scrape_r_rational/data/cache2/2j2tru.md

## [RT] Key & Peele - Could Be Worse

* Author: u/None *
* URL: http://vimeo.com/channels/keypeele/80117014
* Score: 6

* Created: 2014-10-13T01:55:44

### Post:

[Link to content](http://vimeo.com/channels/keypeele/80117014)

### Comments:

> **u/None** [+5]  (7 minutes later)
> 
> Let's see how this does here.
> 
> The two prisoners in this video aren't typical rationalists: they're in a situation that doesn't quite allow for the feel-good heaven-be-damned attitude that seems so prevalent in transhumanist literature. Instead, they're totally at another's mercy, and there is no way to escape or even fight back. So what do they do?
> 
> They take the advice of the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus, who says:
> 
> >**You exert no control over the territory**; everything you currently think you control in the territory can be taken away from you. The only thing that's truly in your control is your map - specifically, the models that predict your emotional reactions to things. Change how you perceive things, and you can change how you react to them; **and then, nothing can ever make you unhappy**. (Except for mental illness. Haha, just kidding; [*this can fix that, too.*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy))
> 
> ... Okay, maybe that's not a direct quote, but [it's pretty damn close.](http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html)
> 
> Well. That's my particular interpretation of rationality under total lack of control, at least. Does anyone else have a conflicting opinion? A different opinion of what would be rational to do in this situation?
> 
> ETA: [The /r/Stoicism thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/2hjv8k/humorous_take_on_stoicism_key_peele_could_be_worse/)

>> **u/Newfur** [+1]  *Crazy like a fox. Literally.* (4 hours later)
>> 
>> Here is my problem with Stoicism: it really, really pushes you into worshipping walls, and although in the ideal case, where everything is perfectly clearcut, it would be awesome; in the real world, though, bounded ego, bounded self-control, and (most importantly) the fact that a Stoic attitude is by its nature imperfect in judging what you can and can't control and thus will sometimes just plain fuck you over in a situation where, if you were feeling normal emotional suffering, might succeed in finding a way out of your condition - these conditions make the success of Stoicism doubtful. To advocate for the pursuit of joy through self-delusion and mutilation of your own world-map is at best wishful thinking and at worst a blatant attempt to get people to kill their sapience-ness. Also, CBT seems to me (as someone who has done it in the pursuit of solving mental health issues) a lot more like recalibration of a badly faulty emotional state and set of responses and strategies than deliberate forcing of all responses to be happiness.

>>> **u/None** [+0]  (10 hours later)
>>> 
>>> >a Stoic attitude is by its nature imperfect in judging what you can and can't control
>>> 
>>> Actually, it's pretty accurate. You control
>>> 
>>> * your action, and
>>> 
>>> * your reaction
>>> 
>>> That's all there is to it. Do you, umm, do you disagree with that?
>>> 
>>> I think you're taking it to literally … or maybe not literally enough. Have you read the Enchiridion? It explains a lot of this.
>>> 
>>> >thus will sometimes just plain fuck you over in a situation where, if you were feeling normal emotional suffering, might succeed in finding a way out of your condition
>>> 
>>> Interesting POV, though I'm not sure where you're getting this from. You're missing the point if you interpret Stoicism as missing out on opportunities because you think they're not in your control. Stoicism doesn't ask you to stop trying; any action is necessarily fine if it is virtuous (ie, not particularly opposing the greater-good). All it asks you to do is to accept failure when it happens. Negative visualization and the other Stoic techniques are all designed to help with this kind of acceptance: stop living in the past; accept it, move on, and learn from your mistakes.
>>> 
>>> >To advocate for the pursuit of joy through self-delusion and mutilation of your own world-map is at best wishful thinking and at worst a blatant attempt to get people to kill their sapience-ness.
>>> 
>>> First off, the aim isn't joy. The aim is *tranquility*, which is the word the Stoics use for "not being disturbed by strong emotions". If you don't let things you cannot control unduly affect you, you'll be tranquil as a tangelo. It's not self-delusion; it's the most radical form of self-acceptance.
>>> 
>>> See also the responses to [a very similar question in the /r/Stoicism thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/2hjv8k/humorous_take_on_stoicism_key_peele_could_be_worse/cktf0ka).

>>>> **u/None** [+2]  (a day later)
>>>> 
>>>> > Actually, it's pretty accurate. You control
>>>> 
>>>> > * your action, and
>>>> 
>>>> > * your reaction
>>>> 
>>>> > That's all there is to it. Do you, umm, do you disagree with that?
>>>> 
>>>> I *would* disagree with that, but there's a more important problem with your model.
>>>> 
>>>> You assume that everyone has complete and total control over their emotions. From that, you assume automatically that there is then a right way to act. That is a non sequitur.
>>>> 
>>>> If you have complete control over whether you're resentful or accepting, and then you chose to be resentful instead of accepting, you've failed, according to Stoicism. But why should it be that way?
>>>> 
>>>> The only reason why these things sound like the wrong thing is word choice. Obviously you wouldn't want to be resentful, and you'd want to be accepting. But you'd obviously also rather put deliberate emphasis on upholding high standards than fail to respond to substandard situations.
>>>> 
>>>> The issue with Stoicism (and its sibling philosophies) is that one particularly common set of word choices is arbitrarily selected to be the right ones. This choice **does not** follow from your starting assertions, nor from a pursuit of an ill-defined "greater-good".
>>>> 
>>>> >It's not self-delusion; it's the most radical form of self-acceptance.
>>>> 
>>>> That doesn't mean anything. The topic has nothing to do with self-acceptance.

> **u/swimracer** [+1]  (44 minutes later)
> 
> Requires a password for me to view it

>> **u/None** [+4]  (54 minutes later)
>> 
>> Really? Huh; it worked fine for me in Chrome and Safari. What happens when you click the first link on [this page](https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#tbm=vid&q=key+and+peele+could+be+worse+site:vimeo.com)? If that doesn't work, maybe just try another browser. :/
>> 
>> Ninja ETA: It seems it won't play if you're running NoScript. If you temporarily allow Vimeo and VimeoCdn, the video should play fine. Just remember to revoke permissions at the end. (Credit to /u/MrAristo for figuring this out.)

>>> **u/swimracer** [+1]  (an hour later)
>>> 
>>> Weird, it says they are all private videos. Do you need an account to view vimeo vids now?

>>>> **u/Empiricist_or_not** [+1]  *Aspiring polite Hegemonizing swarm* (2 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> Well, I'm disturbed my settings are low enough for it to run, but I hope you find your way to it: this was amusing, though I've got a way to go before I'm that positive.

>>>> **u/None** [+1]  (10 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> I don't think so; it worked for me.

---