whatever gareth...I still think its irrelevant. ITs feild is more science than philosophy.

And frankly, the matrix did fail. it encouraged the bullcr*p theory that reality is an illusion, that we are prisoners in a god's mind or something like that. Read Descartes if you want an argument against the theory. I'm too lazy to give it to you myself. The first movie especially incorporated more buddhist philosophy than the rest, and the last was a christian metaphor. the illusion referred to in the first movie was not the illusion of physicality itself, but the illusion present in the way reality is viewed.

Edited by - Wilde on 10/10/2004 7:51:42 AM

If you young gentlemen would care to use the "search" utility, you would find that we discussed the "philosophy" of the Matrix to exhaustive length some time ago.

do you really have to mention age in every post?

in that particular instance it was no more than a friendly term. However, you seem remarkably determined to try to shake off any stigma of being a "teen" and i wonder why? if you think you're being harshly treated because you're young, it's not true. Any stick you're getting is purely because of the way you express yourself. No one gives a monkey's brass ones how old you are.

you misunderstood me. I was posting that out of fake exasperation, which I thought the emoticon cleared up. my post was meant in good humour.

---

Read Descartes if you want an argument against the theory

---

What argument would that be? The "cogito"? Or the famous Ontological Argument. The former really proves nothing and the latter is garbage. ultimately it doesn't matter. The most important question (IMO) is "Are we really free or is the world purely deterministic (with a bit of randomness thrown in for good measure)?"

More on topic, I'm a big fan of Nietzsche. I did a project on his and Kierkegaard's philosophies in Grade 12, boy that was some fun. I do concede that he has his flaws but he's really an entertaining read (if you're into philosophy). I would suggest reading a book about Nietzsche before diving into, say, Zarathustra though as his writings can be a bit dense.

It's not the cogito, that as sfa to do with it. Again, I'm plagued by laziness. So you'll just have to read it for yourselves.

My personal opinion on the world is that there really is no such thing as randomness. Think about it: with the rules of cause and effect, randomness cannot exist. Free will? Nonexistent. There are a certain amount of factors leading up to any decision or action, and none of it is "Free". I am not talking about pre-destination, but rather stating that there is no random or abritary actions.

I am not here stating order or chaos, but rather something that transcends both.

ooo Kierkegaard. now there's a whole heap of laughs (actually I vastly prefer K to N. N always seemes rather obvious with his constructs and at times you labour through his stuff wishing he'd get to the point a bit faster)

I never like how k starts off. i found him immensely difficult to read, but if you stick with it his conclusions are bang on. even though you have to go back and read it all again to figure out how he got there.

Edited by - Tawakalna on 10/12/2004 12:22:05 AM

Yuck. Kierkegaard, Mr. "I don't care at all" Bleeecccccchhhhhh.