Cynicism

The MIT Press Essential Knowledge

by Ansgar Allen

A short history of cynicism, from the fearless speech of the ancient Greeks to the jaded negativity of the present.Everyone's a cynic, yet few will admit it. Today's cynics excuse themselves half-heartedly--"I hate to be a cynic, but..."--before making their pronouncements. Narrowly opportunistic, always on the take, contemporary cynicism has nothing positive to contribute. The Cynicism of the ancient Greeks, however, was very different. This Cynicism was a marginal philosophy practiced by a small band of eccentrics. Bold and shameless, it was committed to transforming the values on which civilization depends. In this volume of the MIT Press Essential Knowledge series, Ansgar Allen charts the long history of cynicism, from the "fearless speech" of Greek Cynics in the fourth century BCE to the contemporary cynic's lack of social and political convictions.

Allen describes ancient Cynicism as an improvised philosophy and a way of life disposed to scandalize contemporaries, subjecting their cultural commitments to derision. He chronicles the subsequent "purification" of Cynicism by the Stoics; Renaissance and Enlightenment appropriations of Cynicism, drawing on the writings of Shakespeare, Rabelais, Rousseau, de Sade, and others; and the transition from Cynicism (the philosophy) to cynicism (the modern attitude), exploring contemporary cynicism from the perspectives of its leftist, liberal, and conservative critics. Finally, he considers the possibility of a radical cynicism that admits and affirms the danger it poses to contemporary society.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, History, Audiobook

280 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2014

About the author

Ansgar Allen is the author of works of fiction, theory-fiction and philosophy. He lives and works in Sheffield, in the UK.

Reviews

[C. Çevik · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kinik felsefe tarihine ilişkin en son çıkan eser. Giriş metni olarak okunabilir. Tavsiye ederim.

Kitaptan:
"The Cynic does not offer a beautiful example for others to emulate. The Cynic life does not adorn humankind. The Cynic existence is committed to a personal and public disfigurement of what is valued most in this idea, this notion of our common humanity. The Cynic still adopts the role of public benefactor, but Cynic generosity is self-consciously and deliberately harsh. In words attributed to Diogenes: 'Other dogs bite their enemies, but I my friends, so as to save them.'"

[Lucí Amani · Rating 3 out of 5]

Solid introduction to public masturbation

[Tobi ﾄﾋﾞ| Spanish Immersion Week‽ · Rating 4 out of 5]

highly recommend

[Dan Tibbles · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this to be a marvelous overview of the history of cynicism as a philosophical practice. The author both clearly expounds on his mostly positive view of cynicism and relates in generous ways an array of arguments against cynicism, both in terms of classical understandings such as those of Diogenes and in terms of more contemporary formulations.

[Temuulen · Rating 3 out of 5]

On my readingspree of MIT essential knowledge series. The book was good, but perhaps for someone with little to no interest in history or philosophy this book might be a hard one to sell for. But well as Diogenes said, "Other dogs bite their enemies, but I my friends, so as to save them."

[Devin Kilby · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bomb as fuck, drawing a line between modern cynicism and ancient cynicism was a good call and I love my Diogenes.

[eman ♡ · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quite wordy, but I’m always up for a challenge. The vocab used was rather scholarly.

[A.P. Dannenfeldt · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tracing the title subject from an ancient philosophy and way of life to a modern mass disposition. The philosophy did not seem to have a coherent or creative guiding vision or end-goal, but rather focused on critique of accumulated social institutions and conventions that prevent us from living a virtuous life in accord with our nature (as the Cynics would have it). Though ancient Cynicism is described as “improvised and contingent” (p. 25), it aspired to be more than merely reactive – though, how it can be anything other than reactive while having as the modus operandi: “live differently” (p. 194; different from what other that a society to which you are reacting? we are provoked to ask), is unclear.

The book distinguishes between this active and aggressive philosophy (big-C Cynicism) and contemporary, taken-for-granted (small-c) cynicism, the attitude we have when – culturally, at least – all is permitted, nothing is taboo, there are no traces against which to kick in order to draw attention to oneself or prove a point anymore, and many are desensitized with little mystery left to them in the world, where transcendent or objective (extra-human) standards against which to judge ourselves and others are no longer taken as seriously (nor is much of anything else).
Some engaging intellectual history is relayed in which aspects of Cynicism are revived and repurposed by sundry writers and factions over time for various purposes. Also interesting is discussion of the norm-dissolving and dignity-deflating use to which laughter and humor are put (as in satire; p. 112), And, the freedom from worldly attachments or self-imposed poverty of the Cynic (to reduce one’s existence to one’s body alone & allow one to speak freely, with ‘nothing to lose’) as compared to the asceticism and self-flagellating punishment of later religious adherents (attempting to transcend or deny the body in favor of some elevated, more pure soul or mind, in dualist fashion).

The relentless, intentional offense-giving and negativity employed by the Cynics covered, as a means with no articulated end, seems to me to fit the model of complete freedom destroying its own purpose (‘the good’ in life, say). Does not open hostility to any social norm or agreed-upon standard just bespeak an atomistic, narrow-minded worldview? The one positive component of the Cynical program that comes through clearly, though, is parrhesia: fearless speech made possible by avoiding the ties that bind, allowing authentic expression not weighted with social grooming, ego-stroking, reputation preservation, coalition-building, political performance, or virtue-signaling as motives (actual or perceived).

Whatever value C/cynicism has, I should think it is only as an adjunct to some positive, creative program and not on its own. It is self-exculpatory and self-indulgent to fall into the easy habit of thinking that things are so bad, it does not matter what action one takes or if one lazily takes none at all. What is needed, here, is the second-order question: “How can it be realistically improved upon now” to go from the negative evaluation of the status quo to something possibly better, with some real-world, practical action as an intermediate step.

Maybe the next of these primers I will read will be on creativity or human action.

[Jay Rothermel · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very enjoyable and illuminating study.

Once the author gets to the 20th century, however, he has a hard time parsing classical Cynicism with the spectatorial "common sense" cynical posing that roils the bourgeoisie and their middle class transmission--belts in electoral politics, editorial pages, and education factories.

Contemporary cynical poses are never held for long by those employing the mode: the dictatorship of capital has space and patience for most methods of blowing-off steam, until they find a mass echo in the working class; then the edgy funtimes must br carefully walked-back.

An example: the Daily Show could for years ridicule Bush and Cheney, but when they needed to shift gears to celebrate the "genius of the system" that we should all truly be grateful for, they could always roll out Senator McCain.

JR

[Orland Foster · Rating 5 out of 5]

I noticed that most reviews were in 2020. I wonder what they would say now, after January 6, 2021 -being 'insurrection' was specifically mentioned as a potential outcome from modern cynicism?

I found this book quite enlightening in my quest to understand "modern thought and reason" by looking at where we've come from..

[Dan Tibbles · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this to be a marvelous overview of the history of cynicism as a philosophical practice. The author both clearly expounds on his mostly positive view of cynicism and relates in generous ways an array of arguments against cynicism, both in terms of classical understandings such as those of Diogenes and in terms of more contemporary formulations.

[Anatolii Belikov · Rating 3 out of 5]

For me as for non native English speaker it was a hard to read book. It’s quite an academic piece. However this challenge was fruitful. Compared to other book that I’ve read from MIT essential knowledge series, this one is more history retrospective, which is fair, considering the topic.

[UnlimitedApathy · Rating 5 out of 5]

As someone with no background in philosophy I thought this book was approachable and interesting. It really does a great job of breaking down a subject for a general audience. The writing style was entertaining in a way that I think makes it particularly good at engaging a broad audience.

[Ben · Rating 3 out of 5]

Enjoyed this one!

Very academic read. Allen is an advanced writer.

A really great summary on Cynisicm.

Recommended for any interested in this topic!

3.3/5

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

‘The cynic chooses to pursue destitution’

[Nils · Rating 4 out of 5]

I useful short account of the intellectual history from Cynicism (capital-C indicating the Diogenes-inspired original version) to cynicism in its debased and denigrated modern form. Allen generally follows the lead of Peter Sloterdijk's classic The Critique of Cynical Reason in arguing that the useful heart of Cynicism was frechheit, often translated as "cheekiness," but perhaps in contemporary idiomatic English best translated as "smack-talking." Classical Cynicism is overtly anti-theoretical and anti-systematic and anti-institutional, above all with respect to formalized education. It sneers at the pretensions and self-importance of elites.

Allen is clearly right that the through-line of cynical practice is deviancy and obscenity, in other words, its lack of respectability, for either itself or others. Toujours épater le bourgeoisie might be the core cynical instinct, and "respectability politics" the ultimate form of un-cynicism. Cynicism offers zero deference to power, either individual or social or intellectual. Which is why cynics do things like sneer at the powerful, shit or masturbate in public, and explain their approach to the world not through systematic exposition but through telling stories of "bad behaviors" that made them laugh. Cynics reject anything that is about conventional definitions of success; they affirm the body as a temple that should be defiled.

At some level, who can not sympathize with such a perspective? At the same time, however, there's a reason why cynicism has a bad odor to it. Allen argues that in its modern, debased form, especially as it pertains to mass politics, cynicism represents a dual negativity. On the one hand, there is the cynicism of the elites themselves, Allen argues, who see the masses as benighted fools who either must be guided ("for their own good") or can be exploited without shame (since "fools and their money are always soon parted"). On the other hand, there is the cynicism of the masses. The problem here, Allen explains in an excellent passage, is the "inability to distinguish between good and bad governance. Mass cynicism is an irrational, exaggerated state of disappointment, a near infantile mode of response to individual cases of inadequacy, institutional failure, or corruption. Having reacted disproportionately, contemporary cynics cut themselves off, transforming disappointment into a cynic determination to disregard all offices and institutions as inevitably flawed." In short, cynics throw the baby of the possibility of competence out with the bathwater of individual elite malfeasance.

[Steven McCorkle · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good book, but a fairly dry one. I strongly recommend reading this one with a physical book so that it's easier to review and put concepts together. The audiobook was great, but it's just a tough listen to connect all the dots. It clears up many misconceptions about cynicism and does an excellent job of separating historical and modern cynicism. It's not riveting, edge of your sear stuff, but it's quality educational material.

[ExtraGravy · Rating 2 out of 5]

Much time is spent comparing ancient Cynicism with modern cynicism, while yielding little in the way of insights or useful perspectives. I would have preferred a focused overview of ancient Cynicism with some hand waving at whatever is currently calling itself cynicism. The end felt abrupt and did not wrap up anything, but nothing was really asserted... so... I think I enjoyed being reminded of what I've heard and read from others more than what I got from this offering.

[John Goldsworthy · Rating 1 out of 5]

Last two chapters ruin the book. His interpretation of modern mass cynicism is way too broad to be meaningful. Also, his best example of a modern Diogenes was a protester hanger on of Pussy Riot? 🙄

Also, his writing style is ridiculously pedantic for subject matter. Cynicism is not a complex philosophy, but he’s overly mystifying it in colorful academic prose.

I doubt many of his assumptions

[Jack · Rating 2 out of 5]

Uses the precept of the MIT series being short to avoid getting to the interesting questions of what cynicism means now and not just as a mode of funny Diogenes anecdote. Unenlightening when it gets there. No figure.

[Thomas Moulson · Rating 4 out of 5]

A somewhat perfunctory but solid relook at the origins and contemporary implications of the cynics. A much misunderstood and misused ‘philosophy’.. more a way of challenging society at large then anything to go along with it.

[Quan Nguyen · Rating 3 out of 5]

"shitting before an audience no longer has the same effect"

A fun read but could have been clearer in some of it's outlines and definitions - I know I know, Diogenes would not have wanted it but go shit yourself big D

[Kieran Wood · Rating 3 out of 5]

Was a decent book, I learned a lot about cynicism, but I found it quite long for the amount of content

[Ayushdhawale · Rating 3 out of 5]

More about the origins and the history of cynicism as a philosophy than its actual content.

[Orania The sister of cosmos · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was such an interesting journey! You can learn so much from it. The writing was a little bit hard to follow and sometimes hard to understand, but in general, I really enjoyed the book

[Kevin Lopau · Rating 2 out of 5]

Too much '💩'. 😒

[Gijs Limonard · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was ok, not great; the author dutifully delivers all the known facts and tries to construct an interesting narrative on cynicism and the cynics; only a partial success, pretty stale and dull in places and would have liked some more discussion of cynicism in the modern age, including Nietzsche's famous use of the figure of Diogenes in aphorism 125 of the 'Gay science' (you know, the `god is dead'-bit).

[Issa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Diogenes is the level of unbothered I aspire to be

[Anthony O'Connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Is it possible not to be cynical? YES.

A short but dense study of the ancient Cynics - in particular Diogenes - and of modern cynicism in its various forms. The term is used in many ways, often incorrectly and/or self servingly. If nothing else this short book provides a useful survey of the various usages from fashionably jaded disaffectedness, always a bit pretentious and fake, all the way to full blooded despair.

[Don · Rating 4 out of 5]

Now to get to my own seat of the matter...