Stoics, Ethics and Narcissism (was: Zoroastrian Ethics vs Narcissism)

What is interesting here is how Zarathushtra, Epictetus, and Nietzsche don't view attitude as an EMOTIONAL issue but actually as a LOGICAL issue. Emotions are supposed to follow logical calculations. It is not for wanting to love the world and ourselves we should do it, but because it simply is the only option left for us to consider. Amor fati is an ethical logic, not an emotion.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/14 Special Kain

It is a difficult lesson. And I'm not there yet. I still have a bitter and nihilistic attitude. But what Zarathushtra and Epictetus had in common is what I consider really, really clever and wise.

Ushta, Dino

Von: Daniel Samani
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 20:39 Mittwoch, 14.September 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Stoics, Ethics and Narcissism (was: Zoroastrian Ethics vs Narcissism)

I agree, also to me suffering is an indication that we view the world
not as it is! To view the world as it is means to see what one control
and what one doesnt. And when one act on this one doesnt suffer.
Ushta
Daniel

2011/9/14, Special Kain :
> A few more words in this:
>
> I think narcissism is really boring. Narcissists are people who are deeply
> disappointed by the world. They neurotically avoid everything that would
> make them happy or change their pessimistic outlook. They're not so very
> different from people who get a twisted thrill from self-victimization. I
> guess most narcissists are quite cynical. They put their focus on themselves
> and devalue the world around them.
>
> This is the difference between Stoic philosophers with an aristocratic
> background, such as Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, and Stoic philosophers who
> used to be slaves, such as Epictetus, Juvenal and Chrysippus. The Stoic
> aristocrats praised INDIFFERENCE and told their students to kill off their
> passions and desires. And their writings usually were much more extensive
> than the slaves'. They were quite idealistic and obsessed with abstract
> thought. They actually wanted to save their students from their love of life
> - as if the world wasn't worthy of their love.
>
> The Stoic slaves instead praised PRAGMATISM and told their students to
> control their convictions (dogmata) and their ideas about the world, because
> it is the only thing they can control. The Stoic slaves were a lot more
> sarcastic, their writings rather concise and short (if they wrote anything
> at all), and they also used rude words in order to change the way their
> students would organize their affections. They didn't want to save their
> students from their love of life, but instead wanted to save and nurture
> their love of life. So they deemed it necessary to help them be in control
> of the only thing that could make them depressed and angry: their
> convictions, ideas, opinions and value judgements. And yet they put their
> focus on the world around them, because we're nothing but bodies in motion
> that collide and react, collide and react, collide and react. The world is
> as it is, and it is our attitude towards existence that makes a difference.
>
> So I see a lot of Zoroastrian ethics in the teachings of the Stoic
> philosophers who used to be slaves, especially in the philosophy of
> Epictetus.
>
> Ushta,
> Dino