Matrix Essay Example for Free

Matrix Essay Paradoxical Hero In the movie The Matrix, the main character, Neo or Mr. Anderson, is liberated from his role as a slave to sentient machines by Morpheus, Neo’s supporter and leader, who later tells him the truth that, â€Å"the Matrix is everywhere†, functioning like an ideology. Morpheus tells Neo that, The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when youre inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it. (Matrix) Morpheus goes on to satisfy Neo’s doubts by reminding him of the feelings he had within the Matrix that, â€Å"theres something wrong with the world, [†¦] like a splinter in [the] mind, driving [one] mad†. Neo, is distraught to the notion that the world he knew is a fabricated lie or â€Å"Camera Obscura,† mirroring a past world created by sentient machines in order to use his body heat for energy, in the post apocalyptic world of the late 22nd Century (Marx168). After Neo accepts the reality of his situation Morpheus then tells him that he is the â€Å"one†, or the individual who has the ability to defeat the machines and free humanity. Neo prematurely denies this title yet slowly acknowledges the concept of the Matrix and his connection to it but becomes painfully aware that, â€Å"there is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path(Matrix). Neo later accepts the role of the â€Å"one† and begins to display the qualities of a hero, with respect to his ability to alter the Matrix, but in his promise to save humanity some problems arise when one realizes the magnitude of the duty that is upon him. Though the character of Neo may not be seen as a heroic figure, because of his lack of power to change the mode of production and division of labor with regards to the â€Å"real† world, those are blinded by Karl Marx’s definition of revolution and choosing to ignore how it applies to Neo’s ability with such a fragile situation where the sudden realization of alienation among enslaved humans could bring either hope or despair. The Matrix â€Å"is a ‘representation’ of the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real condition of existence,† for the illusion of the Matrix is a mirror to the real world of the ‘pod’ person’s, i. . slaves of the machine, existence (Althusser53). Within the Matrix there is no escape for, â€Å"the Matrix is the world that has been pulled over [ones] eyes to blind [one] from the truth† that the real existence of those living within the Matrix are slaves. The Matrix and â€Å"real† world are corollaries of each other, for in both you are a slave to the machine, whether it is physical or ideological. In the Matrix you are subject to the ISA’s (Ideological State Apparatus) or the culmination of contrived social influences on ones life e. g. family, the media, religious organization and etc. while in the â€Å"real† world you are subject to the RSA (Repressive State Apparatus) or the machines who control and monitor ones existence (Althusser). Both the ISA and RSA in the film, The Matrix, use ideology and repression, though one more than the other, to mask the identify of those it is controlling by obscuring the inverted mode of production and division of labor as slaves. In Neo’s last speech to the machines he says, Im going to show these people what you dont want them to see. Im going to show them a world †¦ without you. A world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries; a world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you. (Matrix) The contradiction in his motives arises from the reality of humanities dependence on machines for, â€Å"throughout human history, [humans] have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony†(Matrix). So the problem appears as to how Neo is going to change the way people create their physical existence if the rest of humanity is dependent on the slave’s byproduct of heat to support the machines.

Abortion :: essays research papers

Abortion No one has the right to choose what is wrong–Abraham Lincoln. Abortion is one of the most highly debated issues of our time. Several questions arise from the midst of this multi-faceted jumble of opinions, morals, and strongly held values. When does the fetus become a person, as opposed to a mass of tissue? Is abortion acceptable in some circumstances while not in others? These are points I will strive to clarify, and share my thoughts and beliefs on. My beliefs, briefly outlined, are as follows: a baby is a baby at the time of conception. It has all the rights of a child outside of the womb-including the right to live. Why do I believe that an unborn baby is a person? In the split second that sperm and egg unite to create a zygote, genetic codes are formed. These codes dictate a person’s height, hair colour, eye colour, and even many personality traits. The blueprint for a human that will eventually be made up of over 64 trillion cells, all contained in a package no bigger than the point of a pin. Unborn babies are de-humanized by pro-choice activists. They use euphemisms to make the brutal dismemberment and killing of a human baby into â€Å"termination of fetus.† Try to find a pro-choice pamphlet that uses the word baby or person to describe what is being â€Å"removed.† The baby is often described as being merely tissue. Let’s examine the reality of saying that a fetus is not alive. Sex can be determined in a preborn 3-7 days after fertilization. (Dr Jerome Lejeune M.D.) The human heart beats at 21 days. (Dr. William Liley, Foetologist) At 8 weeks a preborn is sensitive to touch and pain. (Human Development Resource Council Inc., 1996) Brain waves have been recorded in as early as 37 days. (Dr. William Liley, Foetologist) Fingerprints are detectable in preborns at 10 weeks. (Human Development Resource Council Inc., 1996) It has been found that fetal heart rate slows when the mother is speaking, suggesting that the fetus not only hears and recognizes the sound, but is calmed by it. (Psychology Today, Sept- Oct.,1998) Now, I’m not sure what your definition of life is. But to me, something with a beating heart, that can think, feel pain, and hear sounds like a living creature to me. A common issue brought up by the pro-choice movement is that abortion is a â€Å"safe alternative† solution to pregnancies that are a product of rape, incest, or those that may threated a mother’s life.

Creation Science Should Not Be Taught in Public Schools Essay

Since the first days of religious evolution, religion and science have continuously fought for their place under the sun. The system of public schooling has become the field of the violent bloody conflict between the two different systems of beliefs. While religious fundamentalists sought to use public schooling as the means of religious propaganda, teachers and education professionals were trying to prove the relevance and importance of teaching objective scientific knowledge. Given the tension between science and religion, as well as the overt subjectivity of religious beliefs, religion in general, and creationism in particular, should not be taught in public schools, to provide children with the freedom of religious choice and to expand their intellectual and knowledge opportunities. The national system of public schools was always torn between the two opposite (religious and scientific) educational visions. While children were given a unique chance to look deeper into the essence of scientific knowledge, philosophers, education professionals, and religious adherents were trying to prove that religion did have to be taught at schools. Generally, religion is not a matter of scientific danger; moreover, religion can serve the source of reliable and never changing ethical and moral truths. The problem is, however, in that in its current state religion consciously denies an opportunity to reconcile with the objectivity and relevance of science. Moreover, religion works to deny the relevance of science as such, thus distorting children’s attitudes toward the world and putting them into a controversial environment filled with assumptions, myths, and beliefs. True, creationism and evolution seem incompatible; but while â€Å"many scientists are deeply religious and see scientific investigation and religious faith as complementary components of a well-rounded life† (Ludden 577), it is religion that promotes hostility toward science. Moreover, apart from being spiritual guidance, the Bible in general and the science of creation, in particular provide â€Å"the refuge from the calamities of life† (Green 581), while present day children should be prepared to face the realities of life, instead of trying to escape them. In the light of these hostile intentions and attitudes, it is understandable why education professionals are reluctant to integrate the science of creation with the major curriculum disciplines. Unfortunately, religious adherents do not accept the need for objectivity, which scientific knowledge promotes at schools. Instead of making religion a supplementary element of public education, fundamentalists view religion and the science of creation as instruments of propaganda. As a result, religion imposes narrow (and mostly misbalanced) convictions and opinions on children. As science seeks to reconcile with religion and to accept religion as a different (but not the opposite) scientific viewpoint, religion seeks to deny the relevance of science and does not accept the mere opportunity for science to be the basic element of public school education. The Kansas Board of Education has already limited the scope of scientific education in public schools, and the concept of evolution is no longer taught and explained to children. â€Å"This central concept of biology will be diluted or eliminated, thus reducing courses to do something like chemistry without the periodic table, or American history without Lincoln† (Gould 59). That is why the science of creation should not be taught at public schools – not because it does not have the right to exist, but because it promotes distorted scientific visions, and does not provide children with a chance to embrace the benefits of scientific advancement. The science of creation should not be taught at schools because it narrows the scope of the public schools’ development to absurdity and reveals true scientific ignorance. The science of creation should not be taught at schools because it is not science, but a set of ideas and beliefs that have never been documented or proved. To a large extent, religion should not be the central element of public education, due to the fact that it denies the need for intellectual development; it does not stir children’s imagination and cannot serve the object of scientific inquiry. As a result, the science of creation with its continuous denial of objective scientific achievements in general and evolution, in particular, is nothing more but the instrument of anti-intellectualism (Gould 59) which cannot promote intellectual progress at societal level. Krauthammer states that creationism is not included into any serious curriculum of any serious country, which means that serious countries and serious curriculum designers realize the intellectual threats of which creationism is the source. Moreover, it appears that serious countries are more attentive to the secular and scientific needs of their citizens and actively work to minimize religious fundamentalists’ access to public education. In our country, however, public schools remind a kind of a battlefield, with children being the victims of this secular vs. religious fight. Evolution is the sign of the ongoing scientific and natural progress, while creationism is the science of conservation that denies the need for social progress. Religion is an invaluable element of the social performance in America, but it is relevant to the extent that does not distort the founding principles of public education, with objectivity and freedom of choice in its center. Objectively, it is a matter of ethical tolerance, and in this situation science can teach children to hold and reconcile with contradictory beliefs. Religion has already ceased to be the source of tolerance, and creationism cannot teach children anything beyond unnecessary denial of the major scientific findings. Conclusion Creationism should not be taught at schools. Given the negativity and scientific denial which it promotes, religion will create distorted learning atmosphere and will work to impose religious beliefs on children. Instead of being the source of ethical values, religion has turned into the tool of anti-intellectualism and scientific conservation. As a result, to teach the science of creation at schools will mean to deprive children of the stimuli to search, investigate, learn and promote scientific and learning progress. Works Cited Gould, S. J. â€Å"Dorothy, It’s Really Oz: A Pro-Creationist Decision in Kansas Is More Than a Blow Against Darwin. † Time Magazine, no. 154 (1999): p. 59. Green, P. â€Å"The Battle Over Creationism. † In F. D. White & S. J. Billings, The Well-Crafted Argument: A Guide and Reader, 3rd ed. , Wadsworth Publishing, 2007, p. 580-83. Krauthammer, C. â€Å"The Real Message of Creationism. † 1999. Time. 11 May 2009. http://www. time. com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,992623,00. html Ludden, D. â€Å"Teaching Evolution at a Christian College. † In F. D. White & S. J. Billings, The Well-Crafted Argument: A Guide and Reader, 3rd ed. , Wadsworth Publishing, 2007, p. 576-80.

Heroism in Beowolf and The Canterbury Tales - 1032 Words

Heroism Heroes are found in every work of art. Whether it is in the television shows we watch, the movies we go to see, the poems and stories we learn about, the books we read, there is always someone or something defined as the hero of that piece. Is the hero always the good guy who defeats the evil? Or is it something more, something more meaningful. Not every story line has a good vs. evil and not every story has a defined l hero, but does that mean there is not heroism in those works? Heroism isn’t a list of actions or characteristics that someone or something could have. It is the morals behind every action, the attitude that defines the characteristics of the person; it is the person thinking about others before himself, the†¦show more content†¦He told the oldest women of the group, â€Å"my life’s to pay, that’s all too certain, if I cannot say what women covet most.† (927) He used the women out of dishonor and disrespect to get what he ne eded. As he and the old women go and tell the Queen the answer the old women gave him he was granted his life, but the old women begged him to marry her, and he replied â€Å"that was my promise, it must be confessed. For the love of God, choose a new request.† (928) Even after all the women had done for him, by giving him his life he is still not grateful anymore then he was when the queen granted him the favor. This story the Wife of Bath told was not about heroism, more so there is not a hero in every story and there is not always a good guy. Sometimes the main character is just as messed up as the villain would be. In addition to The Wife of Bath’s story, Art of Courtly love does not show heroism either. The art of Courtly love is a book on how Royals should act and behave when it comes to relationships and love. It should be all about doing the right thing and being the hero but it took a different take on love. In chapter 11 The Love of Peasants the Monarch who w rote this book states â€Å"If you should by some chance fall in love with a peasant women†¦puff her up with lots of praise†¦ and then do not hesitate to take what you seek and embrace her by