12 KiB
[RT][TH]The fable of the Dragon Tyrant
-
Author: u/Tommyli973 Custom Flair*
-
Score: 178
-
Created: 2018-04-24T13:37:57
Post:
Comments:
u/RMcD94 [+32] (21 minutes later)
https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/2fa6ef/rt_the_fable_of_the_dragontyrant/
Original post here three years ago.
u/GravityHug [+16] (2 hours later)
u/monkyyy0 [+12] (4 hours later)
Annnnnnd its shit once you get past replys to the first comment.
A shocking number of people dont think its about death
https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/8ek8eb/the_fable_of_the_dragontyrant_cgp_grey/dxwanee/ its about muslums apperently
u/GravityHug [+18] (4 hours later)
Hey, it can be about whatever a viewer’s jedgement fits into the box.
Also, it almost looks like you’ve hand-picked an unpopular comment to support yours. And even then that comment wasn’t saying that it’s about muslims — it’s saying that the allegory can have such a wide range of interpretations that it could be even about muslims.
u/LupoCani [+8] (9 hours later)
The allegory could be stretched to fit any number of causes, that doesn't mean it's practical nor desirable that people do so. Grey is a communicator more than an artist, and Death of the Author as a concept is outright anathema to communication - a process wherein two parties must cooperate to reach understanding - perhaps best likened to this.
u/GravityHug [+3] (17 hours later)
Death of the Author as a concept is outright anathema to communication
I’d compare it more to those anamorphic art installations, except since they’re in the domain of ideas instead of the 3-dimensional space, there is almost an infinite number of possible interpretations to a given sculpture made out of words and ideas.
It’s not that the reader (or the writer) should be deliberately aiming to reach a misunderstanding, but rather that 1. communication through words alone and no mutual mind-reading will inevitably end up being a lossy transfer of information, and that 2. once you have released something into the domain of public discource, you don’t completely own it any more. You own the copyrights, the credits, etc, but it’s no longer under your control; other people will be adding their own meanings to what you were trying to say.
And this doesn’t have to be something purely bad or obstructive, especially if the author is aware of this and tries to prepare their work the best they can before releasing it.
tl;dr Everything is fanfiction.
u/LupoCani [+3] (a day later)
I'm well aware of the concept - sorry if I exaggerated it - I just think there's a time and a place for it, and this isn't it.
Grey has made plenty of messages, most of the kind "Here's how X works," some of the kind "Here's a reason to think Y." Because they were stated explicitly, we took them at face value and discussed them as they were. This message is largely inexplicit, but it is a message nontheless, and deserves to be taken as such.
Now, one can take the DotA view and look at the fable outside of its underlying intent, but then we're having a completely different discussion - we're treating the video as an artwork more than a message.
This isn't inherently wrong, but it brings me back to my original point. With Grey being primarily a communicator and educator, it seems we're primarily here for the "message" view, and if we don't, we ought to be obligated to wear flashing neon signs saying "Currently taking the 'artwork' view" to avoid misunderstandings. There's especially the risk of Motte-and-Baileying ourselves, with people having genuine disagreement about the intent behind the message getting mixed up with people insisting we're free to interpret the artwork however we want, leaving everyone exceptionally confused for their efforts.
u/GravityHug [+2] (a day later)
one can take the DotA view and look at the fable outside of its underlying intent, but then we're having a completely different discussion - we're treating the video as an artwork more than a message.
True.
With Grey being primarily a communicator and educator, it seems we're primarily here for the "message" view
I think ‘we're primarily here for the "message" view’ because that’s what the past history \ context of this subreddit would suggest. However, this discussion branch was about what the users in the /r/videos/ were there for, and for them the answer would be at least slightly different. Not everybody browsing /r/videos/ is familiar with CGP’s past videos (even if many still are), and primary goal there is to go find something entertaining to watch, which would give additional validation to the “interpretation” approach.
we ought to be obligated to wear flashing neon signs saying "Currently taking the 'artwork' view" to avoid misunderstandings
I’ve no definite opinion on this one ATM.
u/immute [+7] Secretly Awesome (a day later)
Frankly, I think he ruined it. The whole effect of the paper is that you spend most of it going "yes yes, this is obvious, the dragon is bad, what's up with these people, what's his point?" and then you get to the "MORAL" at the end and learn it's about death, that you're just like those people, and this can be a big sucker punch to your worldview.
CGP Gray left out the sucker punch. He failed to surprise the audience with the similarity to the aging situation at the end, so it's no wonder a lot of people didn't get it.
u/LupoCani [+18] (6 hours later)
Well, finally CGP Grey does a proper video on death.
He did make "Why die?", but I have to say it felt strangely... flat? As though he'd just taken one of our ready-made argument lists and chanted them off in order. There was no punch to it, no turns, no real impact as far as I could tell. I was of course happy to see Grey campaign in the matter, from his considerably elevated position of publicity, but I couldn't shake the feeling that he's usually better at it. I keep wondering if it was rushed in order to match Kurtzgesagt's schedule in releasing their corresponding video.
So if may, that's more like it.
u/Covane [+7] Dragon Army (8 hours later)
i'm always down for videos about killing death
but I kind of have this nagging annoyance that the "opposition" so to speak isn't accurately portrayed
it's not that people want to die, objectively most don't. but we have hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary knowledge of death and at best fewer than two hundred years of people having concrete evidence death may be conquerable. the "moral adviser" has no reason to believe the "dragon" can be killed, so of course their rationalization is in full swing
like, I think this allegory is poor because it doesn't accurately represent the enormity and inevitability (for now!) of death and instead portrays it as a tangible hurdle
the point is, i just don't really think oppose killing death, they just don't know how to conceptualize having a reason to believe it's possible
u/None [+22] (9 hours later)
To use the allegory of the video, we're not at the point where we know what the magic bullet is. We've got the preliminary research, but it's gonna be more than 12 years of work even with massive funding. Which is kind of the point of the video. If we wait until we have the magic bullet, we doom countless people by inaction. That's what the point about the boy's father on the train that couldn't be delayed even 5 minutes was. If only we had started sooner...
u/Sonderjye [+4] (8 hours later)
I don't think that's the correct use of 'objectively'.
u/LupoCani [+2] (a day later)
I think it qualifies, for reasonable values of "want to die." That is, if we posed the question "Would you like to die?" in a straightforward manner without qualifiers to the entire population, we would get a significant majority answering "no".
u/Sonderjye [+1] (2 days later)
That's still a misuse of the word.
But putting that aside and answering your actual point:
When people hear 'would you like to die?' they substitute it with 'would you like to die now?' and answer that, rather than answering 'would you like to die at some unknown point in next 100 years?'.
If people say 'no' to 'would you like to live forever?' then they are saying 'yes' to 'would you like to die at some point' since that's the only current alternative.
u/pevangelista [+4] (22 hours later)
I think the fable does not correctly describe the way our society is currently organized. Aging does not come to everyone (even the king) in the same manner. The dragon feeds way more on those that do not have the means to bribe the agents that take them to the train.
There are drugs today that cure hepatitis C but that are not affordable to the majority of people. Who is to say that a cure for aging will not be the same, and it will be affordable by everyone, irrespective to social status? It seems that a scenario like the movie Elysium is more probable than the one presented in the fable, where death is cured for everyone.
u/Sonderjye [+3] (2 days later)
Your consern are valid, however we are at a stage in which we need to convince people that death is a bad thing and we should try to remedy it. More nuanced and complicated messages makes it more difficult to convince people to take the first step.
u/ajuc [+1] (4 days later)
People know death is bad. They don't think it can be avoided.
u/Sonderjye [+1] (5 days later)
I suggest that you ask people about whether they would like to live forever. I've been suprised over how many people who want to die at some point in a not too distant future, and who don't see death as a thing that should be remedied.
u/ajuc [+2] (5 days later)
The distinction isn't "to live forever or not", this could be a trap if you can't die when you want to, and universe will end at some point probably anyway so it's impossible.
The distinction is - to be able to live as long as you want or not. Ask that, and 99% of people would agree.
u/SoylentRox [+1] (5 days later)
The majority of those people, however, implicitly believe that they won't really "die". That they will instead enter another phase of existence where they retain their personal identity and will in some way be rewarded or punished for their past actions.
If such a phase really existed, really was run by a being that was admin of the universe, then yes, it would make sense to get to that phase.
Of course, people are irrational.
u/Sonderjye [+10] (33 minutes later)
This is amazing. I would have loved a little more ressistance against the project or an ending that included something like that people realized that they'd still die and then someone having an idea.
u/LordSwedish [+13] Q Continuum (2 hours later)
That doesn't really fit with the fable format though.
u/immute [+6] Secretly Awesome (a day later)
Well, in the original fable, they wouldn't still die, because the population in the fable doesn't age:
The fatalities selected were always elders. Although senior people were as vigorous and healthy as the young, and sometimes wiser, the thinking was that they had at least already enjoyed a few decades of life.
I'm not sure why CGP depicts them as aged in his version.
u/Sonderjye [+3] (2 days later)
Ah, I wish that had been communicated.