When it came out in 1999, The Matrix was a film for the record books. With incredible performances from actors Keanu Reeves and Laurence Fishbourne, cutting-edge special effects, unbelievable action scenes, and an undeniably good soundtrack, The Matrix quickly took the world by storm. But lurking beneath the surface of these praiseworthy aspects of the film is the fact that the plot is downright twisted. It weaves a narrative of confusion, one that makes you question your own reality, as it mesmerizes you with its aesthetic beauty.

Millions of people walked out of the movie theaters in 1999 wondering if the world they were living in was truly the real world. And all of this comes from some deep philosophical questions that brilliant people have been pondering for thousands of years. But what if all of the mind-boggling concepts were nothing new? It turns out The Matrix used a lot of ideas from philosophers, both modern and ancient.

Here are 10 philosophical ideas The Matrix used…borrowed…stole (you pick) from other people.

Related: Top 10 Unexpected Future Applications Of Quantum Computers

10 Cartesian Dualism

Cartesian dualism is a philosophical theory in which the universe is divided into two equal and opposite types of existence, called “mind” and “matter.” Developed by French philosopher Rene Descartes, it’s a direct extension of his philosophy of mind-body dualism. Descartes was obsessed with the point where the body ends and the mind beings.

The question at hand is whether the mind is an abstraction that exists in the physical universe or whether the physical universe is an abstraction that exists in the mind. And, using my mind, the only thing I can ever truly prove is the mental world of my thinking.

This problem was the cornerstone of the movie, The Matrix.

There was a “real” world, and then there was the abstraction that existed only in the mind. The real world existed, but what the characters experienced was a carefully curated artificial simulation that existed only in their minds—until they went down the rabbit hole.

Where do the body end and the mind begin? And how can we truly know if we can only think with our minds, and thus, we can only say for certain that our minds exist?^[1]

9 Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”

Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” comes from his work The Republic. It starts off with a conversation between Socrates and Glaucon where they discuss the idea of how we see the world. How do we know if the reality we’re experiencing is actually real? Can we use our senses?

Socrates didn’t think so, and he asks us to imagine a cave with people in it who’ve never been outside of it. There’s a fire in the front and a blank wall in the back. On the back wall, shadows are cast using the light from the fire, showing the activity happening outside the cave—but only in shadow.

The people in the cave can only see what is in front of them, and they can only hear the noises of other people. They’re cut off from the world outside the cave and chained to the wall inside the cave.

Considering these people have spent their entire lives in the cave, they have no clue there’s a real world outside of the cave, one that’s totally different from the mirage they’d always known.

This begs the question, how do we know that what we experience isn’t just shadows, like “the woman in the red dress?” How do we know if we’ve never stepped outside of our own “caves” and into the “real” world that creates them?^[2]

8 Nick Bostrom’s Simulation Hypothesis

The Simulation Hypothesis, proposed by Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom, argues that it’s possible that we are living in a computer-simulated world created by an advanced civilization, possibly from the future. Bostrom bases this hypothesis on three criteria: the mathematical odds of the existence of the simulated world, the technological feasibility of running a simulated world, and the “intelligence explosion” required to create that simulated world. More on this later…

In the simulation theory, the people in the simulated world are unaware that they are living in a simulation.

Bostrom demonstrates that it’s more likely that we’re living in a simulated world than a real one right now. One real-world could create as many simulated worlds as it wanted to, as long as it had the technological power to do so, so the odds stack up in favor of this world being simulated.

The implications of this are stunning. The Matrix borrowed heavily from the Simulation Hypothesis when it created its own simulated world. So, how do you know that your entire life isn’t just a computer simulation?^[3]

7 Berkeley’s Immaterialism

There is a school of thought called immaterialism, which was conceived by the Irish philosopher George Berkeley. Immaterialism is the idea that physical objects do not exist in a world of their own but rather form a part of a larger whole in a world consisting only of intangible things. For Berkeley, the world doesn’t exist independently of the mind. There is only the mind, and the mind invents the experiences we call the world.

In The Matrix, the computer programmed the characters’ minds, but their minds created their experiences—experiences that weren’t real.

Berkeley asks us how we can truly know if what we’re experiencing is the real thing or just our imaginations.

Remember that scene where they were eating amorphous muck out of bowls and missing fat, juicy steaks? How do you know that every steak you’ve ever eaten wasn’t really just a blob of muck that your brain interpreted as steak?^[4]

6 Gilbert Harman’s Brain in a Vat

In a thought experiment by philosopher Gilbert Harman, a scientist places a conscious brain in a vat of nutrients and water and makes him believe that he is a brain in a vat. The scientist then stimulates the vat with electricity and monitors the changes in the person’s mental state. Unbeknownst to the person, the scientist’s intentions are not to study the brain but rather to test the question, “What is it like to be a brain in a vat?”

In one experiment, the scientist stimulates the vat with electricity, and the person feels pain. In another experiment, the scientist stimulates the vat with electricity, and the person feels nothing. In yet another, the scientist stimulates the vat with electricity, and the person feels a sense of freedom. In a final test, the scientist stimulates the vat with electricity, and the person feels a sense of confidence.

The parallels should be obvious. From downloading Kung-Fu moves to the “woman in the red dress,” The Matrix was controlling the characters’ minds in a giant vat farm.^[5]

5 The Experience Machine

The philosopher Robert Nozick wrote a short thought experiment called “The Experience Machine.” In it, an individual wakes up in a laboratory designed to simulate whatever life they can imagine. The individual then realizes that they have been plugged into this machine. The individual must decide whether to stay in the machine’s simulation or wake up.

This makes us ask ourselves, can we find happiness living a simulated life?

The individual in the experiment is faced with choosing to stay in the machine or wake up. They can wake up, but only if the machine is destroyed. If they choose to stay in the machine, they will find happiness in the life they are living but will never know what it is like to wake up.^[6]

So, if you were Neo, would you take the red pill or the blue pill?

4 The Constructivism of Jean Piaget

Constructivism is a theory of knowledge that says that knowledge is constructed by the individual’s interactions with the world. Knowledge is made up of meanings, which are created by the individual. The individual then assigns meaning to an object or experience that is not already known. The individual then shares this meaning with others. This creates a social phenomenon constructed by the individual’s interactions with the world.

Constructivism plays a crucial role when Neo joins the rest, and they must learn completely new realities. The laws of physics are totally different in the real world than they were in the simulated world, and the team needs to develop a theory of knowledge together that’s consistent with the real world in order to overcome the Agents.^[7]

3 Kant’s Theory of Freedom

German Philosopher Immanuel Kant once said, “You must be free in order to make yourself into what you are capable of being.” He believed that moral law was to know thyself as a free person. For Kant, freedom is a necessary component of happiness, and happiness without freedom is impossible. If happiness was a gift that was given to you by an outside force, it wouldn’t be true happiness.

And The Matrix played heavily on this concept when it forced us to ask whether we’d prefer to live a happy lie or an uncomfortable truth. When plugged into the machine, the people are happy living in the artificial “caves” of their own minds. The machines created a simulation that allowed the characters to be happy—but only at the expense of freedom.

So what’s more important to you, happiness or freedom?

The people living in The Matrix were happy, but they weren’t free.^[8]

2 Nick Bostrom’s Superintelligence

Bostrom’s work discusses the possibility of an artificial intelligence “breakthrough” that would lead to an intelligence explosion. This would result in the creation of intelligence so powerful that it would be able to control the entire world. The intelligence would be so powerful that it would be able to build an even more intelligent AI. This process would continue until one intelligence controlled everything.

This is exactly what happened in The Matrix. Humans built smart machines. Those smart machines built smarter machines that eventually came to dominate humanity.

Bostrom says that the risk of artificial intelligence is so great that the best way to prevent it from happening is to have a “control” system. This system would be a computer that would play the role of the AI. The computer would be so intelligent that it would be able to control the AI and prevent it from taking control of the world.^[9]

Do you think we could build such a control system? Or are we doomed to The Matrix?

1 Joseph Weizenbaum and the Problem of AI Empathy

Joseph Weizenbaum was the creator of the world’s first chatbot, and it was able to somewhat empathize with humans. He believed that computers would someday be able to understand human emotion and would eventually takeover service positions where empathy is necessary.

And he also believed this would be disastrous for humankind.

In his 1976 book, Computer Power and Human Reason, Weizenbaum argued that machines should never be trusted to handle delicate decision-making processes because they will always lack the wisdom, intuition, and empathy necessary to do so well.

This is what happened in The Matrix. We created machines so intelligent that they could control us, but those machines didn’t care for us—and they ultimately enslaved us.^[10]

Some people will tell you that robbing a bank is a victimless crime—as long as you don’t injure someone while doing it. The money is insured, so the only loser is the bank, and banks have plenty of money. Of course, the bank passes on the cost of insuring the money to its clients, so it’s not quite “free money.” Still, successful non-violent bank robbers are part of American culture and admired by many.

I don’t think anyone would ever say the same about people who steal from non-profit organizations. Such people are abusing their position, taking money donors have given in good faith, and depriving the people or organizations that should benefit from the donated funds.

Non-profits rely on goodwill and enjoy various privileges; unfortunately, they are sometimes secretive and unprofessional regarding due diligence. Most charities are legitimate, but before parting with your money, you should research the organization you want to donate to so you don’t line the wrong people’s pockets.

Here are ten non-profit leaders who stole from their organizations.

10 American Parkinson’s Disease Association

In July 1996, a judge sentenced 55-year-old Frank L. Williams to 15 months in jail, followed by three years on probation. The sentence was on the lenient side because Williams suffered from heart disease. Williams was also told that he had to repay the money he had stolen from the American Parkinson’s Disease Association.

Before his conviction, the charity had good reason to be pleased with Williams’s performance as its head. His dynamic leadership led to expansion and a significant increase in donations. But some of the money was going into his own pocket.

Williams’s scheme was not especially sophisticated. He diverted checks from the Staten Island headquarters to the branch headquarters in Minnesota. There, an accomplice would pay the checks into a local bank account and then write new checks to Williams. The scheme went on for about seven years, and he pocketed around $1 million. Williams’s excuse for the theft was that other heads of comparable charities earned twice as much; he was already earning nearly $110,000 annually.

Williams said that it was hard to stop once he had started and that he had spent the money on things like cars, TVs, and clothes.

9 United Way of America

William Aramony wanted to show his new girlfriend a good time. He bought a condo for her in New York, took her on lavish foreign vacations, and gave her a job with the charity he headed. Aramony might have felt he needed to treat his new lover because he was 59, and she was just 17 when they started their relationship. But that’s not even the most inappropriate thing he did.

Aramony was a noted womanizer who used his position as CEO of United Way of America to persuade women to have sex with him. He had been with the charity for 22 years when he resigned in 1992. Apparently, he was an effective and respected leader with considerable influence in the non-profit sector.

In 1995, Aramony and two others faced court, accused of stealing $1.2 million. His lawyer said that Aramony had a brain condition that affected his ability to control his impulses.

8 Goodwill Industries

In the ’90s in Santa Clara County, California, at ten Goodwill stores, employees sorted donated goods and loaded them onto trucks. But employees should have gone through the donations and put all suitable items up for sale in their stores. Instead, they were putting in long hours of work, seven days a week, that was benefitting a profitable scam. The scammers paid the workers with occasional “unofficial” payments from the stolen goods’ profits.

Seven local Goodwill leaders had organized a system that stole millions of dollars in donated cash and goods. All seven of the managers were related to each other—four of them were sisters. An eighth unrelated suspect committed suicide after authorities searched her home. The team stole an estimated $15 million.

There is no reason to suspect that people at the top of the organization were involved, but people wondered how they didn’t notice something was wrong.

7 On Your Feet

It all looked above board, but, for at least ten years, not everything was as it seemed at this charity. Geraldine and Clayton Hill set up a California non-profit to help those in need. The Hills convinced many local companies to donate clothes and other goods to On Your Feet, and some stuff indeed ended up with those who could best use the items.

Unforatenly, a lot didn’t because many of the donations were siphoned off by the Hills, who sold items to discount stores and pocketed the proceeds. Their charity was tax-exempt, and they used it like a personal checking account and avoided paying taxes on their “business.”

The couple made well over $1 million by trading on the goodwill of businesses. Geraldine received a sentence of 15 months; her husband received nine months when they appeared before a court in 2020.

Nothing illustrates their hypocrisy more than the fact that they donated some of the proceeds to their church.

6 Order of the Eastern Star

The Order of the Eastern Star is a Masonic institution that can trace its origins back to 1850 Mississippi. But it was in Scotland, not the United States, where one of its leaders went off the rails.

Mary Shirkie was the acting treasurer of the Supreme Grand Council of Scotland, and she betrayed the trust of its members. She was the only person who received a salary at the Order’s headquarters in Glasgow. The salary was not large; the Order devotes its income to paying annuities to members and donating to the charities it supports. But Eastern Star in Scotland was not donating much nor paying annuities.

Shirkie’s neighbors thought she must have won some prize money and kept quiet about it. It was true that she had more money than people expected, but it wasn’t her money. Over five years, she had embezzled around $26,000 (in today’s money). This might not sound like a lot, but the Order does not generate cash. Its income comes from dues and goes out on expenses and disbursements.

The auditor was a member of the local chapter and suspected nothing. In fact, nobody believed that Shirkie would do such a thing. In 2000, when authorities caught up with her, she offered to pay back the money. Meanwhile, the Order had no money to pay its tax liabilities, let alone its regular operational expenses.

5 Wounded Warrior Project

Firstly, it’s important to emphasize that the Wounded Warrior Project appears to be back on track and dedicating its efforts to helping veterans, but this wasn’t always the case.

An investigation in 2016 showed that the charity leaders were spending a fortune on hobbies and events. One employee described their spending habits as “total excess.”

Other charities that work with veterans were (and are) spending more than 90% of their income on the causes they support—mental, physical, and financial help for veterans. The rest of their income goes to unavoidable expenses. However, The Wounded Warrior Project only spent around 60% on its cause. The rest was going to junkets that had nothing to do with fundraising.

4 Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation

There is no suggestion that DiCaprio personally benefits from his environmental charity—he hardly needs the money after all. But, in 2016, the United States Justice Department filed a complaint that his charity formed part of a $3 billion embezzlement scandal based in Malaysia. Jho Low was named as an important figure in the scam, and Jho Low was a personal friend of DiCaprio.

The main problem was that DiCaprio’s foundation was completely opaque. The foundation claimed to have taken in some $45 million in 2016, but it was unclear where the money came from and where it went. Nor was it clear exactly how the charity was linked to dubious practices in Malaysia. Records showed that the charity had just six staff, all of them working unpaid.

There might have been nothing untoward about the operation. However, all charities need to be open about their activities.

3 New Era Philanthropy

In 1989, John Bennett Jr. set up the Foundation for New Era Philanthropy (or New Era, for short).

The New Era idea was simple: A non-profit would deposit funds with New Era for a specified period. On the due date, the charity would get its original money back and the same amount again that an anonymous donor chipped in. Doubling the money. Great!

But Bennett was paying the first donors from funds deposited by later investors; there were no anonymous donors. Yeah, in other words, a Ponzi scheme. This practice went on for over five years.

In 1996, Bennett faced indictment on 82 counts. He was in jail for 12 years.

2 Coalition to Salute America’s Heroes and Help Hospitalized Veterans

Roger Chapin has enjoyed a long career in the charity field. He has started over 30 organizations that have worked in various areas, from cancer to veteran aid. But there are suggestions that the primary beneficiary of his efforts has been Chapin himself.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government looked into his activities in 2007 and again in 2008 because of the “financial inefficiency” in two of his projects. The Coalition to Salute America’s Heroes and Help Hospitalized Veterans were great at raising funds—nearly $170 million between 2004 and 2006. Only around 25% of the money found its way to veterans, though. The rest went into salaries for Chapin and his cronies and expenses.

He retired from Help Hospitalized Veterans in 2009, and even though authorities had highlighted inefficiencies, he still paid himself nearly $2 million from the charity’s funds as a retirement payout.

What Chapin did was not illegal, but it was unethical, to say the least.

1 Feed the Children

This is an excellent place to recognize the work that charitywatch.org does in monitoring the behavior of non-profits. This group labeled Feed the Children under the presidency of Larry Jones, “The Most Outrageous Charity in America.”

Jones ran the charity for almost 30 years until the board made him step down in 2009. He filed for wrongful termination, but the board proved a series of offenses that included the misuse of funds, unauthorized salary increases for Jones and his wife, and much more.

Jones managed Feed the Children for three decades as a private fiefdom. Now that he has gone, the charity is back to doing what it should be doing.