Honestly, I believe that the red pill (truth) is just too hard to swallow for most of humanity. It’s hard to wake up every day and takle the universe’s uncertainties while bearing the full repercussions of your own actions/choices. The history of religion and all other manifestations of willful mental slavery confirms it. Many intelligent people have told me point blank that, given Neo’s choice, they’d probably take the blue pill (illusion) over the red. Since values are subjective, how am I to blame them?
I think that this may be an attempt at meta-videoing, where choosing to watch the video makes one regret the existence of choice. But really, while choices can be stressful, and involve taking responsibility, the road to heaven is paved with detours of doubt, and if one never has cause to doubt and question one’s own actions, one is probably just floating through life like a tumbleweed. Choices represent the variety of our powers as conscious human beings, and if man baulks from them and looks upon them with suspicion, and cannot find satisfaction in them, this is perhaps more a reflection on the current state of society than an indictment of choice itself. It reminds one of somebody who climbed Mount Everest, but was then so regretful about having the power to climb Mount Everest that they threw themselves off, so as never to have powers, abilities and choices again.
That’s a decent point. I think it’s obvious that was the whole point of the Cypher character. But notice how the Matrix was designed to give the illusion of freedom. People aren’t completely happy being subordinate unless they think it’s their choice. And I think that’s the key factor. You can’t convince everyone the same way…and that’s why people like us exist.
Yes, the illusion of choice may be relevant but I think the herd instinct and comparative satisfaction is far more important and also related to pride. In a society where everyone gets slapped by their heads three times a day, no pride is lost as long as everyone is getting the same dose of slapping. The one person who refuses to further submit to the slapping and succeeds (!) would simply be crucified by the rest as the uncomfortable reminder of the utter unacceptability of their predicament and the achievability of a riskier but better world in which no one gets slapped. Smashing him would simply make the slapping more bearable for everyone else (blue pill). Following him (red pill), not so much. Weird bunch, these humans.
Another decent point, but it still does not explain the fact that people like us exist. Just like vive said, if what you’re saying is true, and humans are naturally against freedom and for slavery, I doubt there would be such a resistence to oppression as there is by people who have experienced and/or understand anything else. If people so favored slavery there would be no degree of freedom. Totalitarian states would rule unhampered and if anything did ever make them crumble people would run to be oppressed somewhere else. I don’t see that happening by and large. I don’t see a big push to reform the U.S.S.R. (at least not of any significance). I didn’t see west germans tearing the wall down so that they could be part of what the east germans had. Freedom exists in any degree because people want it.
I’d by interested to hear your alternative? Seek better shepherds/masters with the promise of wider paddocks, fresher water, and more food?\
The alternative is - there is no alternative, just a bunch of confused languages tangled up sending mixed signals. If you wish to discuss sociology or politics, do it in a systematic value free way that we can all make sense of things.
The “big solution” is: where you are in a position of power that matters you will press your advantage and reap the reward - when you are not, gibberish is being spoken. In a void like this all you can really discuss is abstract value free analytical points. Sheeple, etc are throwing people from any worthwhile grasp of such things - and only confuses matters.
In the end we are either trying to describe a science that is inevitable and obvious, and perhaps in a very loose sense of the word will eventually “win out” in some type of “deterministic” manner - or we are wasting our time playing preacher trying to win converts to some religion.
Fatalism is for artsy fartsy personal aesthetics.
So relevant to whom?
To people trying to communicate intersubjectively in a useful universal sociological language that matters: this would assume an open sociecty not war of all against all.
The meat of the distribution curve never explains the outliers.
Mankind’s history: different (presumaby better) illusions of freedom sold to the herd by different (presumably better) rulers. A bunch of different colored flags for the drones to follow. Notice how often “we” gets used even on this (most individualist) forum.
Did I say anything about explaining outliers? My point is the fact that they exist proves you are overstating your case.
I’m sorry, are you arguing that there is no such thing as varying degrees of things such as freedom? That everything is just a different illusion of slavery and there is no such thing as more or less restriction?
JJ, there are degrees. I prefer we stop here if you’re ok with it. Mining these depths is hard on my otherwise sunny disposition.
lol okay, sunshine. We can stop. Long as a I get to wear my shades