An Interpretation of the Philosophy of The Matrix Trilogy

by Mark Young
Certainly the Matrix movies represent one of the most successful recent attempts
to bring philosophical ideas to the general public, although many will confess
to be ignorant of the central thesis of the movies and are therefore also dissat
isfied with them. This is understandable, since the Wachowski Brothers may not b
e attempting to convey a definitive thesis, but also because one needs an extens
ive philosophical background to grasp the ideas and debates that are conveyed in
the movies. Within the three movies there occurs a variety of social and philos
ophical commentary, and this commentary is obscured simply by the fact that the
mode of presentation is highly symbolic. Also, the story of the Matrix movies re
present not only certain substantive claims and ideas concerning the nature of r
eality and the human condition, but further communicates the general effect of p
hilosophy on those who engage in it. In what follows an attempt will be made to
interpret some of the symbolism of the Matrix movies in order to make some of it
s interesting aspects transparent.
One of the most significant scenes in any of the three movies occurs when Neo de
cides to eat the red pill, which then leads to his awakening from the Matrix. Wi
th this scene the Wachowski Brothers convey an important idea within philosophy
that has been a part of the discipline since its inception. Often people are wil
ing to accept things as they appear, in that they do not question their beliefs
about the world. Our belief systems determine our world for us; since it is thro
ugh them that we interpret our experiences. A simple example is the optimist who
seems to live in a different world than the pessimist, although a more striking
example is between the fundamentalist Christian and the scientific naturalist.
Each will interpret particular experiences, as well as the whole of reality, dif
ferently simply due to the divergent belief systems that each possess. Of course
, our belief systems can be wrong, and thus reality is not as we think it is. Th
is was Neo's discovery when he ate the red pill, and the discovery of philosophe
rs when they began to question their beliefs more than twenty-six hundred years
ago. Thus Neo's awakening is symbolic of the general philosophic experience of q
uestioning one's beliefs about the world, and the attempt to discover what exist
s behind our illusions. We can be deceived by evil machines, a Cartesian demon,
or by the traditions of our society; and if we are, then reality is not as we be
lieve it is.
The awakening from the Matrix that occurs in the beginning of the first movie, t
hough, is simply a foreshadowing of the rude awakening that Neo experiences thro
ugh his meeting with the Architect at the end of the second movie. Through this
meeting Neo discovers even further that his beliefs are illusory, as the Archite
ct informs him that the 'savior myth' is merely a means of control. But much has
occurred between the two 'awakening' scenes. We have learned of humanity's stru
ggle to be free, of Zion, and have been introduced to a number of interesting ch
aracters, which include Agent Smith, the Oracle and, of course, the Architect. Z
ion can be easily interpreted as the city of free thinkers, or those who think '
out side of the box/Matrix.' Their struggle represents the struggle to be free f
rom illusions, and to accept the world as it is. More interesting philosophical
notions emerge, though, when we ask whom Neo, the Oracle and the Architect are s
upposed to represent.
The significance of Neo seems to be readily apparent. He is the savior of a peop
le imprisoned by a false reality. This is a theme that can be found in religions
that are as diverse as Christianity and Buddhism. Another theme that can be fou
nd in either of these religions' mystical traditions is that religious myths and
symbols can be a hindrance to true enlightenment. At the end of the second movi
e we discover that Neo is such a hindrance. That is, he is not truly the savior
of humankind, but instead a means of control. Thus, people will not become free
through him. Neo nonetheless is still something special, and it is through the A

rchitect's esoteric remarks that we learn of his significance. Neo is, as the Ar
chitect states, the manifestation of pure choice or freedom. We may ask, of cour
se, what does this mean? To answer this question we must state what the Architec
t is supposed to represent.
The Architect is the designer, and maintainer, of the Matrix. The Matrix is for
him an elaborate calculation, or algorithm, which he is capable of computing. Th
is is due to the fact that he possesses a sophisticated logical mind, since he i
s artificial intelligence. The Architect is able to deal with the plethora of hu
man motives, desires and drives within his algorithmic world, but one thing he i
s incapable of managing is unfettered choice as it is manifested in Neo. Neo is
not constrained by the world around him, since the rules and laws of that world
can be overridden by Neo through a simple fiat. He can stop bullets, or fly, by
simply willing these things to occur. Neo is therefore referred to as the 'anoma
ly' by the machines, and by the Architect, since the artificial mind of the latt
er cannot fathom an undetermined choice. For the artificial mind all thinking is
determined by strict rules of reasoning. To make a choice the machine must have
a reason which justifies what is chosen, and the reasoning toward this choice a
lways follows the necessary logical steps. The machine mind cannot think outside
of strict rules of logic and justification, and this is why the Architect, as w
ell as the Merovingian, cannot break a promise once it is made. If reason and ci
rcumstance has led them to make a promise, then they can do nothing other than a
ct in accord with it since their minds can be nothing other than logical.
These are some interesting insights into the two characters of Neo and the Archi
tect, but what is the philosophy that is lying behind such characters? Well, the
Wachowski Brothers seem to be making statements both about the nature of the hu
man mind, and about the whole of reality. ...continued in the second column...

Within the twentieth century there have been two distinct intellectual tradition
s, each advocating a contrary view concerning the nature of the human mind. In o
ne tradition there is a focus on logic and science with the mind being thought o
f as analogous to a computer. The mind makes choices, and comes to conclusions,
only through the influence of particular causes, whether individual persons are
aware of such causes or not. These causes can be such things as particular reaso
ns deliberated over, unconscious fears, experiential input and overwhelming desi
res. There are a variety of theories about the mind within this tradition, but w
hat is common is the idea that the mind entails a set of determinate relations,
and that it is through the interaction of these relations that the mind produces
its particular activity.
The other tradition focuses less on science and logic, and more on art and creat
ivity. Within this tradition the activity of the human mind can occur without be
ing strictly determined by prior causes. That is, the mind is thought of as more
creative and not bound by reasons, desires and so on. Humans have no determinat
e nature, and can assess the reasons, desires, fears, etc that are possible infl
uences on them and then decide to act on them or not. The important point of dis
tinction to notice here is that with the former tradition the mind's activity is
strictly determined by causes while with the latter it is determined by the age
nt's ability to choose. The mind is more intuitive, in that it does not always a
ct through the influence of reasons, but instead through some insight which shap
es perception and acts to influence choice and action. It therefore advocates a
strong theory of the unfettered will that is able to act undetermined by causal
influences. Exemplary examples of the latter tradition include art, poetry, irra
tional behaviour and human imagination.
Within the Matrix movies, then, we have the interaction of these two theories of
the mind through the interaction of such characters as Neo, the Architect, the

Oracle, and Agent Smith. But, as the third movie develops its plot, it is more t
han a mere theory of the mind that is developed. Also developed is a specific on
tology, and this ontology seems to have its roots in the thought of Plato. For P
lato there are three fundamental principles at work in any possible universe. Th
ese are the One, the Limited, and the Unlimited. The One simply represents unity
as fundamental. If there is to be anything it must first possess unity. How thi
ngs come to be, though, is through the interaction of the Limited and the Unlimi
ted. Unity must exist, but if we are to have more than just unity something must
expand, or develop. Such expansion is spurred by the Unlimited, which we can tr
y to make sense of by thinking of it as unfettered growth. How are we then to ha
ve a variety of things, or, more accurately, explain the variety of things? Limi
ts must be put on the Unlimited to generate such variety. A sphere comes to be s
uch by having a circumference. Eventually red ceases and the next colour emerges
. The basic idea is that there would be nothing without first having unity. Next
we need growth, and if we are to have differentiation, then specific limitation
s must be placed on this growth in determinate ways.
In the third movie, then, the interplay of the Limited, the Unlimited and Unity
come to the forefront; although they have actually been there all along. We see
this through the interaction between Smith and Neo, as well as the Oracle and th
e Architect. That Neo is supposed to be representative of the Unlimited has alre
ady been elaborated upon, and if Smith is his opposite, as it is stated in the t
hird movie, then he will naturally be symbolic of the Limited. And we can see th
at this is the case if we look to Smith's actions, and role, in the second and t
hird films. Smith represents an algorithmic self that continues to produce itsel
f. Eventually Smith eliminates all others, and intends to put the ultimate limit
on the world by ending it. With this character, then, it seems that the Wachows
ki Brothers are saying something about algorithmic interpretations of intelligen
ce. They are saying that such an intelligence would ultimately only produce itse
lf, and that if we are to have the variety of humanity we have now there must be
some undetermined aspects that humans can mold through sheer will and creativit
y. What is most important, though, is the interaction between Smith and Neo, esp
ecially their last scene together. If we rely on the interpretation that Neo rep
resents the Unlimited, while Smith represents the Limited, then their interactio
n will be significant for the maintenance of existence. Certainly this is the ca
se, since through their interaction they are both cancelled out and reality reem
erges from destruction. This is because we can interpret Neo, as the Unlimited,
as representing -1, while Smith, as the Limited, represents 1. What happens when
we bring -1 and 1 together? They cancel one another out, and we get 0, which is
the starting point of the number line. The number line is itself symbolic of th
e continuity of existence.
Thus, humanity and the machine world is saved through the confrontation and unit
y of Neo and Smith, and an uneasy peace exists between the two groups. Once agai
n this 'uneasy peace' represents the delicate balance between the rational and i
rrational, or limited and unlimited, aspects of the human animal. That it is the
Wachowski Brothers' intention to propose an ontology that relies on the interac
tion of the Unlimited and Limited is further attested to by the last few scenes
of the movie. In these last few scenes we see the Oracle and the Architect talki
ng to one another about what has recently transpired and the peace that has emer
ged. The Oracle, as it is stated in the movie, is an intuitive program, and ther
efore is representative of the unlimited aspects of humanity. The Architect is t
he limited. With this last scene when they are talking to one another we learn o
f how it was ultimately a battle between these two that we had been observing th
roughout the movies. The Architect is the epitome of rationality, and accuses th
e Oracle of playing a dangerous game. The Oracle confesses ignorance of what the
outcome was to be, but states that such actions were necessary for real change.
Nonetheless, it is through their game - through the tension and interaction of
the Limited and Unlimited - that a new reality is brought about. The Matrix 101
: The End of this essay