[beepbooptheory]

OK, so there is a magical device that provides you with deep contentment no matter what. But then, when you die and they cut your head open, the physical, biological brain has shrunk. And that's bad. Is that right? Is this what it's about?

Is the story actually arguing something? I have just been literally asking what it even presumes itself to be about. Is it the gloss above?

If it's about agency, I don't get it. It seems silly/facile to assert the "right" decision is the thing that matters without making the thing so magic it doesn't even make sense. Does agency stop you from getting hit by a runaway bus? Help you from being persecuted for arbitrary reasons? The story tells us they all, unfailingly, live "abnormally successful" lives. That's all supposed to be because of their (non) agency because of the earring device?

[Dylan16807]

Is it actually contentment or are you fading away so much you cease to exist?

The story is not about physical brain changes, no. It's about losing yourself. It's arguing that to exist is to make decisions. Following the device too much leads to a life that looks successful from the outside but inside no longer has a person enjoying the success, just a puppet.

[beepbooptheory]

But it explicitly says it provides the wearer with happiness, it is "supernaturally effective" at it. Where as a reader are we supposed to gather this is not an internal happiness?

Come to think of it, its not even clear there is a question of agency or like some inverted solipsism as you suggest. Wouldn't the wearer need to be compelled for that to be at stake? Kadmi-nomai can wear it and take it off, right?

Aren't they, from the inside and outside, just listening to magically good advice and getting along great because of it?

[Dylan16807]

> But it explicitly says it provides the wearer with happiness

It gives you one of the best options for happiness for any decision you face, which is not quite the same. And don't forget it tells you to take it off very first thing.

> Where as a reader are we supposed to gather this is not an internal happiness?

The rest of the story.

> Come to think of it, its not even clear there is a question of agency or like some inverted solipsism as you suggest. Wouldn't the wearer need to be compelled for that to be at stake? Kadmi-nomai can wear it and take it off, right?

It's a problem if you wear and follow it for a very long time. He talked to it for a couple hours.

> Aren't they, from the inside and outside, just listening to magically good advice and getting along great because of it?

Your neocortex is pretty important. You can argue that you think loss of self is unrealistic, but the story is very clear in its judgement. Don't turn a disagreement with the story into "not understanding" the story.

[beepbooptheory]

Well my reply elsewhere in this vein seems to have been flagged to death or something, but.. OK. If its really just that, then yeah I am guilty of expecting maybe a little more intellectually here then is apparently warranted. Thanks for the help there.

Very modest opinion from a, as you can see, pretty dumb guy: the reason the Ring of Gyges is a "good" parable (or insert similar here) isn't because it somehow contains everything we want to be "argued" against, e.g., Thrasymachus. Rather, it's because it creates a unique ethical dimension to be interrogated and possibly overcome. It creates a true dilemma and a kind of need for ethics. OP's little story here just feels like Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius dressing on top of some commitments we are already supposed to be in on. It does not really inspire one to dig deeper, or to even really think (which kinda has a fun irony to it relative to the story).