Be a Stoic, If You Will!
Dr. Al-Khidr Haroun
Stoicism is an ancient Greek philosophy founded by Zeno of Citium in the third century BC. Its highest ideal is virtue, which it considers the firm foundation for individual and societal activity. One of its main tenets is self-realization through inner peace and reconciliation with oneself, whereby a person attains fulfillment by employing reason and logic, while avoiding impulsiveness, tension, recklessness, and wishful thinking. This entails accepting uncontrollable external factors without allowing their impossibility to lead to despair—despair that undermines happiness and inner peace—while remaining calmly determined to overcome them when circumstances allow.
This is the essence of this reflection, which—despite its title—is not a call to adopt a philosophy that has long passed and whose components have since dispersed across various schools of thought, like bloodlines intermingled through generations of intermarriage. As is the nature of things, what remains of grand philosophies are those ideas most useful to people, while lesser ones survive only as noise or faint echoes. The most important legacy of any sound philosophy is its emphasis on human dignity and on valuing one’s humanity in the pursuit of livelihood—something learned through toil and long experience. This value has been preserved by the divine religions within their eternal teachings, for it embodies resilience and uprightness, which are synonymous with a dignified life that rejects hollow glories, fabricated reputations, and superficial fame. It also offers consolation and comfort, necessary for life to continue amidst grief, by teaching endurance and the healing of wounds so that souls are not lost in the sea of sorrows.
This is part of the good that Stoicism embraced and excelled in, aligning closely with the meaning of contentment and self-satisfaction—without being a call to passivity.
Humanity, through experience and the struggle against nature and among themselves, was compelled to exert intellectual effort to develop concepts of justice and fairness. The divine religions completed this effort by framing noble ethics and obligating people to adhere to them, promoting peace and the development of the earth—except when wronged—and advocating altruism over selfishness, and the rejection of greed and self-worship. Yet, human desires kept pulling mankind earthward, away from the divine breath that distinguishes them from other creatures. Arrogance, vanity, and subjugation of others have remained prominent features of human history. Thus, philosophies struggled and grew weary in attempting to explain this reality, oscillating between optimism and pessimism.
It is ironic that the idea of the social contract in political philosophy, which elevated the concept of human dignity, emerged from these opposing views. Thomas Hobbes adopted a pessimistic outlook based on the premise of human selfishness and the desire to seize what others possess. He argued that this creates a state of “every man against every man,” and thus, a mutual agreement to surrender some freedoms to establish a protective authority becomes essential for collective survival. This led to the birth of the social contract concept. From Hobbes’ legacy emerged what is now known as political realism, which sees war and preparation for it as the norm, and peace as a temporary exception.
In contrast, Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed in the innate goodness of people, asserting that everyone is born free, but society infringes upon that freedom. Therefore, a social contract was needed to protect individual liberties and enable collective governance. The current liberal international system—which now shows signs of weakness and senility—based on laws and treaties, traces its roots to Rousseau’s ideas. From the work of these two thinkers, democratic thought evolved, leading to the establishment of democratic systems.
The Renaissance and Industrial Revolution launched humanity into a new era with immense leaps in all fields. Optimism surged, and optimistic philosophies arose, such as modernism—some inspired by Hegel’s idealist dialectic centered on the idea of the Absolute, or God. Hegel’s philosophy envisioned humanity progressing toward perfection. Marxism followed, stripping Hegel’s idealism of its optimism, replacing it with the dialectic of material struggle—violent class conflict that would, in the end, lead to a happy conclusion: the end of class conflict, the abolition of the oppressive state, and equality for all.
Yet selfishness remained dominant over altruism, and power became the means to achieve that. Europeans fought among themselves more fiercely than any other peoples. In one single century—the so-called Age of Enlightenment, the 20th century—they slaughtered each other in unprecedented numbers: about 11 million died in World War I, and roughly 50 million in the second war two decades later, driven by vile racism and extreme ideologies. So where was enlightenment?
Racism surged, and the science of genetic engineering (eugenics) emerged to produce children with specific traits. Evangelical fundamentalism spread. Humanity continued to shed blood just as in the days of the Mongols and the Barbarians—no difference. In the previous century, people had already nearly destroyed each other in the name of religion.
At Bismarck’s invitation, the European powers—after nearly exhausting themselves in intra-European conflict in the late 19th century—turned to the poor world in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean. They descended upon its wealth like vultures, following the earlier era of enslaving Africans to produce sugar and textiles, which brought Europe and America unprecedented luxury and wealth.
Later, Woodrow Wilson, an American president who helped establish the League of Nations (which the U.S. never joined), proposed granting colonies the right to self-determination and forming a global organization to preserve peace through transparent treaties and laws. Despite being a distinguished academic and president of Princeton University in the North, he was a racist from the American South. After World War II, the victorious Allies adopted his vision, creating the United Nations, with its institutions and international courts that supposedly place all member states on equal footing in sovereignty under international law.
Yet, as George Orwell said in Animal Farm: “All are equal, but some are more equal than others.” The five founding permanent members of the UN Security Council were granted veto power, enabling any one of them to nullify the decisions of 14 other supposedly equal members. What equality exists in the face of fleets, aircraft carriers, and nuclear bombs capable of annihilating humanity? Sovereignty remains hostage to power, as it always has. International law is applied selectively. The United States consistently shields Israel from condemnation or consequences—even those decisions that are passed are never enforced. Some countries possess weapons of mass destruction; others are forbidden from doing so. A whole agency exists to prevent the latter. This is the “civilized world,” now teetering on the edge of a potentially devastating global war that could leave no one alive.
In Sudan, we are supposed to be equal with other nations in sovereignty over our territory and protected from foreign intervention. We are entitled to the protection of the international community if attacked. Yet we have been under attack for over two years, with the United Arab Emirates—backed by other states—supporting a tribal militia originally formed from armed robbery gangs. And the “civilized” world watches on social media as millions are forcibly displaced, daughters are raped, thousands are killed, and hospitals and universities are burned. Even the countries we are supposedly linked to by geography or shared civilization do not dare to issue even a clear verbal condemnation, let alone take action.
Deals and interests now run international relations—not laws or principles. The current war is among the harshest lessons ever experienced by living Sudanese. It is a new experiment in international conspiracy to dismantle nations—land, people, and resources. If successful, it will be replicated. We must understand it as such and confront it accordingly.
For those with faith in One God, solace lies in sincere monotheism, self-reliance after God, detachment from worldly expectations, and not depending on others’ aid. For those whose faith doesn’t reach that depth, let them be Stoics—realists—who accept the world with all its flaws and injustices without surrendering or despairing. Within each person lies the flame of survival and the desire for a free and dignified life that will not tolerate humiliation. Let them gather their strength to resist, with patience, perseverance, and confidence in eventual victory.
A person who fights merely to reclaim his home or defend his dignity has that right under both divine and man-made laws. A person may fight out of pride or to assert his place in the world—all are paths to survival with dignity. So yes—be a Stoic, or an atheist who believes only in the sensory world—be what you will. But that does not absolve you of the responsibility to do whatever you can for your country and your people. That is among the most sacred of duties—one that must not be neglected.
Translated from “Al-Muhaqqiq” website.
