In this blog post, I’ll explore—through the movie “The Matrix”—whether we should choose to know the truth or to live happily, and reflect on the meaning of the real world and the virtual world.
There is a saying often attributed to the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre: “Life is C (Choice) between B (Birth) and D (Death).” This can be understood to mean that from the moment we are born until we die, we are constantly faced with choices. The importance of the choices we face throughout our lives—such as choosing a school or major, a career, or a life partner—cannot be overstated. When we choose one path, the other inevitably becomes the road not taken, and a single choice at that moment can completely transform the course of our lives. In the movie ‘The Matrix’, the protagonist, Neo, finds himself at a critical crossroads. Should he choose the red pill or the blue pill?
This question ultimately boils down to: “Is the truth worth knowing, or might ignorance actually be bliss?” Why must we know? Is it necessary to know? If knowing does not guarantee happiness, what is the point? Cypher, a character in the film, says the following: “I know this steak doesn’t exist. When I put it in my mouth, the Matrix sends an electrical signal to my brain telling me it tastes good. After nine years, I’ve come to realize that ignorance is bliss.” Cypher’s perspective is worthy of respect. Morpheus believes that everyone within the Matrix must be liberated. However, the reality is that most people inside the Matrix might not actually want to be liberated once they learn the truth. If Morpheus forces everyone out of the Matrix into the real world based solely on his own judgment, without considering the wishes of these people, it could be a nightmare come true for those who don’t care about the distinction between “real” and “fake.”
Some say that if they were forced to make an unavoidable choice between the real world and the virtual world, they would take the red pill to escape the virtual world and enter the real world. This is because the virtual world is, quite literally, a fabricated world—it is not “real.” They argue that because the place where I live is not “real”—but merely “fake”—it is meaningless and of little value. They believe that without the “real,” the “fake” cannot exist, and that the “real,” which comes first in sequence, takes precedence. However, what matters more than sequence is that the real world and the virtual world are indistinguishable. The taste of a steak eaten in the virtual world is exactly the same as that of a steak eaten in the real world, and everything—joy, anger, sadness, and pleasure—that can be felt in the real world can be felt just as vividly in the virtual world. Since the environment in which we live is merely virtual, yet the subjects within it can possess a sense of self, it doesn’t matter which world it is as long as the relationships are the same. Take the cell phone—which everyone has these days—as an example. Do some people distinguish between “real” and “fake” versions of the same model? If the real world has meaning simply because it existed before the virtual world, does that mean only the very first cell phone ever produced is meaningful? While some people pursue such distinctions—leading companies to preserve the very first units produced or causing others to prefer limited editions—most people do not determine a cell phone’s value based on its production order, but rather on its practical necessity and utility. Even if it isn’t the “real” one, they consider the “fake” to have sufficient value and can find happiness in it. Thus, the choice between knowing the truth and happiness is an intensely personal decision.
In that case, some may choose, as a matter of personal conviction, to prioritize knowing the truth over happiness. This is because they view the truth as something akin to a right—something they must know—and believe it holds greater value than anything else. Those who hold such views should consider Aristotle’s concept of the ultimate purpose of life. To be the ultimate purpose of life, two conditions must be met. The first is “ultimacy,” meaning there must be no other purpose beyond it; the second is “completeness,” meaning nothing else is needed. Does pursuing the truth mean there are no other purposes? Does it matter if someone is unhappy even though they know the truth? Does pursuing the truth mean nothing else is needed? If one knows only the truth, are money, honor, and love no longer necessary? Knowing the truth cannot satisfy these two conditions. If we are not happy even though we know the truth, then it is meaningless. Furthermore, we earn money, gain honor, experience love, and know the truth in order to be happy—not to live happily in order to know the truth. When one is happy, there can be no higher purpose, and when one is happy, nothing else is needed. What some call “knowing the truth” is merely a means to happiness.
Does it matter whether the world is real or fake? Is the one that came first simply real, and the one that came later fake? Rather than these questions, we need to focus on the agent of action. What determines a life of value and meaning is not which world we inhabit. It is more important to decide what values we will live by than which world we will live in. The choice between knowing the truth and happiness is not a matter of right or wrong. Knowing is by no means a normative concept. We have the right to know, but not the obligation to know. Therefore, we do not need to know. Furthermore, even if we do not know what is “real,” if we can attain happiness—the one and only ultimate goal that is perfect in and of itself and cannot serve as a means to anything else—then it does not matter at all whether we are in the real world or the virtual world. Why not set aside the distinction between “real” and “fake”—which is merely a matter of order—and instead foster a wise attitude that focuses on how to live a happy life, whether in the real world or the virtual world?
The world of the movie ‘The Matrix’ is truly fascinating. The film’s premise begins with the question of what would happen if, instead of computer programs that merely perform pre-programmed calculations, we created artificial intelligence (AI) capable of creative, independent computation. It depicts a future where machine civilization advances, machines wage war against humanity, take control of Earth, and ultimately come to dominate humankind. In this virtual reality, humans live in a world composed solely of signals and stimuli, unaware of what the truth is. If, while living in this state of forgetting reality, Morpheus were to appear and offer you a red pill and a blue pill, which would you choose?
Before making a decision, I think we need to make an assumption: you can know what the real world—the one you’ll return to after taking the red pill—is like before you take it, and that it isn’t necessarily the same as the reality depicted in ‘The Matrix’. This is because, in ‘The Matrix’, reality is a world where machine civilization controls humans as a source of energy, and the unbound humans are waging a clandestine war against the machines, with the city of “Zion” as their base. If, before making a choice, one knew that the only reality was a machine-dominated world where humans are on the run, evading the machines, would anyone really choose to take the red pill and return to that world? I believe that, with the exception of a few individuals like Neo—who are driven by a sense of mission stemming from being “the Chosen One”—most people would not willingly take such a risk and would instead, like Cypher, settle for the sensations created within the virtual world. Therefore, we must assume that the real world after taking the red pill is unknown until one actually takes it.
If I had to make such an unavoidable choice, I would take the red pill, escape the virtual world, and emerge into the “true” world. The virtual world is, literally, a world created virtually. Whether it was created by humans or by the machines that rule the world, it is a fabricated world. It is an arbitrary space where developers have created a world—one that cannot exist in our current reality—either resembling reality or being entirely different from it. Remaining within that world can be likened to continuing to dream without ever waking up. In a virtual reality like the world of ‘The Matrix’, amidst sweet stimuli, my body and mind are controlled solely by external factors—unrelated to my own will—while I remain unaware of the truth. Specifically, through sensations transformed into electrical signals, much like brainwaves.
I believe the reason humans were able to distinguish themselves from other plants and animals and form humanity is precisely because humans possess free will and engage in creative thinking. I believe this civilization was built through the continuous sequence of choices and decisions made by each individual based on their unique way of thinking and free will. Every hour, we think freely and issue commands and perform actions according to our own will. This is precisely why humans exist in the real world. However, such free will cannot exist in virtual reality. The thoughts and sensations of each individual connected to virtual reality are controlled, and their actions are determined by pre-programmed algorithms. Even if a person perceives that they are thinking and acting of their own free will within that virtual world, that perception itself has already been manipulated multiple times by external factors—specifically, the virtual reality’s control program. If one existed solely within such a virtual reality, could we truly call them human? Agent Smith in the movie even directly describes the Matrix world as a “zoo.” What, then, should we call the users of the virtual world living inside such a zoo? Can we call them human?
I believe that a perfect virtual reality does not exist. Due to unexpected, unforeseen variables, perfect control is impossible, and since we never know when or where these variables will arise, a constant watcher is always needed. These watchers eliminate disruptive elements to maintain the virtual world’s structured system—just as Agent Smith in ‘The Matrix’ does by freely shifting his body into any entity within the virtual reality. Let’s consider, for a moment, the person into whose body Agent Smith enters due to an unexpected variable. This person is the very embodiment of the average individual who takes the blue pill and wishes only to enjoy life within the virtual world. Within this controlled system, this person would live their life taking their existence in the virtual reality for granted. However, completely against their will, they are sacrificed to maintain the overall system—without even having the chance to realize that they are being sacrificed. Furthermore, Agent Smith himself confirms that there is no such thing as a perfect virtual world. The first version of the Matrix was designed solely to ensure that all humans lived happily and without suffering. However, that virtual world program was rejected, and every human who participated in it died. This implies that a world cannot exist if it provides humans with nothing but pleasure. Therefore, the reconstructed virtual world would have incorporated negative emotions such as pain and sadness alongside pleasure. In other words, a virtual world is not a place designed to provide only joy and pleasure; it is similar to reality.
Some might think that experiencing virtual reality could allow people to receive new stimuli they haven’t encountered in reality and derive pleasure from them. However, this statement requires a前提: the前提 that one can return to reality. Experiences available only in the virtual world—as opposed to the real world—are, of course, something to be recommended and encouraged. For example, modern flight simulators allow users to practice piloting in a way that closely resembles real-world situations. However, the situation changes entirely when one is living in that virtual world—and, while living there, is not even aware that one is living in a virtual world. What meaning, then, do the indirect experiences gained in such a virtual reality truly hold? If one lives only there, what meaning is there in living based on information—whose truthfulness is unknown—encountered in an incomplete world? Attempting to live in a world where there is no guarantee of joy or happiness within a system divorced from essence is nothing more than a foolish escape.
I believe human life is essence itself. Essence is not the visible, ordinary phenomena, but rather that unchanging, inherent nature. Living within the Matrix while ignoring and forgetting the human reality that lies beyond—and choosing the virtual world created by sensory perceptions delivered as electrical signals—means abandoning the reality that is the very foundation of “my” existence. Therefore, choosing the virtual world at the moment of decision means giving up the very existence that shapes the “me” of the present and expresses “me.”
The very question of choosing between virtual reality and actual reality may be interpreted differently depending on the life circumstances of the person being asked. The choice will vary depending on those circumstances. If one is sufficiently satisfied with their current life—even if that life were within a virtual reality—and if the perception that life is sufficient has been instilled by the program, they will likely settle for that life; if, however, they are dissatisfied, they are highly likely to choose a different life. To put it tragically, it’s like committing suicide—though it’s not certain that committing suicide will lead to a different life. The crucial point here is whether one is aware at that moment of the existence of the essence of the real world, which is distinctly different from virtual reality. If one is aware of that essence, that choice must be consistent with the argument I made above.
