2001: A Space Odyssey's monolith.
I have recently read an interesting article on this Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece. If you are interested I share the link here: Stanley Kubrick explains the meaning of the monolith in '2001: A Space Odyssey'
There has always been a deep debate on the significance of the monolith which appears in the beginning of the movie. I am honest and I admit that I didn't understand the reference the first time I saw it. But complexity is one of the skills of Kubrick.
In 1969 Kubrick had an interview and he was asked by the image of the monolith and then he answered:
From the very outset of work on the film we all discussed means of photographically depicting an extraterrestrial creature in a manner that would be as mind-boggling as the being itself.
In the same sentiment as fantasy writer H.P. Lovecraft, Kubrick wished to obscure the sight of the alien being with the knowledge that anything he conjured could not match the power of the imagination, noting: It soon became apparent that you cannot imagine the unimaginable.
As a result, Kubrick created the black monolith, the antithesis to wild creativity that is paradoxically an innovative masterstroke.
As Stanley Kubrick explained:All you can do is try to represent it in an artistic manner that will convey something of its quality, making reference to the monoliths intimidating size and terrifying unknown impetus. Continuing, the filmmaker added: Thats why we settled on the black monolith which is, of course, in itself something of a Jungian archetype, and also a pretty fair example of minimal art.
I start this thread with the aim of debate with you on what are your thoughts about the monolith and what is the meaning because I think Kubrick had in mind more information than he replied in the interview.
There has always been a deep debate on the significance of the monolith which appears in the beginning of the movie. I am honest and I admit that I didn't understand the reference the first time I saw it. But complexity is one of the skills of Kubrick.
In 1969 Kubrick had an interview and he was asked by the image of the monolith and then he answered:
From the very outset of work on the film we all discussed means of photographically depicting an extraterrestrial creature in a manner that would be as mind-boggling as the being itself.
In the same sentiment as fantasy writer H.P. Lovecraft, Kubrick wished to obscure the sight of the alien being with the knowledge that anything he conjured could not match the power of the imagination, noting: It soon became apparent that you cannot imagine the unimaginable.
As a result, Kubrick created the black monolith, the antithesis to wild creativity that is paradoxically an innovative masterstroke.
As Stanley Kubrick explained:All you can do is try to represent it in an artistic manner that will convey something of its quality, making reference to the monoliths intimidating size and terrifying unknown impetus. Continuing, the filmmaker added: Thats why we settled on the black monolith which is, of course, in itself something of a Jungian archetype, and also a pretty fair example of minimal art.
Revealing that the monolith is inspired by the theory of Jungian archetypes devised by Carl Jung, this concept is defined by images and themes that derive from the collective unconscious. Jung believed that certain symbols from different cultures are often very similar as they have been developed from archetypes shared by a collective human unconscious.
I start this thread with the aim of debate with you on what are your thoughts about the monolith and what is the meaning because I think Kubrick had in mind more information than he replied in the interview.
Comments (68)
So, all the hominids stared at its smooth, designed, cuboid shape and knew none of their kind could have created it so ........ gods?
I think Kubrick was also trying to say, 'yeah you lot wish you could get some useful supernatural advice written on stone tablets but the best you are ever going to get is sci fi stories like this one. The rest is on you, it's your burden to figure it all out, including all the mysteries. There are no gods to help you!'
Interesting view! I never gave it a religious significance. It even takes a while until I have a clear idea of what the monolith means. It is true that we should see the movements and expressions of the hominids. I remember that whenever they approach to the monolith they feel hesitated...
Probably they feel that way because of the unknown?
I respect Kubrick's answers in the interview. But I guess he just replied in an artistic experience not philosophical one.
Did you see the sequel, 2010?
In that, the monolith had a lot of duplicates, and the suggestion eventually was an alien source.
In the film, many monoliths turn up and 'terraform' Mars and Venus (I think) and very quickly make them Earth like, to give two new liveable planets for us humans to expand into. With various warnings and complaints from the 'alien' source that we better improve our behaviour with these two added planets OR ELSE!
I didn't sequel of 2010! Wow, thanks for sharing the video. Now, I see the alien theory gains more rigidity.
I see (as you explained) the monolith had duplicates. To be honest, I don't like that representation. An only, unique, solitary monolith is what makes a lot of debate.
When you see a lot of them you feel outrageous :lol:
Yeah, I love sci-fi, especially Babylon 5, Star Trek, Star Wars etc but some storylines have been visited tooooooooooo many times!
2001 was rubbish when I first saw it at around 15 years of age but I began to appreciate it as I got older.
2010 was an okay sequel but the 'alien first contact' storyline and the 'terraforming' monoliths was a bit disappointing.
I remembered the storyline incorrectly however. (see the clip below) The monoliths get together and 'ignite' Jupiter creating a small second sun in our solar system and I think they also terraform some of jupiters moons for use by humans so not Mars and Venus as I suggested. BUT they also warn humans not to land on Jupiters moon Europa. It's like a throwback to the garden of eden where the humans can do as they like but they must stay away from one of the big trees! :lol:
Nonetheless, it is interesting to point out that many people interpreted the scene as "scary" due to the randomness and the way of hominids acted on the monolith. But as you noticed, we also have to keep our eyes on the hominid who throws a bone in the sky. To be honest with you, the first time I saw the scene I interpreted as a "violent" specie surviving in the chaos.
But the way you explained it changed my view a little bit. It is true that we consider it as symbol of creation and not destruction.
I am remembering now that the monolith appears in other scenes during the film. But my memories are vague, I think I should watch it again.
What!? :scream:
Quoting Agent Smith
I don't think it is a bad idea at all. Monolithic symbolism is pretty interesting. We can have a large debate on the significance. What I intended to start in this thread was the search for answers of what Kubrick was thinking when he decided to put a monolith in a sci-fi film.
This experience is common. 2001 is a very complex film. The first time I saw it I didn't understand anything... it took some years and a lot of readings in internet to get a basic sense on the film!
It is a communication device in both the scene with the hominids and the uncovering it of it on the moon. It is not clear what was imparted to the hominids, but it sends a traceable signal to the outer solar system after the moon discovery. Whatever its purpose, it is acting as a lure some kind to both groups.
In case of the moon discovery, it is also a 'motion sensing' device. Informing its maker that the project was showing results.
To the extent that encounters with the monolith has 'made' us into something, the crisis with the AI named HAL show us another collision of the natural with the artificial.
It seems to me that Brandan Morris, one of my favorite sci fi writers, observed a batch of monoliths on Enceladus some years in our future, They weren't doing much, but they had rescued Frank Poole? the astronaut who HAL9000 had tossed into space--his mental being, anyway.
I thought the monoliths were perfect as aliens: strange, mysterious, other-worldly, potent, awesome (in the original meaning of the word), etc.
The monolith is a fascinating theme. I've watched so many interpretations of it, but none seemed truly satisfactory.
My personal take on it is that the monolith symbolizes something like humanity's capacity for abstract thought (including things like geometry and mathematics). Its flat shape and straight corners are some of its defining features, yet these things are very rare in nature. They are completely prevalent throughout our society today. You could almost say our society is based on them. (If you want to entertain a particularly spooky thought - our society is completely filled with monoliths - computer/telephone/tv screens.)
It makes its first appearance during prehistoric times, when it seems to give the apes the idea to use bones as weapons.
However, when it appears for a second time in a more modern era, it is no longer just associated with weapons. Though the way the bone weapon and the missile satellite overlap during the transition between scenes implies Kubrick still draws the parallel.
In modern times, abstract thought is very strongly manifested in the use of technology, as we see in 2001. I think it is implied this signifies the second stage of human abstract thought. This time, the monolith is found during a lunar excavation, and points the way to Venus, so its role during this stage seems to have changed, away from violence, towards advanced technology.
The third monolith that's encountered I believe is in Venus' orbit, and it is on Venus where David Bowman experiences a sort of transformation / rebirth / spiritual awakening / enlightenment. To me this strongly implies Kubrick sees this as the next stage of human abstract thought, and thus human evolution.
Do you know Rob Ager and his YouTube channel Collative Learning? He has a lot of material on Kubrick movies, including 2001 and the meaning of the monolith.
:up: :100:
Exactly, this is the same feeling I have when I saw the monolith. It is there not doing much but at the same time it makes a rare atmosphere because you can feel the abstract object "should not be there" because it is not the "correct" place for a monolith.
Thanks for sharing your view on the book. I never read it but I think I should give it a try the next year. It seems to be a good book.
:fire: :100: :clap:
Interesting point of view and very argumentative answer. I have perceived that most of you interpret the monolith as a characteristic of technology.
Nevertheless, sometimes I tried to think as a "proof" of this advanced and specific technology. I mean, probably the monolith was put there as a sign of a older but wiser civilisation who habited the earth previously to hominids, thus us as humans.
The most mind blowing scene is when the monolith appears again in the moon... it is a very substantive scene. We can also interpret that we are behind of something else. Whenever we progress into something new a rare civilisation already did it or was there and I think the monolith is a "proof" that "we do not discover anything" because a different civilisation already did it.
Quoting Tzeentch
No, I never heard of him. I going to check him out.
Regarding violence, it is present in the prehistory, moon discovery, and the space voyage scenes. There was much establishment of a tense cold war problem in the moon scenes. HAL kills the whole crew except for one. Kubrick seems to be linking an element to each progression rather than transcending it.
Sure. Just bear in mind that it was written concurrently with the script for the movie, so there is very little in one that is not in the other.
It's some sort of alien technology meant to promote intelligence.
Interesting. Clarke's expectation.
The first, on the plains of Africa, is used to improve Moonwatcher's intelligence. The second, in orbit around Jupiter (Saturn in the book) is used to transport Bowman via a worm hole. The third, in the Hotel room, transforms him into a "star child"...
It's trite now, it wasn't in 1968.
You did not include the moon stuff in your description.
I recall in one of the later books a description of each as an emanation of one monolith, like multiple Tardises, or electrons.
Important in the context of the story because it is what gives the impetus to having an Odyssey.
I like your theory because it could mean that aliens would help us and be our partners. Aliens tend to be represented as "enemies" or "intruders" of the humans or earth.
But what could be a key moment for humans? The fine line between us and the other species who didn't evolved like the humankind?
Quoting Paine
Interesting. We can interpret monoliths were put by aliens to "test" the habitants of earth and since the first one on the Plains of Africa, there were three different monoliths making an important impact to our actions.
Nonetheless, despite the monolith has a weird atmosphere of the unknown we cannot say if it was put on the earth with negative purposes. If they tried to communicate with us through the monoliths we can think the aliens intended to be "diplomatic"... or the simple fact that there always been a clever civilisation watching our lives.
Link to post with a fairly thoughtful youtube. :nerd:
Why did God, He would be the most advanced alien we could hope to encounter, take a human form, as Jesus? My compass tells me we're in alien gods territory.
I hope to not encounter anyone at all. The mysticism of the unknown is what makes the monolith so interesting.
Nevertheless, I bet that the ones who put the monolith on earth were there previously to God and Jesus Christ :wink:
I think it is harder to believe when it appears in a human form.
Quoting Agent Smith
No one seen before and so enigmatic and original. Sometimes simplicity makes the best impact. Now that I am deeply concerned about the archetype of the monolith... Most of the devices look like it. If you look at a cellphone closely you would see a lot similarities with a monolith.
Indeed, hence God/alien!
Quoting javi2541997
Apophenia/Pareidolia? Still, not bad, not bad at all! The cell phone does look like that monolith.
That's true. I think especially the danger of technology is a theme that's present throughout the film. Even the ape's primitive bone weapon could be seen as man's first dabble with 'technology', but the weapons satellites and HAL are definitely examples of that.
Yet, the monolith is only involved with the very first step. The weapons satellite and HAL are made by humans. After the prologue the monolith doesn't seem to 'cause' any violence anymore.
David Bowman.
David slays Goliath - HAL.
Bowman, Sagittarius, has as its ruling planet Jupiter, travels to Venus. Just so happens to be an astrological match made in heaven. Jupiter, the Husband, Venus, the Wife, this synthesis turns Bowman into the starchild - seems to strongly imply a Jungian incorporation of the masculine and the feminine.
Speaking of Jung, could the monolith be a symbol for the Jungian shadow self?
Yes! :smile:
Indeed. The article I read days ago made a lot of references to Jung's archetypes. The author of the article defined the monolith as an "unconscious symbol who shares common characteristics to all the civilisations"
Well, I guess it is better to share the quote itself:
Even Kubrick in the interview said: Thats why we settled on the black monolith which is, of course, in itself something of a Jungian archetype...
Have you heard of Boltzmann brains? It's supposedly far more likely that the monolith simply assembled itself from nearby matter & energy and did its thing than that it were constructed and placed at the watering hole by a super-advanced alien civilization? Interesting, oui?
Perhaps violence and violent technology are the shadow, and only a by-product of the monolith. And perhaps David's defeat of HAL signifies the mastery / incorporation of the shadow.
Sidenote; HAL's appearance is essentially a giant eye. David defeated Goliath by striking him in the eye with a rock thrown from a sling. (EDIT: Oops, no it seems he struck him in the forehead).
Shape: Rectangular prism (cell phoneish)
Color: Black (absorbs all colors, the "color" of (Jungian) shadows)
Dimensions: Unknown (mathemtical code? proportio divina 1.618...)
Surface: Looks smooth
Function: Jump-start cognitive revolutions (very Promethean, fire)
As @javi2541997 pointed out, the monolith appears to be rather simple, but given what it does, it must be functionally quite complex.
It is literally what I think about the nature of the monolith. It is clear that is an abstract object which is far more intelligent than human race. I guess we treat it as "complex" because we don't understand it. Our knowledge didn't increased that much to have the same language as a monolith.
But we have an interesting question here... does the monolith understand us?
Quoting Agent Smith
A simplicity full of complexities.
It could be another interpretation in the same direction that the monolith simply is there to help the humankind. It could be even a criticism for not being ourselves able to make a real progress without "exterior help" like if the monolith would never been there we as specie would never developed our knowledge.
The monolith is a simple 3D geometric shape; somehow reminds me of Plato's forms. It's tall, compared to the pre-sapiens and so symbolizes superiority. The dimensions hopefully are in the golden ratio 1.618... (proportio divina).
It isn't simple is it now?
Unless you make sense, nobody's gonna listen to you! There's a workaround for that though - money, power, fame (the unholy trinity) can be used to bend & break rules any which way you please.
Indoctrination differs from education; the former doesn't have to be reasonable, the latter hasta be, oui?
Coming back to Jungian archetypes, what are they? It suggests what in my book are Platonic forms of minds with typical sets of ideas, attitudes, approaches, values, and so on. Am I correct?
Yes, you are correct.
:lol:
When (movie) Dave Bowman transforms (chrysalis-like) into the "Starchild", the Monolith's simulation, I imagine, becomes aware of itself as (manifested as an avatar of) the Monolith's simulation. (Book) Bowman's last transmission as his pod falls onto / into the Great Monolith "My God, it's full of stars ..." in which "stars" could mean souls, or minds, or intelligences ... perhaps all there ever has been and will ever be ... simulated. No doubt, another inspiration for Frank Tipler's cosmological "Omega Point"?
Anyway, 2001 is stll my all-time favorite cinematic experience. :fire:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/741055
Time for bed. :yawn:
[quote=SAL-9000]Will I dream?[/quote]
Ati sundar mon ami, ati sundar!
Stanley Kubrick's monolith is as ambiguous & vague as a Rorschach test can be. It's intended to represent an advanced intellect and yet, since, as javi2541997 pointed out, Kubrick was trying to imagine the unimaginable, his experience & knowledge had to be swept aside as nothing in 'em made the cut - they were all too earthly, too mundane as some like to put it. He then probably went apophatic, as he sifted through all the proposals that were put forward, saying "neti neti" (not this, not that, no, not that either). He seems to have finally settled on a black, smooth, rectangular prism. It was, as the OP opined simple, rather anticlimactic you might say, but just consider for a moment the notion of divine simplicity, that god (the alien extraordinaire) is infinitely simple. Instead of trying to think of something mind-bogglingly complex, Kubrick chose something simple, with the same effect mind you, the head meets the tail, the ouroboros coiled.
[quote=Steve Jobs][s]Simplify[/s], [s]Simplify[/s], Simplify[/quote]
Good explanation :up: :100:
Then this is why the hominids felt hesitation when they approached to the monolith. The unknown itself creates a lot of uncertainty and your examples are perfect. Who don't feel tension when they concern about horizon, death, cosmic time, universe significance, etc...? The monolith gathers all of these archetypes. But exactly in this concept... how can we treat the monolith? As an enemy or as an adviser?
The scene where the monolith appears "again" in the moon is important. The astronauts feel blurred but they do not hesitate and even start to investigate it... probably because the humankind evolved in the knowledge towards the monolith epicentre?
Maybe we can "treat" the Monolith as an event whereby each encounter with it irrevocably changes all that has come before. Every encounter is the same encounter, there is only ever one Monolith for the intellects (us) within its simulations. Neither "an enemy" nor "an adviser", I imagine the Monolith is (for us) the enabling-constraint of becoming (fractally joining) the Monolith. A quasi-gnostic odyssey of re/turning to the source (pleroma), or the prodigal homecoming monomyth of all intelligences ...
(NB: My Spinozist interpretation contains a 'Hegelian telos' which is, however, only the mirror image of daojia.)
Stepping back from (out of) the "screen", perhaps, analogously, we the audience are Sisyphus and the aporia the "Monolith" presents us with is the proverbial (philosopher's) Stone on a dark, silent, mountain slope. Kubrick-Clarke's story is an odyssey, an endless(?) journey, rather than merely a "quest" to reach some definitive, knowable destination; and perhaps this is the Monolith's odyssey it's simulations not (just) ours? :chin:
Very interesting take. It makes me realize I have been looking at it through a Hegel/teleological lens.
If the disturbing factor is the same throughout, the monolith is like the attempts to measure time against place as with Stonehenge or the orientation of Egyptian monuments. The question of simulation becomes one of who is making up who.
:sparkle: :100:
Quoting Paine
My bet goes to the monolith. This structure is always there and even before the appearance of humans. So, my guess is that the monolith is the one who is making up our "reality"
I wasn't thinking of it as either us or the monolith as originators. 180 Proof made a distinction between ways of seeing it as an agent. It is different to see it as an instrument working toward an end from its appearance pointing to a condition that precedes us and the monolith. The monolith's quality of seeming completely formed not telling the whole story.
:up: :sparkle:
Ignorance or... the torch which lights us to finish such ignorance.
If only we knew how the brain makes such jumps in its capabilities, we could bring them about at will instead of relying on luck. We could trigger a cognitive singularity à la the one some say is coming down the pike viz. the technological singularity. I suppose the movie captures that wish as whoever the aliens are, they seem to possess such knowhow.
Exactly! I see it in the same way, indeed :sparkle:
:up:
Have we ever been?[/i]
Frank Drake 1930-2022
We may be living within their simulation, Mr. Fermi.
part one
part two
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/760115
Well said, and now, let me segue into saying, "The monolith is a MacGuffin." Tricky Kubrick knows how to stir the public imagination visually with that sleek, black slab of commercial mysteriousness. Keep cogitating on it folks, and while you're at it, keep ringing those turnstiles with repeat, paid viewings.
Quoting Agent Smith
:up:
Or current sapiens? (Sex and) mystery sells, especially when hawked by the cognoscenti.
To me, the monolith represented an artifact, which would only be apparent to rational beings. Presumably, ordinary apes would treat it a useless black rock. But a few began to realize that the monolith was not natural, so someone must have created it. Thus began the ontological quest to understand why anything exists. Which eventually led to the ever-evolving god concept.
So the space odyssey was merely the continuation of that eons-old search for the Ultimate Source of Being. In the movie, we never see any divine beings, only symbols & metaphors of omnipotence & omniscience. That ambiguous presentation left open the nature of the Creator : advanced aliens or introverted deity? :smile:
It has been a long time since I read Arthur C. Clarke's [I]2001: A Space Odyssey[/I] novel. It was written in 1968 concurrent with the production of the film, if I recall, but differs thematically from it.
It's sort-of implied in the film; in the novel, it's explicitly described how the monolith instils premonitions of modern industrial civilisation in the minds of the [I]Hominids[/I], who are on the edge of extinction in a veldt in Africa. Their streams are running very low, they are constantly in futile conflict with rival tribes, and they are oft visited by an aggressive leopard that picks them off in their caves, at night.
After encountering the monolith, and touching it, they are inspired to manufacture tools from bones, rocks, and wood. They kill the leopard, and then, if I recall correctly, the monkey whose POV the reader assumes mounts the leopard's head on a club and beats the leader of the rival tribe to death with it to establish hegemony over their water-source.
I've always just seen it as something of a seed. The monolith essentially actualises the innate potential of prehistoric humans that otherwise would not have been actualised; they'd have gone extinct. We know the aliens in [I]Space Odyssey[/I], for whatever reason, seek to 'harvest' or perhaps 'foster' intelligent civilisations. Maybe they are totally benevolent super-conscious life forms that seek only to advance technology in the universe and spread a kind of eudaemonism; a system that transcends traditional morals. Perhaps these lifeforms have already ascended to this degree and want to guide other civilisations to total ascension. They may be in a state of omniscient 'perfection'. There are ostensibly similar themes in [I]Interstellar[/I] and [I]Arrival[/I].
The monolith found millions of years later dubbed [i]TMA-1[/I] is seemingly identical to the one that was planted in that veldt, which I think suggests that their distribution is not a manual, metered process, but rather something autonomous. The monkeys had no inkling that its proportions were in a nearly-perfect 1:4:9 ratio. They couldn't sense its magnetic field, nor interpret the radio signal it emits when Heywood Floyd investigates it in [I]Tycho[/I]. People always touch it. The monkeys touch it and are imbued with the will and ways to pioneer tool construction. The lunar astronauts touch it and their comms are blown out by an HF signal that's directed at one of Saturn's moons, [I]Lapetus[/I] (it may have been a Jovian moon in the film, though, I don't remember). Another monolith is found orbiting [I]Lapetus[/I] and once it's touched, Bowman is transported and shown the entire, timeless developmental breadth of alien civilisations, before being rapidly aged in what appears to be a tailored hotel room, and immortalised as a [I]Starchild[/I]. Again, this is more ambiguous in the Kubrick film.
The three monoliths are proxies for a civilisation of immortal [I]Starchildren[/I] to guide other civilisations, once sufficiently intelligent (which humanity was) to become them. What's weird is that Bowman, now a [I]Starchild[/I] revisits Earth in the book and is nuked. He is totally unaffected. He feels no anger or indignation, linking back to that [I]eternal eudaemonia[/I] thing, though humanity's hostile reception to him perhaps proves they are not yet ready to ascend wholly. Maybe the monoliths are not objects of fate, but tests for openness to dimensional and existential metamorphosis.
I'm just riffing here, but maybe it links back to Nietzsche too. Maybe the [I]Starchildren[/I] are analogous with the [I]übermensch[/I]that evolution beyond passive nihilism, which is clearly still a species-wide institution when the non-hostile lifeform visiting Earth is not investigated, but attacked. Maybe Bowman in his new form is the [I]superman[/I] who will save humanity. I don't know. Just my two cents.
Kubrick undoubtedly knew that the music he selected for the monolith's appearance was from "Also Sprach Zarathustra", Strauss's tone-poem based on Nietzsche. I'm sure the connection was deliberate.
Great movie. Just wanted to comment that this ties in a bit to a thread I made earlier:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15949/ontological-shock/p1
That's right, I'd somehow forgotten about that. Now that I think of it, it plays at the very start when the Earth, moon, and sun are shown; the scene where the [I]Hominids[/I] are smashing up the bones; and at the end when Bowman's looking down on Earth, so it's kind of a leitmotif for man's evolution/transcendence. Nice catch.