The latest issue of the Catholic literary journal Dappled Things has an interesting interview with the critically-acclaimed science fiction writer (and Catholic convert from atheism) John C. Wright:
Where films depart from the rules of objective moral order, they become merely silly. For example, there is a simply absurd scene in the third Matrix movie (I forget the name—Matrix Revisited? Matrix Rehashed? Matrix Regurgitated? Something like that) where Agent Smith, the Evil Secret Policeman of Evil, mocks and challenges hepcat ninja-Messiah Neo, asking him why he fights? Neo, being a hepcat postmodern ninja-Messiah figure, cannot say he fights for truth, justice and the American Way, as the superheroes of an earlier and healthier period could say (despite that Neo is quite obviously fighting for these things); he cannot say he is fighting for the woman he loves (despite that he obviously is, both during her life and in her memory); he cannot say, like an earlier Messiah, but one who did not use so much slick wirework Kung Fu, that he is fighting to bring the bread of heaven to men, to free the captive, to heal the sick and restore the dead to life (even though Neo has been freeing, healing and resurrecting like gangbusters during all three movies). No, his only answer, his sad and pathetic only answer, is to announce (amid a flourish of trumpets meant to sound inspiring) “BECAUSE I CHOOSE TO!” It is enough to make you spit your popcorn onto the floor in a flood of salty, butter-substitute dripping laughter. Well, if that is your reason, why not just choose not? It is, however, the modern subjectivist moral-relativist answer, and, unfortunately, even if moral-relativism were a true doctrine and not a heresy, it is an un-dramatic doctrine. It does not make for good theater.
October 26th, 2009 | 10:47 pm
Ha! I enjoyed the original Matrix as much as the next guy, but this is as classic a take-down of them as I’ve seen anyware. The Matrix regurgitated indeed! The same thing happened with Star Wars in that idiotic scene where the (implicitly) moral absolutist Obi Wan tells the (implicitly but obviously) moral relativist Anakin that “only a Sith deals in absolutes.” What a joke!
October 27th, 2009 | 8:21 am
Well, yes, there is a lot to mock in the Matrix films. In this case, however, I believe the line (“Because I choose to!”) reflects Neo’s commitment to a doctrine of free will. One of the philosophical questions explored in the Matrix trilogy is determinism. In this scene, I believe Neo is actually affirming his moral agency over and against the idea that, by the machinations of the “Architect,” he is simply fated to act heroically. In the end, he sacrifices his life in the war against the machines (the scene is saturated with Christian imagery) but only to reestablish balance in the ultimate struggle between them (think Star Wars). The trilogy is definitely a mixed bag as far as that goes, but it is not without its charms and virtues. As a teacher, I’ve gotten a lot of mileage out of it in a philosophy classroom.
October 27th, 2009 | 10:53 am
I’m going to clarify Lightning Ranger’s comment a bit (and I hope Mr. Wright reads this, as I can’t post it to his blog), but I think many people missed the point of the later Matrix films. The original Matrix film was pure Gnostic dualism- a secret elite knows the truth (and is thus better than everybody else), machines are pure evil keeping humanity chained within a fallen creation, etc, etc. The later Matrix films make it clear what should have dawned on anyone- given the fallen nature of the creation (due to the destruction of the biosphere), Man cannot live without the machines- the machines are not evil, any more than the flesh is evil. Neo had to die to break the cycle, so that the war between man and machine could finally conclude, and man and machine could find a new way forward- together. While this would not be an orthodox Christian allegory, it does away with the simple Gnostic/Manichean view of the original. Which made it hard for many to take. Likewise, I viewed Neo’s “Because I choose to” not as a statement of relativism, but as a radically Kierkegaardian leap of faith- the choice encapsulated everything that John pointed out quite concisely- and more. By affirming free will, he defeated the Satanic determinism of Agent Smith.
But this is just one Christian philosophy-geek’s take on it. I recommend Mr. Wright’s Golden Age trilogy to any scifi enthusiasts reading this blog; I found them to be the most engrossing science fiction I’d read in a long time, and they still stir my imagination years after reading.
October 27th, 2009 | 11:11 am
My problem with the Matrix movies is that, despite its efforts to present a conflict between man and machine, the heroes of the story are themselves barely human. I agree with the above commenter than Neo is asserting his free will, and I think this could have been a powerful idea in combination with a fuller view of what it means to be human. Sadly, in the modern view of things, “free will” is all we have left, and even that is tenuously believed in. Other sci-fi writers would outright reject it in favor of hard determinism.
October 27th, 2009 | 1:46 pm
Perhaps I misunderstood the scene, but I thought the Evil Agent of the Machines was asking Neo why or for what purpose he fought, in other words, his final cause, and not in what way he fought, whether due to free will or determinism, in other words, his formal cause.
In order the bear up the interpretation given here (that Neo is trumpeting the doctrine of free will) Agent Evil’s mockery should have been “You are merely a wind-up doll, a tin soldier, a hero programmed to be a hero, and you fight because you are programmed to fight.” In that case, to affirm that he freely chooses to fight would be correct.
But that is not the case here. Agent Smith is the voice of pure nihilism– he says nothing is worth fighting for. The response should have been that some things are worth fighting for (Notice this was Sam Gamgee’s response in a very similar scene in LOTR). Instead the response is that, even though nothing is worth fighting for, I will continue to fight anyway, because I say so.
Here is the actual line:
SMITH: Do you believe you are fighting for something? For more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Yes? No? Could it be for love?
Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of human perception. The temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence without meaning or purpose.
All of them are as artificial as the Matrix itself, although only a human mind could invent something as stupid as love.
You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson. You must know by now. You can’t win. it’s pointless to keep fighting.
Why, Mr. Anderson? Why? Why do you persist?
NEO: Because I choose to.
October 27th, 2009 | 6:14 pm
I think you’re both right and wrong, John, in that Neo’s answer may be insufficient, but it is also a real answer. It reminds me of the old existentialist cry of desperation that the only way to self-actualize is to commit suicide, because it is the one truly free act. And as we see, Neo does give his life. He might be a type of messiah, but he’s a messiah of despair.
October 28th, 2009 | 11:55 am
Why did you pick up that hammer?
Because I have an opposing thumb!!
“Because I choose!” is simply the triumph of the will. It lies at the root of everything from abortion to consumerism. Michael Novak described it this way: “Professors in countless classrooms in many different disciplines report that students have already been well taught that, when they are faced with any moral proposition, the proper response is, ‘That’s just your opinion.’ They are resistant, then, to resolving disagreements by reasoned arguments. They aver, ‘You choose your good, and I’ll choose mine.’ Reasoned debate is replaced by naked will. I choose. Don’t ask me to give _reasons_—I just _choose_.”
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/05/003-remembering-the-secular-age-33
November 3rd, 2009 | 9:55 pm
Yes, Mike, but as Kierkegaard pointed out… it also lies at the base of Christianity. Otherwise God would have simply made us automatons, obedient to his will.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact