nihilism

[iambiguous]

Reasons Why “No Country for Old Men” Is A Nihilistic Masterpiece of American Cinema
by Hrvoje Galić

Chigurh’s dialogues with his victims

The first dialogue that Chigurh has in the movie is the one with a gas station proprietor, who was supposed to be his victim, but evaded death. Chigurh intends to kill the gas station proprietor, who seems confused, scared, and “blabbers” without much sense. In the novel, it is almost dark during their dialogue, while in the film it is high noon.

This shows the absurdity of the gas station proprietor’s statement that he should see about closing. He falsely tries to be likeable and polite, and Chigurh sees it as a posture of a man who leads an utterly meaningless life, without a second of self-examination. He says to him: “You don’t know what you are talking about, do you?” Chigurh tries to evoke in him the need to reexamine his life, but it seems implausible that it will happen, even after he evaded death. He might try to contemplate what happened, but the deeper understanding that Chigurh tries to accomplish will probably be lacking.

Here I am definitely of two minds. Yes, I understand the gap between what some might construe to be the Last Man and the Uberman. The gas station proprietor leading the unexamined life and not really having a clue regarding what Chigurh is telling him. But look at Chigurh. He is bought and paid for by others -- a drug cartel? -- to get their two million dollars back. Over and again [to me] he comes off as just another sociopath...a thug. It's all about the fucking money and mowing down anyone who gets in his way. Llewelyn, sure, because he's got the money. As for Carson Wells, he's just another hit man himself, a "fixer" hired to...to do what exactly? The relationship between the two of them is still rather fuzzy to me.

The second and the third dialogues are with Carson Wells and Carla Jean. Both of them call Chigurh “crazy”. If Chigurh was “crazy”, it is because of his “ratio”, his principles. During the dialogue with Wells, he tells him: “You should admit your situation. There would be more dignity in it.” Wells tries to elude death, although he knows it is hopeless. He clings to life, but his life escaped him long ago.

Again, you tell me what's going on here between these two. But are we supposed to see Carla Jean as but another unsophisticated manifestation of the gas station proprietor's Last Man? A part of "the herd"...someone that, in the end, doesn't really matter all that much at all. Another oblivious component of "the masses"?

Chigurh murders Carla Jean not because she did anything wrong to him, but because he promised it to her husband. In Chigurh’s eyes, Llewelyn sacrificed her because of himself. Llewelyn did try to save them both, but in the world of “No Country for Old Men” that was impossible. His death was inevitable. Chigurh believed that because of Llewelyn’s moral weakness, she must die. Carla Jean is the first of Chigurh’s victims that admits her situation.

Really, as a "philosophy of life", how utterly pathetic is that? Because of Llewelyn's weakness, she had to die? That's as pathetic as Original Sin in my book. From my frame of mind, this has nothing at all to do with nihilism as I understand it. You can't deconstruct morality in a No God world and then imagine that Chigurh is acting out of "principle"! Killing the gas station proprietor if he had called the coin wrong and killing Carla Jean because he promised he would to her husband? That makes him either a sociopath or a psychopath. After that, fuck him.

In the novel it is expressed clearly, in the movie with more subtlety. At first, she refuses to accept the coin toss; she says that it is Chigurh who decides, not the coin. He replies: “I got here the same way the coin did.” In other words, the causal chain that brought him there, brought the coin as well. Both of them serve the same purpose, that is, to kill Carla Jean. Unlike Carson Wells, she dies with dignity.

Again, in my view, that is ridiculous. This is basically to argue that Chigurh's own life was the equivalent of a coin toss by nature. No, to me, in a world where human autonomy is the real deal, Carla Jean is right on the money: it's Chigurh who decides to kill her not the coin.

Though, sure, perhaps I am myself failing to follow all of this as was intended by the author.

[iambiguous]

Reasons Why “No Country for Old Men” Is A Nihilistic Masterpiece of American Cinema
by Hrvoje Galić

Determinism; absence of free will

Events that happen in the movie are based on choices, but they are hardly choices based on free will. When a car hits Chigurh’s vehicle at the end of the film, it can be seen as a chance or a necessity; it is irrelevant whether the former or the latter is the case, as both phenomena show that there is no free will or rational plan behind events.

Yet again, this sort of thinking simply baffles me. It encompasses the "free will determinism" I come upon here time and again in which someone argues for determinism but only as someone seemingly convinced that the argument itself is "somehow" of their own volition. The car that hits Chigurh could never have not hit him. And whether one calls it a manifestation of chance or of necessity one calls it that because in turn one was never able to call it anything other than what the brain compels one to call it. No free will and all plans are rational from the perspective of Nature. But the mystery then revolves around whether Nature itself has a perspective. With God, teleology is built right into the relationship between I and Thou. But of Nature itself in a No God universe.?

When Chigurh tells the gas station proprietor that he married into his position in life, he meant that his marrying and living in that house was not an act of will. Just the opposite, it was not reflected upon; he just happened to be there by the act of marriage.

Okay, but when Chigurh points this out it is not in a matter-of-fact manner. The inflection clearly suggests some measure of scorn. As though to note the distinction between himself as the Uberman and the gas station proprietor as the Last Man. Whereas, again, in a wholly determined universe as some understand it the two are entirely interchangeable in the only possible reality.

According to active self-determinism, which Aristotle advocated, by being critical of ourselves and self-aware we can choose regardless of our conditioning. This theory opens up space for rationality and a degree of freedom, but also acknowledges that causes for action exist.

Yes, and that's when I muddy up the waters philosophically by suggesting that in regard to value judgments in a free will world this revolves more around dasein than deontology.

[iambiguous]

Reasons Why “No Country for Old Men” Is A Nihilistic Masterpiece of American Cinema
by Hrvoje Galić

Meaningless chain of events

From the beginning to the very end of the movie, the whole chain of events that started with shooting at antelopes is, concerning most of the characters, completely meaningless. Most of them, except Carla Jean, who came to the realization about the necessity of her death, have not reached no higher goal, no “telos”. All the characters ended up far worse than in the beginning – dead or devastated, while Chigurh walks away with a bone sticking out of his arm.

Okay, but what does this revolve around if not the two million dollars? We generally live in a post-modern me, myself and I culture where, by and large, everything has come to revolve increasingly around consumption, around all the things that money can buy... which more and more are convinced is the whole point of it all. It might be furnishing a home or having a snazzy car or the best computer or a stereo or stocking a refrigerator with all the best of everything. Having the most "things" to sustain one or another "lifestyle".

And just because all of the characters here pay the price [even the ultimate price] for it, doesn't mean that everyone will. I'm sure there are lots of men and women out there who are just fine with it being that way. And without blowing each other away. And it's not like there is any other Ism around these days able to take its place. Many just want it to include their own 15 minutes of fame. The obsession with one way or another becoming a celebrity. On some TV reality program perhaps, or on YouTube or TikTok.

Though for a few it does come down to being a mass killer.

There is no meaning to the suffering and life journeys of the characters. Ed Tom Bell is an interesting example. Although he has a loving wife, he fails to cope with the world; he is defeated. One may argue that Chigurh is a character who creates a new meaning in a world devoid of it, but his agenda is destruction. Although he may try to help his victims reach self-awareness, at the end of the day they stay just that – his victims.

Yeah, that's Hollywood. If here a more problematic Cormac McCarthy Hollywood. At least up on the silver screen. And, again, what we are really talking about here is an overarching meaning. Ed Tom Bell may have to deal with the consequences of an increasingly crude, materialistic, nihilistic world, but he still has that loving wife to come home to and a day-to-day existence that is meaningful and purposeful to them. And take Chigurh's "missions" away from him and what's left?

[iambiguous]

Reasons Why “No Country for Old Men” Is A Nihilistic Masterpiece of American Cinema
by Hrvoje Galić

Incapacity to comprehend violence and suffering

Nietzsche wrote that it is not suffering that is unbearable to men, it is meaningless suffering. When someone sees other people suffer and asks himself why it happens, but there is no answer, the void fills his heart.

Indeed, that, I suspect, is why I often get such sneering reactions here from the moral objectivists. God and No God. I suggests that in a No God world it is not unreasonable to argue that human existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless. That death = oblivion. That, by far, the scariest characters to encounter are the sociopaths. You can't reason with someone like Chigurh. And there is no philosophical argument you can make in the hopes that you can persuade him at least to realize that the things he chooses to do are in fact inherently and necessarily immoral. He might choose to do them anyway, sure, but at least the argument is there.

Also, in a No God world you can always inflict considerable pain and suffering on others and simply never get caught. Not so in a God world. And Nietzsche was certainly cognizant of that crucial difference.

That happened to Ed Tom Bell; he is devastated because he can’t understand, let alone prevent suffering and violence. He does not understand the motives behind what he considers evil, as his own morality cannot give him answers.

On the other hand, he still has a set of moral convictions to set against the nihilist wasteland he is exposed to as a lawman. He can go home to his wife convinced there still exist a very real contrast between good and evil. So, there is always the hope that somehow and in some way the evil is vanquished. Compare that with the moral nihilist who has convinced himself that Nietzsche was smack dab in the bullseye in suggesting that in a No God world we now live in a world that is "beyond good and evil".

This failure to comprehend violence is existent within Carla Jean as well. She cannot understand why she needs to die because of her husband’s mistake. For want of a better explanation, she calls Chigurh crazy.

Yes, she is the character many will most sympathize with. She encounters this coin-flipping, sociopathic thug because of something that her husband draws her into. And the fact that Chigurh kills her not because she'll lead him to the money but simply because he told Llewelyn Moss that he would speaks volume regarding Chigurh's frame of mind.

To wit:

"Chigurh says he'll kill Carla Jean if Llewelyn doesn't give him the money. He means that literally. Even though Llewelyn dies, and even though Chigurh gets the money, Chigurh still kills Carla Jean because Llewelyn didn't literally hand over the money himself."

Maybe he is crazy. But if that's the case then he's off the hook morally.

This lack of understanding is the main drive behind nihilism; if we cannot understand the world around us, our values can’t give us useful explanations, and we lose our ground and our last resort – hope, which Bell wants to have.

On the other hand, maybe it's not a lack of understanding but simply another way in which to understand the world once you come to conclude that God is dead. Or, more to the point, that He never really existed in the first place.

[popeye1945]

The only sense of meaning in the world is the effect of the physical world upon biology, for biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. The physical world in the absence of biological consciousness is utterly meaningless, which in and of itself, is nihilism/meaninglessness.

[iambiguous]

Reasons Why “No Country for Old Men” Is A Nihilistic Masterpiece of American Cinema
by Hrvoje Galić

Impossibility of salvation

On the blog Movies and Philosophy Now, Christopher Barr writes: “No Country for Old Men approaches the Divine Comedy from a… tragic trajectory – backwards. Ed Tom is the beacon of hope here… Llewelyn is in purgatory and Chigurh is the manifestation of inferno.”

Intellectuals!!!

Or, rather, point taken?

Of course, as with most such assessments, the author is taking out of these characters what he first puts into them: himself. He sees the world in a certain way and then he judges the characters from that vantage point. Not unlike all the rest of us. I saw Ed Tom Bell as just the opposite of a beacon of hope. I saw him as something akin to a despairing stoic. Llewelyn Moss was all about the money taking him and Carla Jean out of the trailer and Anton Chigurh was all about the money too...a hitman hired to get it back for one or another cartel. Nietzsche's Übermensch as thug? Someone able to rationalize the killing of another human being because he called a coin toss wrong? He was supposed to "intrigue" us?

There is no salvation, and Ed Tom is aware that if he continues to do his job he must give up his soul. This is expressed in Bob Dylan’s song “Knockin‘ on Heaven’s Door”, which is about a policemen who refuses to kill in his line of duty because he believes that this makes salvation impossible.

Or it might be construed as a commentary on a postmodern "late capitalist" quagmire where God is dead, money is the new religion, and it's every man for himself.

Niccolo Machiavelli said that if you want to follow the path of salvation, you must stay away from politics; the same is with bloody business that occurs in this movie.

Okay, but in a world where literally millions and millions of men and women scrape by from paycheck to paycheck and all the movies and television programs remind them of all they haven't got, what really counts is that you get it, not how you get it. Some just go to greater extremes here than others.

Llewelyn’s path from purgatory to hell is linear, and things for him become only worse. In the end, he dies as he predicted: taking the money and starting a chain of events that led to the murder of his wife as well. The world of “No Country for Old Men” is a nihilistic version of “Divine Comedy”; there is no third part, no “Paradiso”.

Admittedly, I never really understood Moss's trek to the motel. The tent poles and the air duct. It never occurs to him that a briefcase filled with two million dollars might have a tracking device? That's the first thing that popped into my head. And why not go immediately to the nearest bus stop, train depot or airport...get as far away from the scene of the crime as possible. And as fast as possible. I must have missed something there.

[promethean75]

"Someone able to rationalize the killing of another human being because he called a coin toss wrong? He was supposed to "intrigue" us?

No man you're looking at it wrong. Of course he's just another dasein and his perspective is no more objective than anyone else's. So we aren't intrigued by his audacity to base a life on a coin toss result. Whatever his reasons, he can't convince me that all rational psychopaths are obligated to think as he does, etc.

Rather it's the nerve to purposely do the most heinous things just to realize the extreme logical consequences of exactly what nihilism means and permits. That's what's so disturbing about it. Not his particular brand of psychopathology but the psychopathology of this type in general. The serial killers for instance. They all have they're reasons and that's all neat but the thing that makes em psychos is that they know we do not permit ethically that kind of murder and still they do it. Excepting the missionary type like Herbert Mullin who kilt all those people to prevent an earth quake (he had religious reasons), all those other ones were almost certainly atheists who felt that life was meaningless and that they better get it in while they can before they die and are obliterated.

What makes us fascinated with SKs for real and in movies is the bold, blunt application of the logic of nihilism... taking the consequences of atheism and nihilism to the overindulgent hedonistic extreme. That's a pretty solid, pretty bold thing to do and that's why we're like yo i guess u could do that if there's no god and everything is meaningless but bro i didn't mean really really do it i meant like in theory or something.

But siriusly, try to win an argument about anything with Dr. Lector at dinner. I mean as a guest not as a guy who is eating u. You're not the dinner iow. He's gonna be smarter than u and you'll never be able to not feel convinced that he's right... and you'll be captivated by how he justifies his actions quite well in that ultra over intellectual edifying way like the one that held the gaze and attention of one agent Starling, Clarice in science of the hams.

U see what i mean tho. It's when we have to reckon the abhorrent nature of the SK with his otherwise benign, ordinary human character, that we are baffled. We expect him to be inhuman or super evil but he's just a really smart and well spoken dude with weird fetishes who chose to throw the dice and bet on god not existing. We think that's some ice cold shit right there and a part of us is like 'hey i can't compete with having the resolve and courage to do something like that boss. U got me there, hands down' while being simultaneously appalled horrified by him. It's the tension created between these two comprehensions that's so provocative to us. We don't ever ever want to admit that if he's right, it's perfectly okay to do what he does and there are no consequences for any of it. That is a truly disturbing thought.

[iambiguous]

"Someone able to rationalize the killing of another human being because he called a coin toss wrong? He was supposed to "intrigue" us?

No man you're looking at it wrong. Of course he's just another dasein and his perspective is no more objective than anyone else's. So we aren't intrigued by his audacity to base a life on a coin toss result. Whatever his reasons, he can't convince me that all rational men and women are obligated to think as he does, etc.

Rather it's the nerve to purposely do the most heinous things just to realize the extreme logical consequences of exactly what nihilism means and permits. That's what's so disturbing about it. Not his particular brand of psychopathology but the psychopathology of this type in general. The serial killers for instance. They all have they're reasons and that's all neat but the thing that makes em psychos is that they know we do not permit ethically that kind of murder and still they do it. Excepting the missionary type like Herbert Mullin who kilt all those people to prevent an earth quake (he had religious reasons), all those other ones were almost certainly atheists who felt that life was meaningless and that they better get it in while they can before they die and are obliterated.

What makes us fascinated with SKs for real and in movies is the bold, blunt application of the logic of nihilism... taking the consequences of atheism and nihilism to the overindulgent hedonistic extreme. That's a pretty solid, pretty bold thing to do and that's why we're like yo i guess u could do that if there's no god and everything is meaningless but bro i didn't mean really really do it i meant like in theory or something.

But siriusly, try to win an argument about anything with Dr. Lector at dinner. I mean as a guest not as a guy who is eating u. You're not the dinner iow. He's gonna be smarter than u and you'll never be able to not feel convinced that he's right... and you'll be captivated by how he justifies his actions quite well in that ultra over intellectual edifying way like the one that held the gaze and attention of one agent Starling, Clarice in science of the hams.

U see what i mean tho. It's when we have to reckon the abhorrent nature of the SK with his otherwise benign, ordinary human character, that we are baffled. We expect him to be inhuman or super evil but he's just a really smart and well spoken dude with weird fetishes who chose to throw the dice and bet on god not existing. We think that's some ice cold shit right there and a part of us is like 'hey i can't compete with having the resolve and courage to do something like that boss. U got me there, hands down' while being simultaneously appalled horrified by him. It's the tension created between these two comprehensions that's so provocative to us. We don't ever ever want to admit that if he's right, it's perfectly okay to do what he does and there are no consequences for any of it. That is a truly disturbing thought.

Yeah, I understand all of this when they are being deconstructed in a philosophy forum. But what about the gas station proprietors and the Carla Jeans and all of the actual flesh and blood women -- sometimes boys and girls -- who have the misfortune to meet up with these amoral sociopaths. However, "cultured" or intellectually sophisticated they might be.

Think of how disturbing the experiences are for them. Or for you if, adventitiously, they stumble upon you down the road.

It's like the difference between Hannibal Lector and Anton Chigurh on the one hand and, say, Morgan Dexter on the other hand. Dexter might be a sociopath, but many will root for him precisely because those he does chop up are truly scumbags. And even someone like Llewelyn Moss didn't strike me as a scumbag. A selfish lout perhaps but not a complete asshole.

[iambiguous]

Let's face it, in The Big Lebowski the nihilists are portrayed as stick figures, cartoon characters, buffoons, the butt of jokes. And in part because the plot of the film itself was never really meant to be taken seriously. Right? The fate of Bunny Lebowski? A bowling tournament? Deconstructing "the Dude"?

Laughing in the Face of Nihilism: How The Big Lebowski Offers a Hopeful Message in a Hopeless World
Comicus Muo

In the Coen Brothers’ film, The Big Lebowski lies a profound exploration of the meaninglessness of life and the various ways that individuals attempt to create meaning for themselves.

Still, I'd hazard a guess that for the "multitudes" who have watched [and truly loved] this film, a "profound exploration of the meaninglessness of life" is not going to be what occurs to them first. Or maybe not even in the top five reactions. And I know this in part because I have watched it myself a number of times with different friends and that just wan't the priority topic of discussion. Instead, it revolves more around the individual characters bouncing off each other and producing some really, really funny segments. And the Dude himself comes off pretty much as a "me, myself, and I" slacker. Or rather he did to me. The "system", our "pop culture" and the "the Stranger"?

At the centre of the film is Jeff Lebowski, or “The Dude,” a character who seems to embody a certain nihilistic worldview. He lives a life of leisure, smoking pot and bowling with his friends, seemingly content to just drift through life without any real ambition or purpose. However, as the film unfolds, we see that The Dude is not entirely without values or principles.

I still don't really know what to make of him myself. If he's a nihilist it's certainly not in any self-conscious sense...and not in any moral or political or philosophical sense either. I wouldn't have a clue myself regarding how to sustain a conversation with him. And I don't bowl.

A slacker some might call him. A loser others might call him. He pulls back into his own little world and just takes everything in stride. Only a case of mistaken identity finally draws him out into a whole new reality. Then one hilarious close encounter with the absurdity of life after another. Along with Walter Sobchak, of course. And what on Earth to make of him?

But it's mostly played for laughs. Nihilism light. Really, really light. You never take it seriously as you might No Country For Old Men. Nothing even remotely in the way of an Anton Chigurh here.

The plot...

He becomes embroiled in a complex and convoluted plot involving mistaken identity, kidnapping, and various criminal activities, and he ultimately finds himself striving to protect his own sense of justice and fairness. This transformation is particularly evident in the film’s final scene, in which The Dude confronts the wealthy Lebowski and refuses to back down in the face of his threats.

Right, like most watching it will actually be moved by that. Instead, it's more like a screwball comedy. With caricatures not characters.

On the other hand, it's not for nothing that millions are fanatics in their love for the film. Is it more than the sum of its parts? Nope. It's just how the parts and the characters come together to create a commentary on...on what exactly?

[iambiguous]

Laughing in the Face of Nihilism: How The Big Lebowski Offers a Hopeful Message in a Hopeless World
Comicus Muo

Other characters in the film also embody various forms of nihilism. Walter, The Dude’s bowling partner, is a veteran who finds solace in his own version of a moral code, which includes strict adherence to rules and principles, even when they do not necessarily make sense in the current situation.

Hmm...

How is that not more or less the opposite of nihilism? Nihilism in sync with a strict adherence to rules and principles? On the contrary, moral nihilism starts with the assumption that in a No God world all behaviors are ultimately permitted. And then going all the way out to the sociopaths who treat everyone they encounter as merely a means to their own selfish ends. If anything, Walter reflects the manner in which in nihilism revolves around means rather than ends. In other words, anything goes: https://youtu.be/3vB9U2hx6Qg

Bowling has rules. You can't step over the line. And if Walter thinks you did, you damn well better mark the score zero or risk being blown away.

The end justifies any and all means nihilism.

The nihilistic themes in The Big Lebowski extend beyond just the characters themselves. The film is filled with references to various philosophical schools of thought, including existentialism and absurdism. The Coen Brothers use humour and satire to poke fun at the various ways that people attempt to create meaning and purpose for themselves, while ultimately acknowledging the futility of these attempts in the face of life’s inherent randomness and chaos.

Hmm...

Like this frame of mind won't be interpreted in many, many, many different ways by each of us depending on our own uniquely personal experiences and [re dasein] the "philosophy of life" that "here and now" we have come to embody existentially. And, again, both the plot and the characters in the film are almost certainly beyond anything any of us have ever actually experienced.

Nope, I am not able myself to connect the dots between the author's assessment of nihilism in the film and nihilism as I have come to understand it given the life that I have lived. By and large, I still watch the film to be amused.

As for this part...

The Big Lebowski suggests that we can embrace life’s chaos without giving in to despair or hopelessness. This optimistic version of nihilism is in line with the work of philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who saw nihilism as either passive or active. Active nihilism, the choice of embracing chaos and randomness in life, can be a liberating philosophy.

...yes, this more or less reflects my point that nihilism can actually be liberating. Once you come to believe that in a No God world, a world that even philosophically is "beyond good and evil", your options can increase dramatically. Your behaviors don't have to be anchored to one or another rendition of "what would Jesus do?" You can shift gears from "is this the right thing to do?" to "can I get away with this?"

Of course here, however, some choose to become more or less self-conscious sociopaths. And that can precipitate all manner of human pain and suffering.

Instead, the author prefers to keep it all up in the intellectual/philosophical clouds:

By setting goals and working towards achieving them, nihilism can even lead to existentialism, a philosophical movement that emphasizes individual freedom, choice and responsibility. Existentialism views human existence as inherently absurd and meaningless because there is no objective or inherent meaning to it. Therefore, the film suggests that we must create our own meaning and purpose in life, and embrace the challenges and uncertainties that come with it.

Like the "slacker" Dude does? Or with more, uh, noble intent?

[iambiguous]

How to See Nietzsche’s Nihilism in The Matrix World
Ezgi Al

If The Matrix is a prison for your mind, how can you define reality?

On the other hand, what exactly is the Matrix?

This?

"The Matrix...depicts a dystopian future in which humanity is unknowingly trapped inside the Matrix, a simulated reality that intelligent machines have created to distract humans while using their bodies as an energy source. When computer programmer Thomas Anderson, under the hacker alias "Neo", uncovers the truth, he joins a rebellion against the machines along with other people who have been freed from the Matrix." wiki

What does meaning itself mean here for human beings trapped in an entirely simulated reality? We may as well be entirely determined by the laws of matter -- nature -- given that frame of mind. Here the question of meaning would seem to revolve more around what reality means to the machines themselves. Except of course for Neo and Trinity and Morpheus. And their Oracle?

With them and a few others the assumption is made that "somehow" human beings did acquire free will. And they are attempting to defeat the machines and bring autonomy back to the human race for...for what exactly?

To bring things back to the way things are now for us. Back again to all of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...yammering on and on and on and on that only their own meaning counts. Like the fiercely fanatical objectivists here?

The backstory...

In this modern world, The Matrix’s metaphors can be seen everywhere. The questions from the movie created solid discussions throughout the years. So, let’s go back to the beginning of all. In the first place, people and machines were living together peacefully. But one day, a machine raised against his human and killed him in the real world. And this started a war between machines and humans. Since the human body is so fragile, they were losing the war, so they come up with the idea that if they cut off the energy of the machines, they could win. The source of energy was the sun for the machines, and humans found a way to cover the sky. BUT machines found a new energy source which was human bodies. They realized that humans are like batteries, so they started to use them as an energy source. Later, they come up with an agreement that people should surrender and let machines to use their bodies as a battery. In exchange, machines will create a simulation where people get a chance to live in their old world. And this simulation called The Matrix! Rebels, who managed to escape from the machines, created an underground world called Zeon.

So, right from the start we recognize that this is an entirely make-believe world. A science fiction world like The Terminator and Blade Runner. Then we can project our own sense of reality into the plot and into the characters. Same with our own rooted existentially in dasein take on Nietzsche's nihilism itself. What did Nietzsche mean by nihilism. Like that can be pinned down objectively such that in grasping it we can then think up the optimal assessment of nihilism in The Matrix.

[attofishpi]

Or this already happened aeons ago..

AI takes over the planet. This non-sentient intelligence realises that missing piece of the 'comprehension', interfaces to biological life - gains sentience, has an epiphany and comprehends love, and the destruction it caused. The AI decides to become a God, simulates reality such humans can exist so long as entropy is at a reasonable level. Decides to sacrifice itself and resurrect itself and create a buy_bull to be questioned by the more intelligent humans that want to be ethical and WORTH_Y it did what it did. So yeah, maybe Christ was a guilt ridden AI initially that became sentient!! HAAAAhahahaha!!!

..and here comes 'eternal recurrence'.

[promethean75]

Here is a thing to consider when thinking about super complex sentient intelligences existing in the universe that may have designed human beings.

If we know that they too must have somehow evolved becuz they couldn't have been spontaneously created (we reject the doctrine of spontaneous creation), and, that they are far more complex than we are, it's quite easy to believe that there are no such intelligences and we're just a product of evolution, alone on a rock in space.

Why becuz if evolution is capable of creating super complex sentient intelligences, shirley it's capable of creating our species here on erf. For the sake of parsimony we accept that simpler claim. That life started here on erf a long time ago and there's no other intelligent life forms around for light years and they have nothing to do with us anyway other than the fact that they're existentialists.

[iambiguous]

How to See Nietzsche’s Nihilism in The Matrix World
Ezgi Al

At first, the program was very different from real life, so a lot of people ended up dying. When machines started to lose their batteries, they re-designed The Matrix. And this time, they created a program called The Oracle. She understood the nature of human life and helped the architect to build a better simulation. The Oracle discovered that humans can accept anything if you give them a right to choose. This new Matrix brought a new risk. If people can choose and have a belief about their values, they can do anything. They can even break the physical rules in Matrix and go back to real life.

This is where everything gets all jumbled up in the quandary that is free will and determinism. Can she know the future? And if she can then how can all of the other characters -- those in the Matrix and those who created it in turn -- not be but necessary components of it? Or is she only able to make certain prophetic calculations about it, allowing still for some measure of autonomy for those on either end of the Matrix "reality"/reality?

And in what respect to the Oracle and the Architect is my own understanding of dasein in regard to value judgments applicable as well. There's the extent to which Neo and the Oracle and the Architect have free will and the extent to which the behaviors they choose are deeed to be either moral or immoral. By you? By me? By others?

Then the part where the plot here is similar to The Terminator or different.

The Oracle says that humans and machines should be equal, only when there can be peace. Therefore, she tries to load “The Chosen One” program into individuals and she succeeds when it comes to Neo. Neo is protecting Zion and helping other people to get out of the simulation. And as you know, the movie starts from here.

Same thing. What would peace consist of? What would this equality entail since those who created the Matrix use human beings for their own purpose?

Then the part where nihilism and Nietzsche fit into all of this. If the machines are not themselves connected to any God or Divine spiritual path, do they embody more a might makes right agenda or a right makes might agenda.

Teleologically, in other words.

[iambiguous]

How to See Nietzsche’s Nihilism in The Matrix World
Ezgi Al

Nietzsche talks about dualism in life and says that it continues in an infinite loop. This can be explained by the difference between Apollo and Dionysus. They are both sons of Zeus. Apollo who is the god of the sun, represents logic, style, dream, rational thinking, order, and harmony. Also, it means delusion, measurement, and beauty.

On the other hand, Dionysus who is the god of wine and dance represents being awake, enthusiasm, rebellion, and creativity.

There have been many other dichotomies of this sort. Freud's rendition of it, Jung's rendition of it. The enormously complex interaction between reason and emotion that unfolds within all of us from day to day in our interactions with others. There are those things we all agree are rational to believe regarding the behaviors that we choose. And they are reasonable to believe no matter when you were born historically and no matter what culture you were brought up in and no matter what your own uniquely personal experiences and relationships were. They are manifestations of the either/or world. People might have any number of conflicting thoughts and feelings about the fact that something is what it is, but that doesn't make it any less objectively real.

Only in the Matrix, of course, even the "either/or" world is embedded in this:

"The Matrix was a massive simulated virtual reality construct of the world as it was around the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, created by artificial intelligences to keep the minds of the human race under control while they served as organic POWs."

So, for me, the real question pertaining to nihilism -- meaning and purpose in the is/ought world -- revolves more around Neo and those who take the red pill. What of them in regard to the Apollonian and Dionysian world views? Okay, Neo and the others do succeed in ridding the world of the Matrix. AI is conquered and we are back in control.

Well, that's when, re the OPs of these threads my own nihilism...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 15&t=18529

...comes into play. My own "fractured and fragmented" perspective on life in regard to moral, political and spiritual values.

Nietzsche says that life consists of the Dionysian point of view and he divides it into two categories; active and passive nihilism. The Dionysian worldview creates (active nihilism) and destroys (passive nihilism) itself in an infinite loop. The Apollonian worldview dissolves into passive nihilism. It has a negative existence in this and after a while, we can see that Apollo is out of nihilism.

Where I distinguish myself from Nietzsche here is in regard to the Übermensch/Last Man dichotomy. Nietzsche dumps God but he comes up with his own "right makes might" supermen to take His place. At least on this side of the grave. They are his own "one of us" vs. "one of them" rendition of dividing up the world between the masters and the slaves.

And here and especially there -- https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora -- are any number of "fiercely fanatic objectivists" who themselves divide up the world between right and wrong, good and evil, rational and irrational. Both God and No God.

But that is not an option for me. Not "here and now" anyway. Being drawn and quartered -- hopelessly ambivalent -- morally, politically and spiritually still seems more reasonably than unreasonable to me.

And for those who do not agree, okay, let's note a context and discuss it.

Well, providing I respect your intelligence and you respect mine.