I think you have an incorrect view of stoicism. It does not advocate for detachment from life, and I don't think zen does either (though I might be wrong on this one). Stoicism is a very active and involved philosophy, it urges it's practitioners to go out in to the world and make it a better place.
And the stoic approach to the world is certainly one of radical acceptance, the only difference being that stoics don't extend this acceptance to themselves. The stoic view on feeling unwanted emotions is that they should be acknowledged but we shouldn't pretend they are inevitable. We can change they by adjusting our perspective on the world to match the reality.
The Nietzsche quote you posted in a later reply resonates with me from a stoic perspective (except maybe the part about looking away, I don't think a stoic would advocate looking a way as a way of dealing with reality). But the stoic view that nature is the source of virtue seems quite similar with what Nietzsche says about what is necessary being beautiful.
Well, compared to Nietzsche, particularly his take on the idea of Amor Fati, stoicism is in a certain aspect a detachment from a very specific part of life and that is painful or negative emotions. It's interesting because Marcus Aurelius who greatly admired the stoics also invented the term that Nietzsche would later use to categorize his own radical positivity; "Amor Fati".
In Nietzsche's view, at least the view he expresses here, even negative, unwanted and profoundly painful emotions still fall under the realm of "necessary" and therefore beautiful. Nietzsche was not one to avoid negative and painful emotions, he was one to embrace them and accept them as a vital and vibrant part of life.
I'll completely agree that in a way, stoicism does radically accept a lot of things, but compared the the kind of acceptance that Nietzsche outlined, it's a drop in the bucket.
Regarding the looking away part, I think it would be best to not read that too deliberately. Here I would argue that Nietzsche is saying his only negation will be if he isn't actively looking at something- if you're watching the sunset, you're not looking at what's behind you and he wants that "looking away" to be his only negation. Not that he wants to consciously look away from things he doesn't like.
I think you have an incorrect view of stoicism. It does not advocate for detachment from life, and I don't think zen does either (though I might be wrong on this one). Stoicism is a very active and involved philosophy, it urges it's practitioners to go out in to the world and make it a better place.
And the stoic approach to the world is certainly one of radical acceptance, the only difference being that stoics don't extend this acceptance to themselves. The stoic view on feeling unwanted emotions is that they should be acknowledged but we shouldn't pretend they are inevitable. We can change they by adjusting our perspective on the world to match the reality.
The Nietzsche quote you posted in a later reply resonates with me from a stoic perspective (except maybe the part about looking away, I don't think a stoic would advocate looking a way as a way of dealing with reality). But the stoic view that nature is the source of virtue seems quite similar with what Nietzsche says about what is necessary being beautiful.
Well, compared to Nietzsche, particularly his take on the idea of Amor Fati, stoicism is in a certain aspect a detachment from a very specific part of life and that is painful or negative emotions. It's interesting because Marcus Aurelius who greatly admired the stoics also invented the term that Nietzsche would later use to categorize his own radical positivity; "Amor Fati".
In Nietzsche's view, at least the view he expresses here, even negative, unwanted and profoundly painful emotions still fall under the realm of "necessary" and therefore beautiful. Nietzsche was not one to avoid negative and painful emotions, he was one to embrace them and accept them as a vital and vibrant part of life.
I'll completely agree that in a way, stoicism does radically accept a lot of things, but compared the the kind of acceptance that Nietzsche outlined, it's a drop in the bucket.
Regarding the looking away part, I think it would be best to not read that too deliberately. Here I would argue that Nietzsche is saying his only negation will be if he isn't actively looking at something- if you're watching the sunset, you're not looking at what's behind you and he wants that "looking away" to be his only negation. Not that he wants to consciously look away from things he doesn't like.