torsdag 15 september 2011

The Subjective Consequences of Amor Fati as The Founding Concept of Zoroastrian Ethics

Please observe that the amor fati of Zarathushra, Epictetus, and Nietzsche, includes the amor fati of ourselves as subjetive beings, of our entire life histories as perceived by ourselves.
I believe that the most important aspect of amor fati is not its stoic and grandiose character of "accepting history for what it is" but the LIBERATION involved in the complete, utter, first logical and then emotional LOVING ACCEPTANCE of who we are to ourselves.
We couldn't be further removed from the massive internal guilt-tripping which is the MOTOR of the Abrahamic faiths and the moralisms of their bi-product of modern secular humanisms. No wonder that proper Mazdayasni never feel guilty about anything, in stark contrast to Christians, Jews, and Muslims who make personal guilt their dominant personal trait.


2011/9/15 Hampus Lindblad

Just ignore the ethical part and think logic instead. And it doesn't contradict emotion per se, but rather many of it's common affiliations. If all is interaction and relationships as process philosophy argues, then we apply logic to sever the destructive/unwanted relationships whilst we promote and strengthen the ones we prefer on a long term basis. It's all about balancing emphasizing and de-emphasizing without moralistic judgement.

Have you ever tried calming down a psychotic person, or someone looping in a bad trip? It's the same method you apply - at least that's what I have done quite successfully when I've found myself in that kind of a situation.


On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Daniel Samani wrote:
Could you explain what you ment by ethical logic - and how this logic
contradict emotion.

2011/9/15, Hampus Lindblad :

> Yes, but then enters the paradoxical dance of managing to actually bring the
> ethical logic alive with emotion. It truly is a dance! The logic is the
> cleansing tool, but it is not what fills the resulting void (which is of
> course completely full looking at it in terms of possibilities and possible
> interpretations). I don't believe one can turn off emotions, and repression
> always strikes back. The objective is rather to control them by restricting
> their movements whilst still allowing them enough space to roam in areas
> where they are constructive rather than destructive.
> Playing music is one of the more direct ways of doing it. You can never play
> truly great music strictly through logic. Or I definitely can't anyway...
> And I don't think musical geniuses like Bach played or composed without
> emotion neither.
> Bringing Frankenstein alive required the bolt of electricity in combination
> with the mad emotions of it's creator. It's the same with Zizek's ethical
> monster I believe.
> For me amor fati is an emotion, albeit a chosen one (to the extent that that
> is possible)..And that's what separates it from the rest for me.
> Daniel: Have you read Fredrika Spindlers books on Nietzsche and Spinoza? I'm
> pretty sure Alexander has so I won't even bother with asking him... :)
> I don't think they have been translated from Swedish yet so unfortunately
> it's of limited interest to the rest of the list. I'm planning to sink my
> teeth into them as soon as I have finished my current books.
> Dino: If you feel like discussing it I would be interested in hearing more
> about how you experience yourself as still bitter and nihilistic - either
> here or offlist.I find that difficult to believe given your persona here,
> but then of course our representations here are just a segment of our
> totalities.
> Ushta,
> Hampus
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:
>> 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:*
>>> *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

1 kommentar:

Linda sa...

Jag tycker om dig Alexander.