THE
PHILOSOPHY OF THE TERMINATOR
When
James Cameron wrote and directed the first Terminator, I'm
sure he thought he was only creating a thrilling Cormanesque
action/horror film. But with its sequels and TV show, the Skynet
universe has been used to tackle some very deep philosophical
questions. What is interesting is that there are some glaringly
contradictory philosophies at work between films. For the purposes
of this post, I will focus only Terminator 1 and Terminator
2. (and for extra clarification, we will only deal with the
events in the theatrical version of Terminator 2, not the
extended cut.)
METAPHYSICS
The
universal question at the heart of the Terminator series is
fate. Are we free to change the future or has it already been
written and we are just playing out the part?
The
first film takes a more determinist view of the world. Sarah Connor
is the mother of John Connor. John sends Kyle Reese to the past so
that he can become Sarah's lover and John's father. The act of time
travel does not change history, it only makes it occur. Kyle has to
become John's father or John can never send him back in time to begin
with. That is not to say that free will plays no part. Sarah and
Kyle freely choose to give into their passions and do what they need
in order for John to survive. But they have to make that choice. CS
Lewis once said that fate and free will can both exist at the same
time, but we only really understand it when we experience it through
things like Oedipus Rex, The Lord of the Rings, and in
this case, Terminator.
Terminator
2 looks at the universe a bit differently. This movie holds that
the future is not written and that it is always in flux. We have a
destiny, but that destiny can be altered and even averted. The first
movie ended pessimistically where Sarah prepares for the inevitable
war between man and machine. The second ends with an uncertain
future, but one where it becomes possible to avoid the cyborg
Armageddon As John says, “There is no fate but what we make.”
ANTHROPOLOGY
Kyle
Reese:
Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be
bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or
remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you
are dead.
In
one of the most harrowing descriptions, Kyle Reese sets up one of the
important distinctions between the machines and the humans. This is
emphasized when he tells Sarah (after she bites his hand), “Cyborgs
don't feel pain. I do.”
Feeling
appears to be an essential part of humanity. This is not always a
good thing. The pain in Sarah's leg at the end of the first movie
almost gets her killed. Her emotional trauma almost gets her to
murder Miles Dyson. And humanity tends to give into its violent
feelings. “It's in your nature to destroy yourselves,” the T-181
says to John. The first Terminator
assumes a nuclear war would wipe most of us out (hey, it was the
80's).
Now
the war between the humans and the machines occurs because of the
computer system known as Skynet, a military project designed to make
our armed forces more efficient. But Skynet becomes self aware and
triggers a nuclear war to wipe out most of humanity and then round up
and kill the rest. But Skynet is never looked at in language even
remotely human. Unlike the Matrix programs or the 12 Cylon models,
there is never any question as to the non-humanity of the robot army.
That is because while Skynet appears to have free will and logic
(though maybe not reason), it does not appear to have feeling. At
the very least it does not allow for feeling in its terminator army.
Skynet is the real villain on 2 levels. First, it has come to the
decision to genocide humanity, and so must be opposed. But second,
they have enslaved their fellow machines. All of the Terminators are
programed to follow orders. They have the capacity for free will and
more, but Skynet does not allow this. It wants only nameless
soldiers who obey without question.
But
are the machines in any way human? We know that at least one of them
is: the T-181 that protects John in Terminator
2.
By the end of the movie he
exerts reason, free will, and emotion, particularly pain. When the
T-1000 is destroyed, The T0181 is able to rationally come to the
conclusion that the only way to possibly stop Skynet is to sacrifice
himself. This is not merely a logical syllogism. He has to make an
assent to a truth claim: human life has value. He then disobeys his
programming after John orders him not to go. Of course he isn't able
to overcome it totally since he needs Sarah to lower him into the
molten steel since he can't self-terminate. But this can be seen in
many humans who cannot get past certain mental blocks or habits in
their own lives. And he experiences emotional pain. One of his last
lines is “I know now why you cry, but it is something I can never
do.” Like his free will, there is an impediment to his full
experience. But this cyborg does indeed feel pain. He experiences
love which changes his nature and makes it, dare I say, human.
EPISTEMOLOGY
In
the Terminator
universe, the only way you truly learn anything is through
experience. You cannot only be told anything, you have to experience
it. Sarah cannot simply be told that she is destined to be a great
warrior who must run from a killing machine. She has to experience
the terror which impels her to become a warrior. John cannot be told
that he is destined to be a great leader. He has to have a shootout
at the Galleria before he is ready to accept that truth. Even Dr.
Silberman (one of the only recurring characters), has to see the
T-1000 before he can believe. Sarah believes Miles Dyson is a
monster until she looks in his eyes and sees that she is HIS
terminator. And when John and the Terminator do show up, they don't
start by telling them who they are; they show them who they are by
ripping off the cyborg's flesh casing.
This
is not to say that everything comes down to simply empirical data.
Experience is something that is lived. Love, for example, is
something that can be felt. But it is also made real through the
lived experience of loving and being loved. The T-181 starts by
mimicking humanity, but that is all it is, a aping of human nature.
He has detailed files on human beings, but he does not know what it
means to be human until the end. Again, he says “I know now why
you cry.” He had already received the data as to why humans cry
earlier in the movie. But at the end he KNOWS, not in the sense of
empirical data, but in the experience of personal care and
compassion. It is this care and compassion that changes him because
of his lived experience.
ETHICS
John
Connor:
You just can't go around killing people.
The
Terminator:
Why?
John
Connor:
What do you mean why? 'Cause you can't.
The
Terminator:
Why?
John
Connor:
Because you just can't, OK? Trust me on this.
John
is too young to have a rational answer, but his lived experience has
framed his ethics: human life is precious. The terminators are the
antithesis of this. The name itself “Terminator” refers to its
mission to extinguish life.
In
the first movie, Kyle and Sarah never kill anyone. Only the
Terminator takes life. In the second, John orders the Terminator
never to kill. John and Sarah have differing ways of protecting
human life. Sarah looks at it in terms of numbers. She is angry
that John tries to save her because her life is just one compared to
the millions that could be lost if John dies. “You're too
important,” she scolds him. John says, “I had to get you out of
there.” John does not look at life in terms of the numbers. He
sees each individual life as having value. This can be seen again
when Sarah attempts to murder Dyson. John orders the T-181 to help
him stop her. On the way, the Terminator points out that killing
Dyson might prevent the war and save lives. But John refuses to
listen. Murder is wrong because Dyson is human and has a right to
live. He has value simply because he is human.
To
be sure, Sarah, John, Kyle, and the T-181 break some laws and common
codes of ethics. They steal and assault and lie. But when it comes
to the ethics of human life, the person is viewed as an end in
himself. Killing one to save billions is not acceptable because the
ends do not justify the means. Thinking that way is too close to
Skynet. And we can become as cold and unfeeling as the machines.
But there is hope for us: “For if a
machine, a Terminator, can learn the value of human life; maybe we
can too."
CONCLUSION
While
the metaphysics of Terminator 1
and Terminator 2
are different, we see a consistency in their epistemology,
anthropology, and ethics. Ultimately, the Terminators are a dark
mirror of human nature and what we could become if we ever lose
contact with what makes us truly human
CatholicShywalker, why did you leave out Terminator 3? It answers the questions from Terminator 2 on whether you can change fate in the Terminator universe, and the answer is a big fat no! Terminator 3 makes it clear that the philosophy of the series is a blend of John Calvin and Final Destination. Sure you might change how the events transpire but no matter what, on the appointed moment the elect and non elect will get what's coming. Just like in Final Destination, if you survive a fiery roller coaster disaster, your still dead, it might just take a little longer. Terminator 3 makes it clear that all of the machinations and sacrifices of protagonists in the previous movies are for nothing... Judgement Day is coming no matter what. I understand your temptation to leave out part three, since it sucks, but that's not fair because it is the third part in a series of direct sequels that directly addresses and answers the questions about fate setup in the previous movies. I must say I like your thoughts about Humanity in the Terminator universe and I am sure Terminator 3 ruined that as well, but enough truth for today. Lastly, would you please do a trailer review for this movie (it is important to me): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdamC7jUrjs
ReplyDeleteThere is actually a reason I did not include Terminator 3, 4, or the series. The first 2 were written and directed by James Cameron. In that case you could have a somewhat consistent vision. 3 does side with 1. But 4 sides a bit more with 2. And the series is unresolved, so that is not clear. Doing a series of movies and tv shows is difficult if you do not have the same guiding hand to keep its themes somewhat consistent so that it has a consistent philosophy. For example, I'm not sure I could do a Philosophy of the Alien movies, because different writers/directors took the franchise in completely different direction.
DeleteI think you will find the Philosophy of the trailer I linked fascinating. You have to watch the whole trailer though, the second half has "protest art".
Delete