Pity as Druj

When confronted with the suffering of others, you either see things for what they are and act AFFIRMATIVELY (you do the right thing because it is the right thing to do and you are a person who do right things) for example by doing your best to alleviate the suffering but without any pity or mistaeking for being YOUR suffering (because it is not). Pity is instead the passive reaction when one is in DENIAL of what suffering truly is. It is a product of fear of conflict, precisely how people react who can't handle reality and are therefore escaping it whenever given a chance. Pity is therefore a product of druj and not of asha.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/10 Special Kain

I don't get you here. Could you please elaborate on this a bit? Where is the connection between pity and self-denial (or one's excess in conformity)?
Thanks!

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 13:06 Samstag, 10.September 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] The Problem with Pity


I agree!
The only reason why PITY exists is because most people are so afraid of the conflicts and other unpleasantries they may encounter from others if they actually tell the truth. Pity is therefore probably the lowest form of lying, the form of lying you get from people who refuse to see the world for what it is and only seek minimum resistance (and maximum likeability) in their entire behavior. These are the people who show pity. You can never trust them.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/8 Special Kain

Yes, this is where Zarathushtra, Nietzsche and Spinoza agree (even though I'm not a Spinozist and I strongly disagree with Spinoza's determinism, because I see the universe as probablistic in nature). And this is also where Nietzsche and Epictetus agree that PITY is unacceptable.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 18:25 Donnerstag, 8.September 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] The issue of suffering

I completely agree.
Zoroastrianism is also THE ONLY RELIGION or philosophical system which refuses to add meaning to suffering. Suffering is just bad (druj) and something we should fight. But this fight IN ITSELF does not have any meaning other than that the success of relieving suffering is its own reward. So both Zarathushtra and Nietzsche were right and here stress an important difference between Zoroastrian thinking and the philosophies of the east (where suffering is a learning experience, something it is not) and the religions of the deserts (which all claim that suffering is caused by sin and disobedience against God).
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/8 Special Kain

Dear brothers and sisters

As already discussed, Friedrich Nietzsche was philosophically interested in how different cultures and religions teach their members and followers how to cope with random suffering. Cultures and religions provide for ready-made explanations and interpretations that help people cope with random suffering: God walks in mysterious ways, and all your pain and misery will pay off in the future; those who suffer will be rewarded, and those who enjoy themselves will fall (we envy those who seem to be better off); there will be salvation and forgiveness; success requires hardship (see Max Weber's studies on the Protestant work ethic), etc.

Simply put, as long as we are able to explain and GIVE MEANING to our pain, this will ease the pain. But once our explanations fail, we are exposed to suffering in its full CONTINGENCY. As long as we see our pain as MEANINGFUL, we are able to cope with it. As soon as we realise that it doesn't actually make any sense (or any more sense than something else), we face the TRUTH OF NIHILISM. Suffering itself isn't that which scares us. It is the fact that suffering has NO POSITIVE SUBSTANCE and NO INTRINSIC VALUE.

So how did Zarathushtra address the issue of suffering? His take on suffering was brutally and uncharmingly existentialist: he simply states that there is random suffering and that it has no intrinsic value. In other words, it is pointless to suffer. He doesn't even think of suffering as a prerequisite for excellence and bliss. What he stressed is our ATTITUDE TOWARDS EXISTENCE and the choices we make when faced with suffering. How do we choose to react to this phenomenon? How do we choose to JUDGE it? And what will this choice make with us? Where am I, and who will I become once I've made my choice? Do I choose nihilism or fatalism or something more constructive and encouraging? How do I make us of it?

Ushta,
Dino

The Problem with Pity

I agree!
The only reason why PITY exists is because most people are so afraid of the conflicts and other unpleasantries they may encounter from others if they actually tell the truth. Pity is therefore probably the lowest form of lying, the form of lying you get from people who refuse to see the world for what it is and only seek minimum resistance (and maximum likeability) in their entire behavior. These are the people who show pity. You can never trust them.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/8 Special Kain

Yes, this is where Zarathushtra, Nietzsche and Spinoza agree (even though I'm not a Spinozist and I strongly disagree with Spinoza's determinism, because I see the universe as probablistic in nature). And this is also where Nietzsche and Epictetus agree that PITY is unacceptable.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 18:25 Donnerstag, 8.September 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] The issue of suffering

I completely agree.
Zoroastrianism is also THE ONLY RELIGION or philosophical system which refuses to add meaning to suffering. Suffering is just bad (druj) and something we should fight. But this fight IN ITSELF does not have any meaning other than that the success of relieving suffering is its own reward. So both Zarathushtra and Nietzsche were right and here stress an important difference between Zoroastrian thinking and the philosophies of the east (where suffering is a learning experience, something it is not) and the religions of the deserts (which all claim that suffering is caused by sin and disobedience against God).
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/8 Special Kain

Dear brothers and sisters

As already discussed, Friedrich Nietzsche was philosophically interested in how different cultures and religions teach their members and followers how to cope with random suffering. Cultures and religions provide for ready-made explanations and interpretations that help people cope with random suffering: God walks in mysterious ways, and all your pain and misery will pay off in the future; those who suffer will be rewarded, and those who enjoy themselves will fall (we envy those who seem to be better off); there will be salvation and forgiveness; success requires hardship (see Max Weber's studies on the Protestant work ethic), etc.

Simply put, as long as we are able to explain and GIVE MEANING to our pain, this will ease the pain. But once our explanations fail, we are exposed to suffering in its full CONTINGENCY. As long as we see our pain as MEANINGFUL, we are able to cope with it. As soon as we realise that it doesn't actually make any sense (or any more sense than something else), we face the TRUTH OF NIHILISM. Suffering itself isn't that which scares us. It is the fact that suffering has NO POSITIVE SUBSTANCE and NO INTRINSIC VALUE.

So how did Zarathushtra address the issue of suffering? His take on suffering was brutally and uncharmingly existentialist: he simply states that there is random suffering and that it has no intrinsic value. In other words, it is pointless to suffer. He doesn't even think of suffering as a prerequisite for excellence and bliss. What he stressed is our ATTITUDE TOWARDS EXISTENCE and the choices we make when faced with suffering. How do we choose to react to this phenomenon? How do we choose to JUDGE it? And what will this choice make with us? Where am I, and who will I become once I've made my choice? Do I choose nihilism or fatalism or something more constructive and encouraging? How do I make us of it?

Ushta,
Dino
Svara
Alexander Bard till Ushta
visa information 13:06 (0 minuter sedan)
I agree!
The only reason why PITY exists is because most people are so afraid of the conflicts and other unpleasantries they may encounter from others if they actually tell the truth. Pity is therefore probably the lowest form of lying, the form of lying you get from people who refuse to see the world for what it is and only seek minimum resistance (and maximum likeability) in their entire behavior. These are the people who show pity. You can never trust them.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/8 Special Kain

Yes, this is where Zarathushtra, Nietzsche and Spinoza agree (even though I'm not a Spinozist and I strongly disagree with Spinoza's determinism, because I see the universe as probablistic in nature). And this is also where Nietzsche and Epictetus agree that PITY is unacceptable.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 18:25 Donnerstag, 8.September 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] The issue of suffering

I completely agree.
Zoroastrianism is also THE ONLY RELIGION or philosophical system which refuses to add meaning to suffering. Suffering is just bad (druj) and something we should fight. But this fight IN ITSELF does not have any meaning other than that the success of relieving suffering is its own reward. So both Zarathushtra and Nietzsche were right and here stress an important difference between Zoroastrian thinking and the philosophies of the east (where suffering is a learning experience, something it is not) and the religions of the deserts (which all claim that suffering is caused by sin and disobedience against God).
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/8 Special Kain

Dear brothers and sisters

As already discussed, Friedrich Nietzsche was philosophically interested in how different cultures and religions teach their members and followers how to cope with random suffering. Cultures and religions provide for ready-made explanations and interpretations that help people cope with random suffering: God walks in mysterious ways, and all your pain and misery will pay off in the future; those who suffer will be rewarded, and those who enjoy themselves will fall (we envy those who seem to be better off); there will be salvation and forgiveness; success requires hardship (see Max Weber's studies on the Protestant work ethic), etc.

Simply put, as long as we are able to explain and GIVE MEANING to our pain, this will ease the pain. But once our explanations fail, we are exposed to suffering in its full CONTINGENCY. As long as we see our pain as MEANINGFUL, we are able to cope with it. As soon as we realise that it doesn't actually make any sense (or any more sense than something else), we face the TRUTH OF NIHILISM. Suffering itself isn't that which scares us. It is the fact that suffering has NO POSITIVE SUBSTANCE and NO INTRINSIC VALUE.

So how did Zarathushtra address the issue of suffering? His take on suffering was brutally and uncharmingly existentialist: he simply states that there is random suffering and that it has no intrinsic value. In other words, it is pointless to suffer. He doesn't even think of suffering as a prerequisite for excellence and bliss. What he stressed is our ATTITUDE TOWARDS EXISTENCE and the choices we make when faced with suffering. How do we choose to react to this phenomenon? How do we choose to JUDGE it? And what will this choice make with us? Where am I, and who will I become once I've made my choice? Do I choose nihilism or fatalism or something more constructive and encouraging? How do I make us of it?

Ushta,
Dino

Empathy without pity

I believe a good starting point is to admit that ANOTHER PERSON'S SUFFERING is that person's suffering and not our own. "Oh, so you broke your leg and it hurts, well that's too bad for you but it doesn't mean that MY LEG hurts." Empathy then becomes an attitude of GRACEFULNESS more than a co-emotion (which it is not), almost like a gratitude that the suffering of others doesn't affect us. And from this point can we act to support MENTALLY and PRACTICALLY. And will want to do so as an act of affirmation of who we are. In Christianity, it is only God who is allowed to act with such freedom. But in Mazdayasna philosophy this choice comes to all of us. YOU ARE YOUR CHOICES and nothing but your choices.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/8 Special Kain

If we choose to pity someone who is frustrated and hurt - e.g. someone who has just been dumped by his girlfriend and now believes that he'll never be loved again -, we actually confirm their pessimistic outlook: "Yes, your situation truly is unbearably sad, you are a poor victim, you are helpless, and you don't have the strength nor the brains to change things." In other words, we simply refuse to see their potential.

But if we really want to actually help them, we would say something like: "Yes, it is perfectly OK to be sad; it is true that some people sometimes are lucky and others are unlucky; but your being a victim is your own choice; you have the potential to see things from a different angle and make the best out of whatever happens to you." In other words, pity is misanthropy at its most cynical.

This doesn't mean that we should be heartless and cruel to people who already suffer. It doesn't mean that we would disrespect their feelings or that we wouldn't take them seriously. We actually choose to see the good in people and their potential. I believe that it is our OBLIGATION and DUTY to help those in need, when necessary, and that we therefore should do away with pity.

Zoroastrianism on Suffering

I completely agree.
Zoroastrianism is also THE ONLY RELIGION or philosophical system which refuses to add meaning to suffering. Suffering is just bad (druj) and something we should fight. But this fight IN ITSELF does not have any meaning other than that the success of relieving suffering is its own reward. So both Zarathushtra and Nietzsche were right and here stress an important difference between Zoroastrian thinking and the philosophies of the east (where suffering is a learning experience, something it is not) and the religions of the deserts (which all claim that suffering is caused by sin and disobedience against God).
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/8 Special Kain

Dear brothers and sisters

As already discussed, Friedrich Nietzsche was philosophically interested in how different cultures and religions teach their members and followers how to cope with random suffering. Cultures and religions provide for ready-made explanations and interpretations that help people cope with random suffering: God walks in mysterious ways, and all your pain and misery will pay off in the future; those who suffer will be rewarded, and those who enjoy themselves will fall (we envy those who seem to be better off); there will be salvation and forgiveness; success requires hardship (see Max Weber's studies on the Protestant work ethic), etc.

Simply put, as long as we are able to explain and GIVE MEANING to our pain, this will ease the pain. But once our explanations fail, we are exposed to suffering in its full CONTINGENCY. As long as we see our pain as MEANINGFUL, we are able to cope with it. As soon as we realise that it doesn't actually make any sense (or any more sense than something else), we face the TRUTH OF NIHILISM. Suffering itself isn't that which scares us. It is the fact that suffering has NO POSITIVE SUBSTANCE and NO INTRINSIC VALUE.

So how did Zarathushtra address the issue of suffering? His take on suffering was brutally and uncharmingly existentialist: he simply states that there is random suffering and that it has no intrinsic value. In other words, it is pointless to suffer. He doesn't even think of suffering as a prerequisite for excellence and bliss. What he stressed is our ATTITUDE TOWARDS EXISTENCE and the choices we make when faced with suffering. How do we choose to react to this phenomenon? How do we choose to JUDGE it? And what will this choice make with us? Where am I, and who will I become once I've made my choice? Do I choose nihilism or fatalism or something more constructive and encouraging? How do I make us of it?

Ushta,
Dino

Islam is not Asha

Parviz Varjavand wrote:

Dear Alex,

I do not want to go into details, but in any religious system, the Nomenclature or the meaning you wish each word to have is everything. In Zoroastrianism, if in your Nomenclature you describe certain key words with certain meanings, you get an enslaving system of thought, same as any other religion. You choose to give the good Nomenclature to Zoroastrianism and the bad one to Islam and this is how you win your arguments. Now try giving the good nomenclature to Islam too and see what happens? Every good thing you wish for Zoroastrianism also happens to Islam.

No, they do not. I CHOSE Zoroastrianism because I believed it was a SUPERIOR CHOICE. I could easily have chosen Islam instead but since I found Islam to be inferior I did not.

A true Moslem is supposed not to surrender to anything that is not Hagh. Hagh has been translated as the equivalent of Asha. Shehadat is giving witness as what you think Hagh is, often at the cost of your own life. So a True Moslem is not one that just sits in a corner in a state of submission to faith, he/she will fight to death for what is Hagh/Asha against what is Batel/Droj. I will exit this argument for it can cause me enmities from all sides, but what I say CAN BE, in the same way that what our vision of True Zoroastrianism is also "CAN BE*"!

Zoroastrianism is much more than Asha, and islam is not even dealing with Asha but only with Obedience which is a completely alien concept to Mazdayasna. In islam, even if Allah is wrong, you must obey. In Zoroastrianism your Mind is superior to any divinity. Sacredness is a proper thought of your mind, not an external divinity. There is an enormous difference between Zoroastrianism and Islam. Period. You may suffer from guilt from having been born a Zoroastrian, but that has nothing to do with me or my choice of religious affiliation. Don't mx the two!

Ushta
Alexander

Islam and Asha

Nietzsche never spoke of "surrendering to amor fati" any more than Zarathushtra did.
"Amor fati" is merely the STARTING POINT for Nietzsche's existentialism. As it is for Zarathushtra, when he claims that we do not become who we are merely by contemplating on our existence and ACCEPTING it (although this is necessary first, as one massive "reality check" before we act), but we achieve our very substance as ashavands through ACTIONS.
This is precisely why Zarathushtra was OPPOSED TO hermits and monks and nuns. His ideal is an ACTIVE ashavand, not an inward-looking holier-than-thou human.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/1 Parviz Varjavand

Islam and Asha,

We went over and over the meanings we wanted to give Asha and to ourselves as Ashavands, followers of Asha. I want to make a case that Islam also carries with it meanings as deep as Asha and a Muslim can be dedicated to concepts as vast and beautiful as an Ashavand.

Surrendering mind and body to that which is not Asha Vahishta can be ugly no matter what religion one follows. But surrender to Amor Fati or choosing the right Asha Vahishta is the key to the attainment of Oshta, is it not?

Could this way of looking at Islam be possible, with all the historic baggage that Islam carries with it? To a true intellectual, all things beautiful and complex should be a possibility. May some day come when I as an Ashavand can look a true Muslim (According to my definitions of who a true Muslim is, one who Taslims him/herself to that which is the highest Truth) in the eye and say "friend, we are looking for the same thing".

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

Islam vs Zoroastrianism - a philosophical exercise (and where to put Spinoza in this mix)

Dear Parviz

There are many Sufi philosophers (are there are many great Sufi philosophers) who have tried to interpret Islam in an affirmative manner but this is where they ultimately fail.
What makes Zoroastrianism (Mazdayasna) distinctly different from Islam is the concept of asha-vahishta, the concept of an AFFIRMATIVE attitude towards fate FOLLOWING acceptance. It doesn't stop at understanding and accepting asha, it is not asha-ism.
Mazdayasna is not acceptance towards asha (they way Islam can be interpreted), it is never surrendering and even less so OBEDIENCE (the proper English translation of Islam) but rather DIALOGUE and CO-CREATION. So Mazdayasna is acceptance FOLLOWED BY AFFIRMATION. The same goes for Spinoza and Nietzsche: The acceptance is NOT an END IN ITSELF (rather this "slave morality" is what Nietzsche hated the most) but just a STARTING POINT for then moving into a state of AFFIRMATION of life and existence, to CREATE SOMETHING out of the raw material that is accepted fate. Islam stays with the raw material, it does not ENDORSE and make an ethical substance of what HUMANS CREATE THEMSELVES. No wonder it is a religion where human creation is a waste and God is supposed to do all creation.
Remember that Zarathushtra doesn't stop at creative thoughts, he MOVES ON to creative words to then COMPLETES THE CYCLE with creative deeds. All three levels conducted by humans are ourselves since we are the MANIFESTATIONS of Ahura Mazda when we do the right thing.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/31 Parviz Varjavand

Dear friends,

Please be a little into deep thinking when answering this question of mine.
Islam means Taslim or surrender, surrender to the flow, the flow of that which is the greatest.
Forget all you know about Islam, think about what it could be.
Can Islam not mean Amor Fati to the new Moslem intellectuals?

Against Islam stands Kofr. Kofr means to deny or to cover.
Against Asha stands Droj.
(Remember Dino describing Asha in the forest, how all is Asha when you reach out.)
I venture that a case can be made for Islam being the same as Amor Fati and Asha and Kofr beeing Droj and Dev.
Remember, close-minded Zoroastrianism can be ugly too, and we chose not to be for it and went abstract and went past it.
I think open-minded Islam can be a beautiful thing, (Please no long winded cries of pain in response, just go abstract and bypass all that) what says you?

Parviz

--- On Wed, 8/10/11, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Spinoza and Zoroastrianism
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011, 1:06 PM

Dear Sharooz

Thank you for a wonderful contribution on Spinoza.
However, I disagree on the interpretation of Spinoza's concept of will, I believe your interpretation is too deterministic. I find Spinoza's attitude to will similar to if not identical with Zarathushtra's. God's perfection according to Spinoza is only a phenomenon in hindsight (as it is with Hegel too), but never beforehand. In this, Zarathushtra is similar too, as is Nietzsche woith the concept of "amor fati" (the obligation to love fate).

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/10 SHAHROOZ ASH

[Attachment(s) from SHAHROOZ ASH included below]
SPINOZA

Shahrooz Ash

Spinoza was Jewish and came from a Spanish family, he eventually moved to Holland. He claimed, God had a physical body. And for this reason the Jewish community did not want to be associated with him, they did not want people to think that this was the view of the Jews, because this view was considered to be heresy. Spinoza's universe is very cold and impersonal, his system has one idea in its meta-physics, "God is the only thing that exists". According to Spinoza, God is perfect and the only thing that exists, apart from God there is nothing. We are all a part of God, and the world is a part of God, the world is physical and that's why God is physical. Everything is God.

We do not exist permanently, we die and turn into something else. Mind and Consciousness loses its nature, but, it does not disappear, our mind is part of God and our consciousness is part of God. The world and nature is a part of God, if this is the case, then, does this mean God is just nature? God is just thinking of nature, it's the conception of nature. But it’s even more than that, God is a substance, it is something that can exist independently. Hence God is the only existence.

God also has an Essence, and his essence has Attributes, God has an infinite number of attributes. Out of all the infinite attributes we only know of two.

1. Thought
2. Extension > (leads to)> Space.

God has no purpose, he is not making things more perfect or better for us. This is because God is already perfect. So, what is Thought, and, is Thought nature? And since we don't know the rest of the attributes, then we can never know it. It is beyond anything we can ever know. We exist among the attributes of Thought, Mind and Extension, which is body.

So you and I don't exist permanently, we pass away. We are modifications of the attributes. We are like waves in the ocean, and God is the ocean, God creates the waves and not us. Water will always be there in the ocean, that's God. But waves are gone, while the water is still there. God causes everything that happens in the world. Spinoza does not believe in free-will he is a Determinist, God does everything. This means no one is ever praise or blame worthy, Evil ultimately does not exist. He also likes Occasionalism, one of Descartes students came up with it, his name was Malbranche. Causes are not a cause, they are an occasion of the effect, God creates both of them.

Spinoza likes occasionalism and determinism. This is because of the Islamist theology which was around during his time in the Middle Ages in Spain and Holland. Why did Spinoza like this as a person? God is impersonal, and God does not care about us. It’s all good to God whatever that happens, but, how about us. There is another connection, this can be traced to the middle ages of Judaism and Islam. It is Mysticism, there is a mystical side to Spinoza, an Islamic parallel.

The Mutazilites (an Islamic school of thought) believed in free will and justice of God. But, by the Middle Ages we get the Ashrites (which is another Islamic school of thought), they opposed the existence of free will. They believed in the power of God and God’s free will. God does what he pleases, and if God leads a person stray then you just have had it. So, if God decides to mess you up, you have had it. The Ashrites believed, if God is to be Omnipotent (All Powerful), then God must be permitted to do anything. If God is to be all powerful, then this means God cannot be all good, because, this will limit God. Man cannot be free, because, our freedom will reduces God's freedom and power, and this would mean God will no longer be all powerful and free. It is selfish to look at things that affect us, to Spinoza we are nothing.

1. Free-will

a: Matazilites > freewill > justice of God

b: Ashrites > no freewill > power and freedom of God.


2. Occasionalism

a: Al-Ghazzali


3. Mysticism

a: Sufism > compare to God we are nothing > they want to obtain "Extinction" of self.

Sufism of the time had many similar beliefs; one such common belief amongst most of these different Islamic sects is this, a person should try and reach the state which enables one to get absorbed by God, so one becomes extinct. God is so overwhelming, we are nothing. According to Spinoza, you and I, do not exist apart from God. Spinoza was like Hallaj in Sufism. Hallaj said, "Extinction of Self". Spinoza wants to lose the sense of himself, and achieves extiction so that he can get absorbed by God. He has no separate freewill and his will becomes God's will.

God is free because of his nature, God could not do anything different. But, the fact that God could not do anything different becomes a problem, because, does this mean God is limited? Why do things exist? Why are things the way they are? And why is God the way he is? Spinoza's answer is, you would know this if you saw God. All the Mysticism was a big deal in the Medieval times, Islamic and in some cases even Jewish mysticism, (things like the Cabbala).

To Spinoza God is perfect, and individuals such as Hitler and Jesus are each a part of God, this means there is no difference between the two in terms of ethics. The interesting thing here is, despite the view that there is no difference between Hitler and Jesus in terms of ethics, Spinoza actually develops a system of ethics. How he explains this no one knows. However, the system of ethics which he developed is constructed like Geometry, he does Philosophy like Geometry which is what Aristotle would have expected. If we claim God's causes makes things happen, and his causes came from the past and the past makes things happen, then the future is determined by his causes of the past. Because of this we are not in control of the future events.

Human freedom will reduce and restrict God's power and he will no longer be all powerful. This idea is strange and foreign in Zarathushtrianism, one of the most important concepts introduced by Zarathushtra is free-will and choice by individuals. In Zarathushtrianism human free-will does not limit the power of God, in fact it increase god's power. So in terms of free-will Zarathushtra and Spinoza are not similar.

Ethics:

Since God has no purpose and all causes are Gods, then evil does not exist. Hitler and Jesus are a part of God and there is no difference between the two. God is not making things perfect and better, because he is already perfect. So, for a perfect God there cannot be any imperfection in terms of values, there is no wrong for a perfect being. God is already perfect, so it has no purpose. Thus, God has no ethical value per-say in terms of right and wrong. God does not have a will and does not act for a good, or an end, but for his nature. With the issue of there not being any difference between Hitler and Jesus in terms of ethics, Zarathushtra would disagree. In this respect the two are a world apart and not similar at all.