Skip to main content


The Stoic idea of self-sufficiency has been widely misunderstood. The most basic claim made by the Stoics is that we can learn to be happy at any moment under any condition because our happiness does not depend on anything outside ourselves. But it doesn't follow from this that a Stoic doesn't care about anything apart from his or her own happiness. As we human beings grow we naturally extend our idea of what "belongs" to us and of what we belong to - of who we are. This is the Stoic theory of oikeiosis. Unless we get sidetracked by bad influence and/or bad choices we end up seeing ourselves as part of all of humanity and seeing our own happiness as a small part of the happiness of the brotherhood of man.

This does not mean that our happiness depends on the happiness of others. In theory, a Stoic can be happy even if the rest of humanity is deeply miserable. But in that scenario, the Stoic would see it as his or her task to try to make the world a better place for the rest of humanity and find his or her happiness in working for that goal. At one level the Stoic sees him- or herself as an individual entity with the capacity to always be happy. But, at another level, the Stoic sees him- or herself as just one member of the community for which all members have a responsibility. You could say that a Stoic always has two basic goals: his or her own happiness and the happiness of the community. The first goal depends on the second in the sense that it is our duty to work for the common good and in that we can't possibly be happy if we ignore our duty. But it does not dependent on the second goal in the sense that we can't be happy, if we can't reach the goal of making all other members of the community happy. As long as we do the very best we can, we are acting virtously - and that's all that is needed for happiness.


  1. Thanks! Another excellent piece. I've long wondered about how much a Stoic would care about others and still remain happy. In the past I was of the opinion that pretty much everything was indifference except for virtues. However, I think that argument of mine was rather shallow since virtues have again and again been misused in history. I now believe that a Stoic would care very deeply about his/her community and would be very involved in all the social and political affairs. However, the happiness of a Stoic does not depend on how good/bad his/her community is, but it is dependent on how much the Stoic has tried to make it better.

    1. Yes - exactly 😊 The very thing which makes justice a virtue - and which makes it the specific virtue justice - is that we understand how other people "belong" to us and see them as other selves.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Stoicism and Evil Governments

This article claims that a Stoic has no reason to get depressed by bad political conditions since an evil government is not really a bad thing for a Stoic - since nothing can be bad for a Stoic except his own bad choices. Even so, the article claims, a Stoic acknowledges that an evil government is capable of doing "terrible things" to people. To make this line of thinking work we have to think of ourselves as Stoics who can't be harmed by an evil government - since nothing can be bad for us as Stoics except our own bad choices - and other people as non-Stoics who will suffer terribly if they are oppressed by the evil government. In my opinion, this interpretation of Stoicism is flat out wrong. First of all, an evil government is indeed a bad thing. The Stoics distinguish between internal good/bad things such as our own good or bad choices and external good/bad things such as other people's happiness or unhappiness: "some bad things are in the sou

Aristotle on happiness and external goods

According to popular opinion both in ancient Greece and today, happiness requires things such as wealth, good health, good looks, friends, family and good reputation. In Plato's dialogue Euthydemus Socrates challenges those beliefs by claiming that none of those things are good, if they are not used wisely. In fact, Socrates claims that a person who has wisdom doesn't need any of those things at all since he or she can turn any situation into something beneficial for him- or herself. "If wisdom is present, the one for whom it is present has no need of good fortune". - Socrates in Euthydemus, 279E In other words, Socrates claims that wisdom is a sufficient requirement for happiness (and a necessary requirement too, of course). Aristotle famously challenges that claim. But what exactly does he say? Let's have a look. "we suppose happiness is enduring and definitely not prone to fluctuate, but the same person’s fortunes often turn to and fro. For clearly

A few quick notes on committing injustice vs suffering it

Let's suppose that person A is entitled to, say, one piece of cake. If person B knowingly causes person A to not have that piece of cake without the consent of person A, then person B has done person A wrong - which is what the Stoics mean by committing an injury. But it doesn't follow from this that person A has suffered an injury. If person A doesn't mind that his or her piece of cake was given to someone else or was eaten by person B, then person A hasn't suffered an injury - even though person B have commited an injury. Now, let's imagine that person A is completely wise. This would mean that he or she is completely indifferent to things like bodily harm, poverty, sickness, reputation, insults, abuse and whatever else life or other human beings can throw at us. Obviously, it would still be possible to commit an injury in relation to a person like that - since this would simply require having the intention to harm that person. However, it would be impossible to