Is it ever rational to get upset over things outside of your control?

Is it ever rational to get upset over things outside of your control?

yes

Everything is outside of your control. Stoicism is absurd, you can't will what you will.

Yes. But the essay (you) write as a result must be good enough (and placed well enough) to influence the further course of events, or at least become part of the general conversation, assuming there is one. I realize I limit myself here to human affairs, or cultural and political matters.

do not become upset over anything, but still work towards bettering things, because you used your rational mind to determine that it would be better for everyone

Some things are engineered by others to be out of your control, and if you are upset you can take the control back. So sometimes no.

No.
Asking such a simple and self-evident question is fruitless, the issue is knowing when things are outside of your control. Furthermore, deciding if the trade of resources required to exert control on a given thing, is worth it. Obviously it is irrational, as you will fail in your aims whilst believing that you will succeed (or maybe not, but an attempt when failure is certain, is irrational). In such a true-false scenario, it is irrational because regardless of belief or effort, a thing is objectively outside of your control. Reality almost never provides such a true-false scenario. It's more complex. Also, no one is perfectly rational. So in terms of reality, the question is useless.

holy shit your existence must be pathetic, dude cant even get dressed in the morning with his logic.

>rationality

nice meme

Okay, so we don't have free will. But why would that make stoicism absurd?

>pretends 2 be rational
>has values
go take ur religion back 2 pol

This is often taken to be main insight of Stoicism: that what is beyond us is unimportant and thus not worth worrying about.Seneca's stoicism clearly identifies the enemy: luck, fortune, chance, providence, fate, whatever you want to call it. They've undermined their own arguments against anger by presenting an object for our anger.

Since when is instinct rational

>They've undermined their own arguments against anger by presenting an object for our anger.
Yes because you being angry is within the control of Seneca. Truly he is a mighty man.

Why are we bringing instinct into this?

Is "rationality" the highest value?

Yes, but only if getting upset helps you towards your telos.
Man is lazy and tends to make himself comfortable where he can. Thus it is sometimes necessary to light a fire under his ass for him to get up.

That's being upset about things within your control, isn't it.

Not necessarily, no.

I guess the analogy is poorly chosen in this case, because getting out of the fire is within your control.
But it isn't necessary in general.

>Is it ever rational to get upset over things outside of your control?
No, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't. If enough people do it, then they can maybe come together to fix problems that seem unconquerable, like forcing a new american revolution.

>Is it ever rational to get upset
nobody chooses to be upset
rationality has nothing to do with it

I'll bite.
>being rational means you have to be a fat neckbeard

No, and yet i do it all the time.........

The problem is that you are assuming that choose means immediate conscious action to engage an emotion which is not what anyone means when they use language like this. Peoples beliefs strongly effect how they they emotionally respond to an event and those beliefs are subject to rationality. This is how people get over phobias.
Anyway I do not agree with your idea that people never choose to be upset. Some people self pity because it gives them a perverse sense of pleasure, some become righteously indignant so it gives them a sense of superiority etc.

Yes. This is the drive that clarifies what one can or cannot control.