by Anonymous Logician, Copyright February 23, 2006, all rights reserved. 682 views
For all its coolness and jaw-dropping cinematics, The Matrix wasn't quite the intellectual triumph the Wachowski brothers envisioned. It was basically a philosophical hodge-podge drawing on conflicting religious backgrounds. Don't get me wrong; I'm not coming down on the trilogy (though the finale bombed, in my view). I'm merely trying to keep it in perspective.
And one of the spots that ought to make us say "Hmm" occurs early in the first movie. When Morpheus takes Neo to see the Oracle, Neo asks if she's always right, if she always tells the truth. "Try not to think of it in those terms," answers Morpheus. "She is a guide. She can help you find your path."
This push for a more poetic, non-propositional approach is wonderfully chic but misses the point. The Oracle still makes statements. Are these true or false? When Neo first meets the Oracle, she tells him not to worry about the vase. "What vase?" asks Neo, turning around and accidentally breaking a vase. "That vase." But if Neo had instead broken a plate or a glass, what would the response have been? "Well, you know. Vases, plates. Same thing, really. We have to get beyond the old emphasis on the strictly literal." Along the lines of Brunner's view of the Encounter, can lies still point us to the truth?
But there's another reason Morpheus' advice misses the target. Even if propositions are just signposts that lead us to the passion of the Encounter or put us on "our path," we still need to know that we're on the right path. And subjectivism rings hollow here. I doubt Neo and Morpheus would have applauded Cypher, whose "path" led to betrayal and murder. Then, too, Neo is believed to be the "chosen One," foretold to carry on the war against the machines. But unless we know (propositionally) that humanity is in the right and the machines are in the wrong, the war is useless.