making a movie out of it. Why else even mention it.
I have an idea for a show. I just read Baudrillard's essay on transsexuality and it's more relevant than ever. I doubt I'm not the only centrist who is suspicious of transsexuality as ideology and even more suspicious of sexual liberation as ideology. It's a huge subject and might be tough to crystallize into something useful for beginners. The other idea for a show is What is Anxiety?....Kierkegaard, Lacan, Neitzche, Heidegger and Buddha all have wonderful insights into anxiety. Anxiety is more relevant than ever, too. Keep up the stellar work.
Thank you sir. I'm not sure about the whole one around trans as an ideology but I do like this anxiety one that kind of major overview of a key topic refracted through all these thinkers is massively ambitious but wow that would be an awesome bit of work!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I agree that transsexuality is too loaded, to hot, to discuss in any helpful way. It's funny because Baudrillard said in 1990, in the trans essay, everything that Peterson has said, or tried to say, yet Peterson considers all the French theorists to be imposters. This is my theory of Peterson, that his greatest fear is to be exposed as an imposter, a poser, and his fear met him halfway.
Excellent analysis! Can't wait until Resurrections drops!
I can wait;
I can fast;
I can think:
I think de matrix is diagonalizable.
I know right! Really looking forward to it. Very curious to see what happens!
The density of the spider's web, is conversely equivalent to the density of the web inside the victims heads. A global second order simulation.
James, another TH-cam channel called ‘The Quintessential Mind’ has posted a video on The Matrix too. You may find it interesting?
Awesome Danny it's funny just after you left this comment someone else messaged me about this creator. I'd never heard of him before but twice in one day very cool!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy oh and naturally I told him about your channel too! Sharing is caring 😂
@@dlloydy5356 hahaha naturally! The community must grow!
I’m curious to see if the 4th film will reveal itself as Neo’s deification being just another deeper level of the same simulation, and if there’s a sort of infinite # of levels the machines can populate, or if another “Neo” is needed to continue the fight.
It’s kinda funny to think Baudrillard didn’t enjoy them simply for having misrepresented his idea, not enjoying an expansion of the conversation. You’d think imitation is at least somewhat flattering lol
Hahaha I know right! I'm the same. It got a lot of people talking about his work and he had the chance to get involved and bring it closer to his work but chose not to. It was an interesting decision to say the least. I'm also very curious to see what happens with Neo and simulation levels. Can't wait!
Good write up, i've always felt Baudrillard's critique was not of the best faith.
As flawed as they are, the sequels were an attempt at criticising the first film and its central conceit
That conversation Neo had with Councillor Hamman (who I speculated they wanted him for that role) in the second film was a quick boiling down of Buadrillard's central conceit of the first film.
I suspected they wanted the whole council be casted as popular intellectuals but at the time I only recgonised Cornell West.
absolutely. I get it if he was just going off the first film but the second and third do a lot to honour his work. Interesting take with the council I hadn't thought of that before
They could have just slaughtered all humans and used cows as their energy source. That's the real problem with this movie.
"resistance is futile, the system is all engulfing". Isn't that a nihilistic vision? I mean, that is this way and just that? There is nothing to do? To cite another movie (a not good one): "We have front row tickets to the end of the Earth. It is time to embrace the horror." Just that? I remember watching (playing) Banndersnatch with my son and by 1 hour or so I said "this is an illusion, we have no real choice, we are not choosing any path, they cleverly makes us feel we are controlling the choices, but we aren't there is only one real path". And the character of the movie said: "I gave them the illusion of choice in the game.". My son got impressed. It took me to be 17 year or so to realize how manipulative movies and TV series are and how ironical is when they talk about those themes...just rambling...
The Matrix movies were great, but Baudrillard had the right to hate them as Wachowsky sisters (brothers then) quoted his work as the inspiration for a movie and a visual representation of the simulation, but matrix in movie isnt a simulation, it is an illusion, which is something totally different. You can see it especially in 2nd movie because we have matrix, the illusion the dream state and Zion the real world. With simulation there is no such distinction because as per Jean's definition, the real is something that can be copied, simulated, etc etc . The 2nd movie comes closer to some of Jean's thoughts how the two realities clashed and Neos powers actually crossed through to the real world via his connection to The Matrix (and agent Smith) hence having some access to machines mainframe. That being said Baudrillard was cynical and clearly stated that there is no actual escape from the simulation while Matrix message is incredible positive how you can break away from illusion free your mind.
The world is big enough to both the phisolophy presented in the movie and Baudrillards to exist.
I didn't ever think the matrix was criticizing technology, tbh. At least not the first one. Being at war with sentient machines is not per se a condemnation of technology.
I do agree with the philosophical stance of boudrillard. Post modernism realized something that the old likes ok Kant or Plato could not
by his own reasoning his own book is a simulation - a tome of purported knowledge that, according to itself, cannot contain any because books are not themselves the thing they describe but only represent the thing. Thus upon completion or reading it, you may as well not have.
so overall, the movie directors took what they liked from his and such philosophies and made a movie that served theyr agenda and then claimed that were inspired of this and this work. its understandable that he doesnt like what they did.
im sure hell agree with me when i say, the matrix is just philosophy porn.
Then Matrix 4 Resurrections reveals the final nostalgia for the real: transgenderism.
Yeah.. I mean it’s his philosophy.. who is anybody to say anything about him having an opinion about interpretations of his personal philosophy.. you can’t say he’s wrong.. you can disagree.. but you’re bias due to your pop culture nostalgia..
bro no one watched the 3rd movie 🤮 video seems like a troll to fool people into watching it. entire arguments rests on ''watch the 3rd movie'. no 👉🚪
I thought after the third movie it proved that zion is also a simulation and that we never saw a glimpse of the real world. Even Morphues said is this real at the end hinting that it's a simulation inside a simulation.
Well at least he waited till the 3rd movie was out before commenting it might have hurt sale
Farming electricity from humans is not cost affective, nor will it ever be.
He wasn't wrong. Modern day philosophers have no clue what illusion is.
A sign of a small minded person is to hate that which doesn’t agree with his own ideologies.
so what is Baurdillard's chosen form of rebellion in action?
Its okay to understand the movies job is to sell tickets...
bro you look like you did pot once and ur mind was blown and it stayed blown
Love this guy. He’s a true philosopher. Always thought provoking.
He's a commentator. What philosophy has he developed and espoused?
Wow and here I thought it was all about transgender changes.
Lol. By #3 you are going straight strawman.
I see where you're coming from, but I can't help but feel he meant something like the difference between "real life" and what the metaverse will eventually look like, and that they'd in essence be indistinguishable. It seems a different take on a reality vs. simulation situation.
I may be out of my depth but just felt like offering that perspective :)
@@sisyphus1326 yeah I hear you; it's like an extra layer of something indistinguishable that blocks access to that "real space", meant for authentic communication and exchange of emotions
I see how like Instagram fakely showcases and monetizes how much happiness is expected out of its consumers through what's supposed to be people documenting their life experiences, the metaverse will push this to a new level.
Does that track?
@@sisyphus1326 gigantic fingers crossed my friend
Its almost like you didn't undersdand his criticism an just made this video cause you knew large chunks of fanboys would just.. : agree
Like you just move the goal poses then said baudrillard was wrong.
The matrix is a.i and commercialism.
Dude, you look like a beautiful mare.
That you have to consciously look for reality is quit disturbing.. the fact that it doesn't exist is even more so. Thanks a lot Baudrillard.
Haha I know right! Come on Baudrillard 😂
So now, do you take it or not?
@@xarlozm I take it ironically
@@danielhathaway43 Hahaha that's a gem of a response. The red pill promises a more interesting adventure if nothing else. Also - kung fu
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Let's not forget Guns. Lots of guns. That is the only really prescient part of the film.
Thank you so much for these amazing deep dives:) I am writing a paper for school, and this helps to understand it all so much more!!!
Delighted to hear it!
Unless they get paid how many authors like adaptations of their works?
You make a valid point. That said I imagine JK Rowling's active involvement in the Harry Potter movies has left her quite happy while Baudrillard's aloofness was only ever going to leave a bad taste in his mouth
One of the best videos that I've seen lately about Matrix, really interesting stuff. I'm gonna subscribe!
Delighted to hear it Razumijin!
I’ve never seen any of the matrix movies.
Remake it!
Thanks for the video! I found myself "wrecking my brain" just trying to read Simulacra Simulation. I don't know if it's the French to English translation, or Baudrillard being so cerebral my brain couldn't keep up.
I thought that Kant dispatched with notions of Reality quite nicely. Not sure what Baudrillard brought to the table beyond Representation (Schopenhauer), but I too found The Matrix a little dull.
Having imagination is like every other attribute of an Alpha species is a double-edged sword. Which does not make their products any more real. This preoccupation with the ‘possible’ underpins the post-modern distraction. Aka, Phenomenology. Where supermen exist and for the first time are dedicated to some higher vision of good.
However the sole human ‘good’ is bright-mindedness in a system that prides humility. IOW thanks for any brilliant insight but it was never ‘theirs’, not to be owned by anyone because our outbreak of intelligence exists in an uncaring Cosmos and only a finely detailed understanding of its intricacy will provide a future. Reality remains constant, is linear, and progresses in one direction that we call time. Remember the dinosaurs, that is the only game in town. And not some hyper masculine fantasy. God cannot exist, by definition, so stop looking, especially under primordial rocks.
14:00 in terms of scale solely because of scale of coverage by basically any high budget hollywood movie? I mean, there's entire french new wave and film d'auteur in general, like Bergman, Robert Bresson, Pasolini, Tarkovsky etc. I think "in a way no other movie has" a bit of overstatement.
There is no actual escape possible from Baudrillard's concept of The Matrix. Seduction as a power of attraction and fascination able to subvert mechanical sexuality and "reality" could be part of the program (turtles all the way down) per the second film. One might even read the four films as ironic takes on this impossibility...very sexual and seductive takes on the banality of an escape.
Baudrillard is a pretentious jerk. The Matrix (the first one only) is a great film, the sequels are absolute gash.
He was not wrong per se though. While I do hold his whole premise and philosophy to be flawed, he was right about the first three failing to capture his ideas.
However, Matrix 4 perfectly captured it and even moved past it whether intentionally or not.
So would "Inspection" be a better example of what Baudrillard is looking for?
Amazing
I feel he was wrong about Postmodern art. Like he missed something. As for what that is, I cannot put my finger on it. But to reduce it down to a reflection of a reflection is to negate a lot of critical theory behind the art.
I think this would he great to revisit in light of the 4th Matrix movie.
As a film I believe it goes straight to the issue of Baudrillard's criticism. In particular it is much clearer about the societal aspects of living in a simulation and persists at being vague about where the teal reality lies.
Q&A
Can't help it but I have to say it now: I love your hair. It's so beautiful and suits you so well.
Video on Baudrillard's 'America'?
That would be an interesting topic Phil. I was thinking about his Disneyland spiel and the thought did cross my mind as potentially making a good video
Consider the Matrix being analogous to ego and the red pill to waking up to the true self.
Postmodernists are hypocrites.
Wrong. WE, we are all hypocrites (in Venom,s voice lol)
14 years ago I never understood simulations of the hyper real. But since social media has taken over the world I have since understood it more completely
Congratulations on 12k subscribers! Keep on trucking! Also a merry Christmas to you! ☃️🎄
Thanks Bill! Merry Christmas to you!
Baudrillard quotes on point.
This video is awesome.
this was great, thank you so much for this vid. really enjoyed the concept here but id love to listen to them as well when i cant watch, are you on audea? was trying to find some of your content on there to listen to!
Thanks Jessie. I had been uploading them onto spotfy itunes etc but whatever I was using had a 90 day expiry. Been meaning to go back and reupload in a more permanent way. What's audea? Do you think that would work well?
Very interesting analysis!
I wonder if Lacan and Baudrillard are referring to the same _Real_
Good question
A Clockwork Orange inspired much conversation. Thanks for the talk, good insights.
That did also come to my mind actually I guess Kubrick just knew how to make a thought provoker!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thanks for the reply. Perhaps A Clockwork Orange was more to Baudrillard's liking as a mirror of an actuality, the violence of a societal system in establishing an individual's identity before it's ready to emerge while being grudging with resources. Cheers.
In summary; to paraphrase Oolon Colluphid's trilogy:
Where Baudrillard went wrong.
Some More of Baudrillard's Greatest Mistakes
Who is this Baudrillard Person Anyway
Great video! Just followed you!
Thanks Philipp!
Beautiful presentation and great analysis!
Thank you!
This was really interesting. Thanks for making this video. I don't know what to say besides the simulation is becoming aware of itself. I have seen behind the curtain and been outside the simulation (and I know of at least 2 others who also have). It shattered my ability to understand reality and took a couple years for me to be rooted back into my life. In the end, it doesn't matter that we are in a simulation, but being confronted by a truth you cannot comprehend will either deepen your understanding of the world or break you in the process. I don't really know who to speak with about this because to convince them would be to visit an unspeakable trauma upon them and things like this help me feel less alone with what I have seen.
How exactly have you been outside of the simulation? I'm genuinely interested about your story
as am I
You simulated the feeling of being outside of the simulation.
Stephen King wrote Revival which i just finished, talks about this. Recommended. I had an experience last year that felt quite raw, and my evolution has been into a giving as much as possible person, like a pipeline opened and it'[s necessary to let the flow happen without assigning value too much, but observing the strong reactions and considering them. Being healthy is very helpful for instance processed sugar seems to leave an onion skin or mask, an overlay of cynicism, work with plants if possible. Light hand work is a blessing, it allows creativity to flow, the mind detached and wandering free. You've been given a great prize, lucky you.
"The Empire never ended."
Still unclear what he means by 'reality'. I imagine he means the enlightenment conception of that which can be objectively varified..
But perhaps I'll get a better idea of what he means if I examine his notion of Hyperreality. .
Life is not a matrix because life is a reality to be experienced because experience is de teacher of everything in das universe.
I can't resist this story from about the Sage Ashtavakra and King Janaka.
One night this king Janaka is awakened by his servants telling him that the kingdom is under attack and he must get up and be ready for battle. However, his army is vanquished and he is made to leave his kingdom with just the clothes on his back. Hungry and in despair he comes to a kind of soup kitchen, but he's late so he's last in line. Finally he comes to the front of the line and although there is little left, they take pity on him, scapping the dreggs onto a banana leaf for him. But just as he's about to consume it a bird swoops down and knocks the food into the dust... Then Janaka falls to the ground in tears and despair.. and it's at that moment that he awakens in his bed, safe in the palace.
The dream was so vivid however and being of a philosophical persuasion he can't get it out of his mind and so every time he's asked something he replies. "Is this real, or is that real" This goes on and finally word reaches this Sage Ashtavakra. Ashtavakra then asks Janaka if he has considered whether both are false. Since the one crying in the dust is no longer present and while in the dream there was no knowledge of being a King surrounded by luxury. Both belong to the world of ever changing appearances, of which one has no control.. waking or dreaming. The king astonished says. So what... is nothing real! Then Ashtavakra says, well king, there was one thing common to both states wasn't there and that is you, but not the you that is the waker or dreamer, you the unchanging Awareness. .
From what I’ve found online, the Baudrillardian Hyperreality is a/the real without an origin or reality. Consider our public images of people like Elon Musk; that is hyperreal. The idea of him being a Billionaire workaholic memelord isn’t actual Elon Musk if experienced in real time, but it is what is collectively perceived.
Fast food is another example; the hyperreal being our perception of a thing that overwhelms an actual state of the thing. Politics as a whole covers hyperreal, in that, I’d imagine :P
Cheekiness aside, I love the story of Janaka and Ashtavakra. Thanks for sharing it. I think his concept of reality is only conceptual, if the Simulation theory is taken as fact. Reality is something none of us has ever experienced, because post-modernism has wrapped us in perceived notions of things (hyperreal) rather than things themselves (real).
I think?
@@matgonzalez6272 yeah, I see. It seems the concept of hyperreality is best applied to our cultural and political experience. That's what post modernism concerns itself with anyway, right? It's basically a critique of the certainties of modernism..
Cultural evolution could be seen as a process of more and more complexity. So that at the point of the post modern there is a highly conceptually layered, abstracted perception of everything.
The idea of reality as the thing in itself is a very weak definition of reality. Its also very extroverted in orientation and away from any real examination of experience. I guess that was necessary for science in the enlightenment era to attempt a better level of objectivity, but obviously its something that post modernism can easily critique too.
@@michaelmcclure3383 I love that story of Ashtavakra and Janaka and actually I love this whole interaction in general. I think your last comment has put the right frame back on it. All of this is seeing a certain type of reality - the reality of modernity as you say. I'm moving back in a more Integral direction early in the new year going to look at Metamodernism and Wilber and especially Wilber's four quadrants in order to put this sort of stuff in a good frame because as you say in the story there's an experience there that never stops being real (and ironically Descartes pointed to it). Baudrillard is defeinitely focussed on this external intersocial idea of reality and that's just one part of the story so it'll be exciting to start looking at that and teasing it apart
7K views and less than 400 likes. Don't quit your day job.
I hated the Matrix for same reason that I hate Baudrillard's dismissal of the Matrix and why I am also suspicious of Baudrillard's entire project This quote by Simone Weil sums up my position,
"Imaginary evil is romantic and varied; real evil is gloomy, monotonous, barren, boring."
In my opinion, Baudrillard and the Matrix present fantastic, imaginary evils.
I'm a bit shocked that Baudrillard could watch a movie like the Matrix and take Morpheus's red pill/blue pill distinction as though it was meant to be taken literally.
Actually, no, it isn't even assuming Morpheus is a word of God narrator establishing the mechanics of the movie's universe. The two options Morpheus presents are "wake up and believe whatever you want" or "see just how far the rabbit hole goes". Neither option is a cut and dry distinction between reality and illusion.
Now I'm wondering if he actually watched the Matrix movies or merely created a simulation of them in his head based on reading about them...
I knew Matrix 4 was gonna be some cringy woke shit.
Nice!