Enchiridion 44: What You Are Not

These reasonings have no logical connection: 'I am richer than you; therefore I am your superior.' 'I am more eloquent than you; therefore I am your superior.' The true logical connection is rather this: 'I am richer than you; therefore my possessions must exceed yours.' ' I am more eloquent than you; therefore my style must surpass yours.' But you, after all, consist neither in property nor in style."(Epictetus, Enchiridion 44)

Remember that old saying, "whoever has all the toys at the end, wins"? It's not true.

Anyone thinking himself or herself better than another does not know who they are.

Anyone who roots their identity in property or talent comes up woefully short. How did one determine his property or talent was the standard, to begin with? Could someone be still more richer? What happens to superiority then? Is copper able to purchase the same as gold?

Is being fluent in one language mean one is proficient in all languages? What happens to superiority then?

All one has is more stuff to leave to the person who comes along behind when he or she dies.
All one has is are choice words to carve on his or her tombstone.
What of superiority then?

If this reasoning were true, then why are we so inspired by people who have less or can do less?

You are not your stuff nor are you "style".