Posts by Kate Lee12

stormylynx14 said:I don't think we're talking about a specific life situation here... it's more about what one should actually strive for: Possession or simply being?

okay, my apologies... based on those previous posts, I gathered that Fromm believed you are defined by what you possess—your function, essentially. That having something makes you who you are... or rather, lacking a function makes you non-existent... did I grasp that correctly, or am I completely off base?

if that's the case, then everyone would have some sort of purpose before they even truly existed? rather than existing first and then finding a "purpose" later?...

😁

stormylynx14 said:The question touches on the very purpose of human existence. Is it the accumulation of wealth or self-actualization? You have to view Fromm's philosophy within the context of post-war Germany, where the drive toward possession was extreme ("Haste was" — essentially, you are what you own).
<cut>
That specific mode of possession wasn't an argument against identity, but rather an attempt to replace the core definition of an individual with their function instead of their property.

One could just as easily draw the lesson that philosophy is inherently susceptible to the era in which its theses emerge (which isn't surprising at all), ... but unfortunately, I don't know what (Erich?) was arguing against, if this isn't how he defined the individual too ... well, sorry, I'm just a layman when it comes to studying philosophers through their theories... 🙄

My own theory would be this:

I am
what I possess or lack might change the quality of who I am but it doesn't change the fact that I am
If I were to alter my being simply because of what I have or haven't, would I still be me? (though I suspect "me" can't really change, aside from certain traits)

So, according to Mr. F., I am not myself if I possess nothing—I'm sorry, but I can't say I agree with him ... though, then again, I am not a child if I have no parents (or at least I'm not a concept if I don't have a fused egg and sperm), I am not a friend if I have no constant company, I am not a farmer if I don't till the earth and so on... one might say I am not a poet if I haven't even penned two or three lines... 😁

How, then, would he define a man who heads to work at some firm in the morning (say, an administrative job), comes home, works in the garden, spends Saturdays out in the fields or a vineyard, and then, to top it off, writes poems on Monday nights, goes to the movies on Tuesdays, stamps documents on Wednesdays, acts in a local theater on Thursdays, and gambles on Fridays? In other words, what does that man actually *own* that makes him who he is?

Everything? So he's versatile? No, I'm sorry, I just cannot accept that who I am is defined by what I own ... because the person I just described might own absolutely nothing at all, and yet, they are still right there...

Damn, is it just me, or are we having the exact same debate every single time?? 😕

In the end, everything just devolves into people arguing over the definitions of the words they're using...

What if someone actually bothered to explain things clearly in the very first post, instead of making us all wander around aimlessly? 🙄

And they honestly think M2 and M3 don't even come close to the original Matrix...

🤔 isn't that the one single conclusion everyone actually agrees on???

😁

btw. : Quote : Icepick Says, brilliant!!! seriously, props to you for finally coming back down to earth 😉

Of course it’s worth discussing; that is precisely their greatest—perhaps even their sole—merit...

Analysis is a completely different beast altogether. You either embrace it or you don't, or maybe you accept it begrudgingly or reject it outright... (I don't want to paint everything in black and white here)

A difference in approach? I would argue it is more a matter of execution. But then again, as I mentioned before, only the creators themselves can truly know (or can they?) how the concept was intended to be "exhausted"

We live in an era where it is incredibly difficult to satisfy that innate sense of emptiness found within every human being—that craving for meaning (which we expect to be served on a silver platter with all the best sides)

If the movie provides enough of a spark to make us consider a "different" perspective, then it would be only fair to view it through that lens. If we insist on viewing it strictly through our own predefined rules, forcing it into the narrow criteria of our current limitations, then yes, there are certainly technical deviations and melodrama, inconsistencies, illogical leaps, and even departures from the original...

But is everything really as bleak as it seems? 😁
Perhaps all we need is color? A sky full of rainbow hues and a beautiful sunrise breaking through this darkness and the stagnation we find ourselves in... 🙂

I see you’ve realized that I haven't actually said anything regarding my own take on the ideas presented in the movie, specifically its core essence...

...the visual identity of the film isn't what's being questioned here; rather, it's the viewer's sensory experience...

given that you claimed I didn't get it, well, heaven help you if you think you did...

look, perhaps I should clarify things slightly... 😁
the distinction between what exists in the film "as reality" versus "as The Matrix" doesn't necessarily imply that this "reality" is the actual physical reality we experience (though the concept of "physical" is debatable here, but for the sake of explanation...)

why wouldn't peace be included as a variable in The Matrix? ...or if it isn't, why couldn't it be. The Matrix, much like any software within it, is capable of reprogramming itself because it possesses a developed consciousness of its own existence.

see, that might be a flawed conclusion, considering Neo has already arrived at this exact same junction six or x times before, and since he decided in Reloaded to walk through a different door, they would simply revert to a state of war—destruction vs. creation, liberation vs. defeat—and slide right back into "the same cycle."

the very fact that Agent Smith entered "reality" might actually suggest that such a thing doesn't exist, or at least not in the way people currently interpret it... don't you think?

anyway, I am in complete agreement with you; all reflection is welcome, but limiting one's own thinking is precisely what I was addressing in my entire previous post, citing several comments from those who watched the film and debated the potential "ideas" being offered to us, just as we are bickering about them here...

personally, I like the film, and my own interpretation is that the original idea from the first installment was definitely a revolution that few other films will ever achieve, even though that idea sparked in human minds across the US long before The Matrix; the first part was undoubtedly a hit, and there's nothing to criticize there.

in the second (and let's say the third, even though it functions "as" one film), they delved into something that transitioned from a pure idea into entertainment, essentially offering the audience more of what people seek as substance. unfortunately, it was clumsy only in the sense that it tried to push the idea to its absolute limit, instead of falling back on the classic good vs. evil trope with noble goals and petty nonsense that we all know how that ends...

and when that doesn't happen, we start overanalyzing why things didn't turn out the way we expected...

perhaps it's simply a matter of the human need to define perfection? ...

btw, if we are currently using only 6-35% (okay, I'm exaggerating, probably closer to 10%) of our "brain capacity" (if we want to call it that), why do you think a program couldn't be "downloaded" into one of those other unused percentages?

regards

It’s honestly pathetic how many Matrix fanatics can’t seem to decouple their own desperate delusions from actual reality... they just want to swap one fake world for another "true" simulation... it's all just noise... 😁 ...

Is it even possible... that after all those revolutionary ideas surfaced, we just ended up trapping ourselves in these flat 2D and 3D realities... thinking no differently than chimpanzees? Though, I suppose it hasn't been proven that they actually think... nor has it been proven that they don't... what exactly is going on in their heads... anyway...

I’d like to draw attention to a few specific details... though I suspect nobody actually went to see this movie expecting much. Honestly, I don't believe anyone could have walked away with anything more than what they already expected based on their own preconceived notions... which, granted, were likely quite rigid. It's all very subjective. Furthermore, I doubt anyone—save for perhaps the creators themselves—actually understands the core vision that drove this whole production. And even then, that's highly debatable, since I don't know them personally, so I can hardly make such a claim... let alone assert it as fact. Not that I'm saying that... but it makes me wonder if any of us could even attempt a similar project behind the director's chair...

We tend to use the phrases "I believe" and "I don't believe" quite frequently... perhaps there's a religious undertone to those words, or maybe there isn't, it's hard to say. Regardless, I wanted to share some thoughts on certain films with you all. This might be better suited for a philosophy forum, but please bear with me as to why I'm posting this here...

If you were sitting there expecting this film to provide some profound answer to those deep-seated needs for self-definition... those existential voids born from the sheer monotony of daily life and the desperate search for purpose... then you’re probably going to walk away disappointed. The only thing you'll actually take from this movie are the exact same conclusions I've seen most people reach in this thread... nothing but religious-style dogma, mindless copying of other people's reviews, and just straight-up spitting on things they clearly don't understand...
If you were sitting there expecting "something more"... then you probably lack the actual will or desire to truly meet yourself... let alone anyone else... beyond some superficial visual identity and a passing first impression...
If you were sitting there waiting for some grand epiphany... and it didn't arrive exactly how you pictured it in your head... maybe it's worth pausing. Just a moment... to wonder what it is you're actually looking for in the first place?
If you sat down for a movie just to have a good time, and then felt let down because it didn't hit the mark... well, clearly that isn't how you entertain yourself...
If you actually sat through the movie and managed to enjoy yourself... if you even bothered to chew on the ideas being thrown around... you might have stumbled upon a few conclusions... maybe...
There exists a reality that isn't actually real... it’s just some subpar virtuality, frankly. The whole thing plays out within two separate virtual realities... designed to create this circular loop intended to drive progress through constant restarts... involving both fixed and variable components—the architect and the oracle...
There exists a reality... one where humans serve as nothing more than biological batteries for machines, while the machines provide us with mere digital illusions of pleasure—a virtual existence... all in exchange for our vital life force. Whether we realize this trade-off or not remains to be seen. In such a system, the governing algorithms occasionally "interface" directly with the human brain... leading to various anomalies that require periodic purging... both positive and negative...
There exists Neo... a man who stays here simply to maintain the critical mass... and that delicate connection between these two worlds...
There exists Neo... a program designed specifically to maintain that critical mass, acting as the bridge between these two worlds...
In that first scenario... he’s fighting for the very survival of the human race. It's about preventing us from slipping back into total oblivion—that endless loop of ignorance where we forget what reality even looks like. He introduces a variable that the matrix simply can't account for... the people he "saved" through his own sacrifice. That's where true freedom begins... a concept that doesn't exist within the matrix, where everything is already predetermined...
In the second scenario, he functions essentially like an antivirus program... one that is inherently "limited" by its own existence. It reminds me of that quote from that Indian film—you know the one, about the daughter right before she boards the train—where they say programs without a purpose are simply deleted. Then there are those who, by fulfilling their intended function, might experience some kind of revival or an upgrade through the very components they've absorbed...
If you weren't expecting much... then this movie might actually stand out as one of those few action flicks that tries something slightly different. We’ve been absolutely drowning in the same old formula lately. But honestly? It doesn't feel all that revolutionary compared to something like Star Wars...
Since we’re all inherently subjective, everyone is entitled to their own perspective... whether they actually enjoy what’s being served up on screen or not. Trying to dissect it all through pure analysis doesn't make much sense if you really sit down and think about it... because then you're stepping into the realm of philosophy, which Hollywood probably isn't equipped to handle...

I still have more to get down on paper, though I suppose even this is an oversized mess... my apologies...
(so please, don't assume anything was intended or omitted just because the thought remains unfinished!)