In this blog post, I revisit the boundary between reality and the virtual world through the movie The Matrix, posing questions about the true meaning of life.
In 1999, The Matrix, the first movie I saw as a child, was a visual feast. It featured people traveling through phone lines and dazzling action scenes—things I could only imagine in reality—even amidst situations where the reasons for the fighting remained unclear. However, just as the emotions I felt reading The Little Prince as a child differed from those when I reread it as an adult, revisiting The Matrix after over a decade prompted me to see it not merely as a flashy action film, but as a classic that compels you to ponder the hidden meanings within the actors’ dialogue. One of the film’s greatest charms is its relentless posing of questions to the audience, the most compelling being: Will you choose the real world, or the virtual reality? Most viewers would likely answer that they would choose the real world. This is likely because the film’s setting, the Matrix, is portrayed negatively as a virtual reality program created by machines to dominate humanity. The character Cypher is depicted as a villain who kills his real-world comrades and, unlike the other protagonists, actively seeks to return to the virtual reality. But what if God had created a virtual reality identical to the real world for humanity? What choice would you make?
Cypher’s act of killing his comrades is clearly wrong. But can we condemn him for abandoning reality and choosing the virtual world?
Let’s revisit the scene in The Matrix where Neo chooses between the red pill and the blue pill. The protagonist Neo seeks to escape the virtual world he has lived in until now and pursue the unknown real world. Why did he reject the virtual world and choose the real one? Even without agonizing over whether to live in the virtual world or the real world, the dilemma of choosing between fake and real exists in our daily lives. The most straightforward example is choosing between genuine and counterfeit items. If people were offered genuine and counterfeit items at the same price, no one would choose the counterfeit. People prefer the authentic genuine item and consider the fake counterfeit worthless. So, do people choose the genuine because it inherently holds greater value than the fake?
The perception that values the genuine over the fake, made from the same material, does not stem from the essence of the two substances. It is determined by an order created by humans. The order humanity has established exists merely for convenience; it is not based on absolute value. Consider, for example, the temporal sequence, one of the key criteria for distinguishing genuine from counterfeit. We call the mass-produced items from Company A, which first created a specific product, the genuine article, while we label the products from Company B, which illegally replicated Company A’s product, as counterfeits. However, if Company A paid Company B a fee through a technology agreement to manufacture the product, we would consider this product genuine. This shows us that the distinction between real and fake can change based on legal standards. In other words, we may pursue authenticity because we have been taught and lived our lives according to standards and orders that have existed since birth, valuing the real as more valuable. However, distinguishing between real and fake and making value judgments is meaningless in situations where absolute standards and values are not fixed.
Therefore, distinguishing between fake and real and rejecting the fake is merely to maintain social order; the fake itself is not inherently bad. Similarly, there is no reason to condemn the pursuit of virtual reality. Blindly criticizing virtual reality is merely a reflection of our closed-minded thinking, which values only the real world based on anthropocentric value judgments.
Moreover, humans have the right to pursue happiness under the right to pursue happiness. This is the most fundamental right; the human desire to be happy is a natural right. For example, the scene in The Matrix where one chooses between the red pill and the blue pill to select between the virtual world and the real world can be seen as analogous to our daily deliberations over what to choose between genuine and counterfeit items. When standing at a crossroads, we don’t choose without any judgment. We always consider the variables and make the choice that is advantageous to us and can bring us happiness. If I am living satisfactorily in the real world, there would be no reason to choose virtual reality. Transposing this to the choice between genuine and counterfeit goods, if I have the financial means to buy the genuine article, there would be no reason to buy a counterfeit. Conversely, even if financially strained, if owning the genuine article provides vicarious satisfaction, buying a counterfeit could be a wise alternative. Similarly, if the real world is too painful and difficult, there’s no reason to unconditionally reject virtual reality as another alternative for happiness.
Of course, virtual reality is inevitably subordinate to reality, and one could argue that everything within it is an illusion because reality exists. But this is merely a relative position. Can we tell someone who has lived their entire life in virtual reality that their life within that virtual world is merely an illusion? For example, in Korean society where studying is considered a virtue, most people might point fingers at a student practicing dance to become a B-boy. Yet, he is pouring his passion into what he believes is valuable. We cannot say his dancing is worthless. Furthermore, even if viewed negatively in Korean society, it might be viewed positively in another society. Just because something isn’t recognized in one world doesn’t mean the value felt in the virtual world disappears, and there are people who support it. Ultimately, whether it’s the virtual world or the real world, it’s a matter for the individual to decide how to live their life autonomously. Those who advocate for the real world might argue that one cannot ignore reputation because one must live alongside the majority. But if one truly values the majority’s reputation, is there any reason to move from the real world to the virtual, or vice versa? If those living in the virtual world are deemed by real-world people to have meaningless lives, then conversely, virtual-world people could retort that real-world lives are equally meaningless.
In conclusion, distinguishing between real and fake when choosing between the virtual and real worlds is meaningless. Furthermore, virtual reality life can serve as an alternative to the real world for humans pursuing happiness, and the value of life is not dependent on space but is evaluated by the way one has lived. There is no such thing as real or fake in life. Within the flow of time, one’s life is shaped by the accumulation of momentary choices based on what one sees, feels, and experiences. Whether in virtual reality or the real world, what matters is living autonomously by one’s own will.
I ask again: Will you live in virtual reality or the real world? The answer lies with you.
