The Philosophy (and Review) of The Matrix Resurrections

The Matrix Resurrections will certainly go down as the weakest entry in the franchise, probably, for several reasons: There isn’t much philosophy (no wtf mindbenders), too much time is spent on Neo’s life dealing with suppressed memories, too much nostalgia, action sequences that are lacking and when they aren’t it’s actually too much, some rather large plot holes, and Agent Smith’s ultimately trivial role in Neo, Trinity, and Smith’s, um, trinity.

 

To make a long story short, the story revolves around Neo regaining his memories after having them suppressed after the machines resurrect him and Trinity (following the events of The Matrix Revolutions) in order to harvest the unique energy the two have together. Once Neo is free of the Matrix, he must re-enter the program to save Trinity. Lots of kung fu and gunfire ensues.

 

What does the movie get right? Neil Patrick Harris’ role is a delight and the fight between Neo and Smith in the basement is actual pretty good once Smith starts spewing the details. What the movie also gets right is in casting cynicism on the modern age. Whereas the previous movies took it as a given that a good percentage of enslaved human beings would rather subject themselves to the truth than live a comfortable lie, Resurrections does an about face, acknowledging the comfort our digital distractions have provided to make our enslaved live more tolerable. Whereas the previous iteration of Morpheus championed freedom of choice (which was acknowledged as a problem by the Architect), the new Morpheus highlights time and again that choice is an illusion. Interestingly, no one seems to mind. The movie doesn’t run with this theme though and chooses (!) to focus on the power of love in overcoming the powers-that-be. Thus, the spirit of the original trilogy is found wanting.

 

The Matrix Resurrection still makes a good point here, one that can been seen quite readily in American culture, from politics to entertainment. As the Analyst says in the new movie, “[People] don’t want freedom or empowerment. They want to be controlled. They crave the comfort of certainty.” He also says to Neo, “Do you know that hope and despair are nearly identical is code?” implying that a little bit of hope mixed with a little bit of despair is perfect for controlling people’s illusions. This is exactly the state of the U.S. right now as the furthest Left fringes of American culture battle the furthest elements of the Right. This culture war in the U.S. is all or nothing, fully binary, ones and zeros just like in the Matrix.

 

Neither side will admit to being controlled, though, as both fringes operate solely on emotion and cannot be reasoned with. When this is the case it is easy – with tools such as the internet – to trap people in an echo chamber from which they don’t want to escape because to do otherwise would be psychologically uncomfortable. Confirmation bias is a tool of control.

 

Another point made be Resurrections which goes hand-in-hand with the other message: So what if the Matrix isn’t real? Our realities are fictions we’ve created out of (faulty) memories. It doesn’t matter if we’re trapped in a fiction because we’re trapped in a fiction no matter what. Our minds are not capable of capturing all of reality. Nor are memories reliable, which is troubling since our behaviors are as largely derived from our history as our biology. In fact, every time we recall a memory it becomes destabilized within our wet-work and becomes prone to error. It should be alarming that eyewitness testimony is allowed in court knowing what we know about how memories work and how prone they are to influence. Being that we can’t trust our memories, we’re forced to make up narratives that provide the illusion of mental stability, because to admit you’re insane typically gets you physically restrained in some manner or at least cast out of society. So, you might as well choose a fiction that is most comforting to you so long as your basic freedom and social needs are met.

 

Even knowing all this, too many people insist on championing ‘the truth.’ Anyone peddling ‘the truth’ is either an egomaniac or trying to get something from you. Why did Neo want to know the truth? To quench his desire for special knowledge. Why did Morpheus need to point out the truth to Neo? Because Morpheus thought Neo could save humanity. Why are religious zealots always trying to convert you? Because they seek power and control. No religious zealot knocks on your door or flies planes into buildings for the sake of the truth. People pay a great deal of lip service to the truth but this often seems to be another tool of manipulation. It has to be because unless we’re talking mathematics there is no truth. All we have are interpretations of perceptions. Seriously ask yourself why the truth matters. It might matter whereas our actual survival is at stake (man-eating lion = dangerous) but how often is our literal survival threatened on a daily basis?

 

It appears large swaths of human civilization don’t want freedom and don’t want reality. If they wanted freedom, they wouldn’t suffer the constant and often successful attempts to control them. Even couples wouldn’t marry if they wanted freedom as long-term marriages (in the modern world) require compromise to be successful. People don’t want reality either, as evidenced by the acceptance of outright lies and love of fantastical stories. There are so many ways in which we are not free and so many ways in which we ignore reality. Question yourself as to why you’ve accepted this and only then can you begin to grasp the fundamentals, they only truths to be had.

 

The Matrix Resurrections won’t go down in cinematic history as one of the greatest movies ever, or maybe it will. It depends on what we want to believe.  If it is what we want to believe, it doesn’t really matter if its actually true or not. No one’s survival depends on it. In the case of the Matrix, the people enslaved in it are arguably better off staying where they are.

Utilitarianism vs Deontology

Having just read a chapter in The Best of Super Heroes and Philosophy titled “Why Doesn’t Batman Kill the Joker?” written by Mark White, I am prompted to revisit the apparent moral dilemma between consequences and taking certain actions. The chapter likens Batman’s moral dilemma not to kill his arch enemy to the well-known “trolley problem,” one of the more ingenious (in its simplicity) thought experiments in moral philosophy. When it comes to Batman’s dilemma, the Utilitarian view would contend that Batman should kill the Joker so that the least suffering and greatest happiness is achieved through such an action; by Batman killing the Joker, future lives will be saved. [While there is no guarantee the Joker will kill again after any given victim, his history indicates that he most likely will.] The other side of that coin is the Deontologist’s view that Batman should not kill the Joker because the act of killing is in and of itself wrong. Batman appears to agree and has long contended that killing villains would make him no better than them. As it relates to the trolley problem, a Deontologist would let the trolley take its course and kill five people (assuming nothing is known about the five potential victims versus the one potential victim on the other track) since there is nothing wrong with inaction.

It is with the Deontologist’s view that I cannot abide by, seeing how they try to make a distinction between action an inaction, a distinction I disagree with. In this case, the Deontologist would say that Batman cannot kill the Joker because killing is inherently wrong while not killing the Joker, though the Joker will likely kill again, alleviates Batman of responsibility for the Joker’s future victims. The Deontologist is contending that to take certain actions (such as killing) are wrong across the board while inaction (such as not killing a homicidal maniac) does not leave someone like Batman responsible for the consequences. But whether Batman does something or not, both are actions. Killing the Joker would be one action and going off and doing something other than killing the Joker is also an action, with ‘inaction’ being something of a misnomer. Unless one is dead it is impossible to take no actions. For Batman to take an action other than the action of killing the Joker is just as bad, if not worse, than killing the Joker since the sum total of all the Joker’s killings – which are inherently wrong on the Deontologist’s view – would be much more inherently wrong than Batman making a single exception to his rule about not killing criminals. The Deontologist may object here and say that each instance of killing is wrong and cannot be added together to arrive at a seemingly consequentialist conclusion, but such a defense is arbitrary; there is no objective evidence that prevents the wrongness of an action to become greater the more one does it. If the defense is arbitrary, it is tempting to look at the problem from a practical point of view since this is how people act in the real world: If I’m Batman and I know that if I don’t kill the Joker, countless lives will remain at risk. But if I kill the Joker, I could more ably live with one act of wrongness than letting the Joker continue his numerous acts of wrongness.

Of course, not killing the Joker may make Batman extremely happy, so happy in fact that he may think that he is actually being a Utilitarian. For if Batman were to become so distraught over killing the Joker he could not go on being Batman, this would ultimately cause the world a greater amount of suffering than if he were to kill the Joker. However, most of Batman’s enemies are nowhere near the level of homicidal mania the Joker displays, so for Batman to think in these kinds of Utilitarian terms appears to be a weak defense. (This view may also be downright egotistical considering there are so many other superheroes around, one of which you would think would kill the Joker. Where’s Marvel Comic’s The Punisher when you need him?) One way or another, Batman is going to wind up morally culpable for whatever the Joker does after the next time Batman refuses to kill him.

On a related note, the death penalty as it is practiced is institutionalized on Utilitarian grounds while those seeking to abolish the death penalty take the Deontologist’s position, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of a criminal’s wrongdoing and potential to be a grave threat to the general public. And again I would argue to not take certain actions against such a criminal would amount to such vast wrongness that the wrongness of a few applications of the death penalty pales in comparison. It’s akin to choosing the lesser of two evils. Sure, one will be wrong either way, but the Deontological position is ultimately worse than the Utilitarian position. In the trolley problem, passively allowing five people on the train tracks to die is five times worse than flipping a switch and intentionally killing one person. Not flipping the switch to kill one person is still an action, meaning one is still responsible for the results, intentions be damned. (Those who think intentions actually make a difference in these types of situations are those who subconsciously and overwhelming value an individual’s right to autonomy, which conveniently absolves one from helping in situations help could be given. Of course, it is not practical to provide help every time one could and we let Deontologists – and ourselves – off the hook on these grounds.)  

When given a choice in Batman’s situation between being a Utilitarian or a Deontologist, Batman should opt for killing the Joker, given that the Deontologist’s position is facetious. Yes, if you ever have the choice to be Batman, be Batman. Just remember that Utilitarianism requires you to kill the Joker.