Ancient Cynicism: Rejecting Civilization and Returning to Nature

Author: G. M. Trujillo, Jr.
Category: Historical Philosophy, Ethics
Wordcount: 990

Some ancient Greek philosophers only used words to investigate philosophical problems. Others also used their actions. Plato (429-347 BCE) fits in the first group. He thought long and hard about how to define “human” and concluded that humans are featherless, bipedal animals. Diogenes of Sinope (404-323 BCE), the first great Cynic, fit into the second group. He refuted Plato by plucking a chicken, taking it to his lecture, and announcing, “Here’s Plato’s human!”^[1] He provided a flesh-and-blood example of a featherless, bipedal animal that no one would consider human.

The story of Plato, Diogenes, and the chicken is emblematic of Cynicism. Cynics exercised parrēsia, or direct, plain, frank, and free speech.^[2] Diogenes didn’t need ornate theory or erudite rhetoric to disprove Plato. He only needed a chicken and a couple of words. Cynics were masters at using spectacle and wit to argue for their positions. Yet their philosophy was more than clever refutations. Cynics foremost rebuked civilization and valued nature.

For Diogenes and the Cynics, philosophy was not about conjuring hypothetical scenarios or pondering ancient mysteries. Rather, Cynics argued that philosophy studies the lives of actual people and teaches us to live well and prepares us for any fortune. And it does so through training both the body and mind to live as simply as possible.^[3] This essay summarizes the main values in ancient Cynicism, especially those present in the life of Diogenes of Sinope.^[4]

1. The Mangy Dogs of Greece and the Natural Lives They Led

Cynic philosophers were easy to recognize in the ancient world. They had three main identifiers. First, they wore a tribōn, a threadbare cloak. It served not only as a garment but also as something to sleep on and in, as they had no permanent homes. Second, each carried a pēra, a pouch that contained all their material possessions.^[5] And third, they held a staff—a glorified walking stick that helped them to move from city to city in the ancient world.^[6] Everywhere they went, they tried to convince people to abandon their material possessions and live simply and freely in nature.

The word “Cynic” is almost a direct transliteration of the Greek kunikos, meaning “dog-like.” To be called “Cynic” is to be compared to a dog. Cynics earned this title by living like dogs, unconcerned for human convention and striving only for bare necessities. Diogenes owned the label, explaining that he earned the nickname by wagging his tail at those who gave him things, barking at those who didn’t, and biting bad people.^[7] Like dogs, Cynics lived carefree—unworried about rent, food, or manners. Like dogs, they judged character well–examining people’s actions, not their titles or purses.^[8]

When Diogenes looked at most people, he scarcely found anyone living up to their human potential. Famously, he walked around cities during the daytime with a lit lantern, saying he was looking for an anthrōpos, a human being, a real example of what humanity could become. His search never ended.^[9] He found only that he was happy being called a ‘dog’ if the people in cities were called ‘humans.’^[10] Dogs were better people. They lived freely and naturally, unencumbered by possessions or social anxieties.^[11] This natural life is what Cynics wished for all people.

2. To Become Free and Self-Sufficient You Have to Practice

Like the plucked chicken, the Cynic lifestyle demonstrated the Cynic philosophy instead of just talking about it. Cynics argued that self-sufficiency (autarkeia) and freedom (eleutheria) are the goals of life. To achieve their goals, the Cynics underwent askēsis, disciplined training and practice.^[12] Diogenes went as far as to say that such training was central to any success and could overcome any challenge.^[13]

Cynics would train every day to become freer and less dependent on others or circumstances. To avoid needing shoes, Diogenes walked barefoot. To avoid expensive taste, he ate scrap lentils and lettuce (or anything he could beg for). To prevent dependence on a house, he slept in the open, most famously in a large clay tub previously used for storing wine. If Diogenes wanted to acclimate to summers, he rolled in hot sand. If he wanted to acclimate to winters, he hugged cold statues. If he wanted to acclimate to rejection, he begged for money from sculptures.^[14] If the ends are self-sufficiency and freedom, then the means are the actions we practice every day to pursue them.

Cynics noticed that human life always involves toil and pain. But, they argued, we can choose which pains to endure. Cynics would openly acknowledge the burden of living without material possessions and against the values of society. But they would also warn that the alternative—the new house, new job, new party, new worry—is worse because it actively undermines the life humans were made to live. Cynic life was neither easy nor popular, but Cynics stuck to it.^[15]

A consistent theme of Cynicism is to prefer nature (physis) to convention (nomos), to live as a natural human would, not as society demands.^[16] Diogenes “often thundered that the gods had made it possible for people to live easily, but this had been lost sight of, because we demand honey cakes, perfumes, and the like.”^[17] Society tells you that you need a spouse and kids, a house, a job, a fancy title, and many luxuries to enjoy. Cynics argued: more money, more problems. Society makes you miserable by trapping you in things and social circumstances. Cynic self-sufficiency and freedom provide an escape.

This is why Cynics valued their austere lifestyle; it made them free.^[18] Both literally and figuratively, they had nothing to lose, so they could always do and say what was needed. And they thought anyone with something to lose lost their freedom and chance at living well.

3. Conclusion

Cynics argue two things. First, civilization ruins happiness, so let go of every custom and thing. Second, nature restores happiness, so live simply and freely. In short, live less like an influencer and more like a dog.^[19]

Notes

^[1] Plato later modified his definition, adding “having broad nails.” Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, VI.40. Author’s own translation. For any classical sources cited without direct quotes, the essay cites the author, the title of the work (in English), and the classical pagination (when available). Whenever direct quotes are given, a specific translation will be cited, even if the author’s own.

This essay opts to work primarily from Diogenes Laertius’ Lives of Eminent Philosophers. It is generally taken as the starting point for scholarship on ancient Cynicism, and it is arguably the best source on Diogenes of Sinope. However, it should be noted that Diogenes Laertius compiled the stories about Diogenes of Sinope some 500 years after his death. Studying the ancient Cynics presents many difficulties because not many of the original Cynic writings survive today, for example Diogenes of Sinope’s Republic and tragedies. So, scholars must piece Cynicism’s details together from second-hand accounts of historians and compilers (e.g., Diogenes Laertius), from writers who were Cynic for part of their lives (e.g., Dio Chrysostom), or from writers arguing against the Cynics, their ideas, their social influence, and their disingenuous imitators (e.g., Julian). Cynicism as a philosophical movement spans almost a thousand years, so cultural contexts shift too. Donald Dudley (2003) traces the movement from Diogenes of Sinope in the 5th Century BCE to 6th Century CE. And current anthologies on Cynicism include sources from similar time periods (e.g., Usher 2022). For more information on ancient sources on Diogenes of Sinope and other Cynics, see: Dudley (2003), p. 53; Hard (2012), pp. xxix-xxxiv; or the exhaustive Navia (1995).

One last note about translation. This essay substitutes “person” or “human” for Greek uses of anthrōpos (which is usually translated as “man”). Some philosophers think that the general androcentrism, masculinism, and misogyny of Greece means that most philosophers thought “men” and “people” were coextensional, referring to the same group. In other words, purportedly, men were the only people for the Greeks, in the full moral, political, and agential sense of the term. But this makes things too simple. Most ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, while nonetheless masculinist and misogynistic, admitted women into their schools and held that women should be treated as equals. For example, in Cynicism specifically, Hipparchia of Maroneia was a devoted Cynic and made important contributions to the school. For an account of her life and contributions, see: Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, VI.96-8. For a discussion of women in Cynicism in general, as well as Hipparchia herself and her relationship with Crates (another key Cynic figure), see: Dudley (2003), pp. 36-7, 49-52. For a parallel discussion of feminism and Stoicism, see: Aikin and McGill (2014).

^[2] Once when Diogenes was asked what the most beautiful thing is (kalliston), he replied parrēsia. This term is difficult to translate, not because it lacked a clear meaning for the Greeks, but because it has gained cultural baggage in the millennia since they used it. For the Greeks, parrēsia is something that anyone could use in any context, so long as she spoke directly, openly, and plainly. However, philosophers such as Michel Foucault have argued that parrēsia necessarily involves risk and can only be undertaken by people who have something to lose in such plainspokenness, and so it’s not easily done by rulers. Foucault (2001), p. 16. That is, politically motivated historians of philosophy claim parrēsia is generally a weapon of the lower classes, or a tool for punching upward. While this is a laudable image–the idea of speaking plain truth to power–it is not how Greeks understood parrēsia. For the Greeks, parrēsia is about directness and frankness, and it can lash in any direction, punching down as well as up. For example, Diogenes saw a tree from which women had been hanged and wished all trees bore such fruit. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, VI.52. He did not always punch up, and the Greeks still understood him as a paragon of parrēsia, even if Foucault and others might not in those instances. Additionally, given Cynic asceticism and self-imposed ostracism, Cynics might not have had enough to lose on the Foucaultian account, which would run opposite to the Greek understanding.

^[3] Cynics only studied ethics. They refused to study logic, physics, geometry, astrology, literature, or music. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, VI.73, 103-4. The whole point of philosophical training was to learn to live well. VI.63, 65. Moreover, such a practical focus did not require literacy. One could be a Cynic if one studied with Cynics and lived like them. A man named Hegesias once asked Diogenes for a book of his teachings. Diogenes called him an ass for asking for a book of his teachings instead of training with the person who would’ve written the books. VI.48. A Cynic assumption is that the best way to understand philosophers is to examine their actions. Words are cheap. In fact, Diogenes used to say that literary scholars studied fictional characters but not their own, musicians tuned their instruments but not themselves, mathematicians gazed at the heavens but not at what was in front of them, and orators talked about justice but didn’t practice it. VI.27-8. Theoretical knowledge amounts to nothing if not applied to oneself and one’s actual circumstances. The Cynic tradition bears this out too. One Cynic, Sostratus of Boeotia, was a literal giant who lived in the mountains, built bridges, and killed dangerous animals and robbers. His lifestyle made him Cynic, not his study (which was probably minimal). See: Lucian, Life of Demonax; Dudley (2003), pp. 182-3.

^[4] Many philosophers assert that Cynicism is not a philosophical school. They range from historical philosophers, such as G.W.F. Hegel, to contemporary philosophers, such as John Cooper. See: Cooper (2012), p. 62, n. 56. However, philosophers who argue that Cynicism isn’t a philosophy or a school make it seem as though Cynics had no common beliefs or theoretical justifications for those beliefs, which is far from the case. Diogenes Laertius called Cynicism a school and not merely a way of life. Lives of Eminent Philosophers, VI.103. And various scholars have offered lists of key features of Cynicism. For example, Donald Dudley holds that Cynicism is most represented by (1) a vagrant and ascetic lifestyle, (2) an assault on all established values, and (3) a body of literary genres used in satire and philosophical propaganda. (2003), pp. Xv-xvi. A. A. Long identifies seven key features of Cynicism: “1. Happiness is living in agreement with nature. 2. Happiness is something available to any person willing to engage in sufficient physical and mental training. 3. The essence of happiness is self-mastery, which manifests itself in the ability to live happily under even highly adverse circumstances. 4. Self-mastery is equivalent to, or entails, a virtuous character. 5. The happy person, as so conceived, is the only person who is truly wise, kingly, and free. 6. Things conventionally deemed necessary for happiness, such as wealth, fame, and political power, have no value in nature. 7. Prime impediments to happiness are false judgments of value, together with the emotional disturbances and vicious character that arise from these false judgments.” (1996), pp. 29-30. Luis Navia identifies twelve features. See: (2005), ch. 4. This essay has tried to distill these debates into an accessible version of the most central features of Cynicism. For discussions about Cynicism’s legitimacy as a philosophy, see: Branham and Goulet-Cazé (1996), p. 21; Long (1996), p. 29; Navia (2005), pp. 130-2; Dudley (2003), pp. 59, 183.

^[5] All of Diogenes’ material possessions fit into his pēra. In fact, there is a story that he once owned a cup. But he saw a boy drinking from his hands cupped together, and Diogenes smashed his cup. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, VI.37. An important value for Cynics was frugality (euteleia). However, the extent of the frugality seemed to be a matter of debate. Cynics were consistently poor but varied in their destitution. For example, Crates of Thebes, the most famous student of Diogenes, was never said to have begged, which Diogenes did often. See: Dudley (2003), p. 48. And Demonax, another Cynic, was said to have enjoyed great repute in Athens, so much so bakers would compete to see who could entice him to take one of their loaves of bread, and he would simply go uninvited into people’s homes at nighttime, where he would get dinner and a bed to sleep in, which people took as a sign of luck and honor. See: Usher 2022, p. 71, which is Lucian’s Life of Demonax. Diogenes, by contrast, lacked such benefactors.

^[6] Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, VI.22-23. This stick was symbolic too; it was a scepter that represented Cynic authority to demand that humans live simply and naturally, made from a tree branch instead of precious metals and stones. The motif of cloak, pouch, and stick was popular, so popular that in an ancient (but fictional) letter from one Cynic to another who just had a kid, the writer recommends giving the infant his own cloak, pouch, and staff. See: Usher (2022), ch. 3, which is Cynic Epistle #33. And in ancient Greece and Rome, people could pose as philosophers by going about unkempt with a shabby cloak, pouch, and staff.

^[7] Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, VI.40, 60. This essay renders sainōn as “wagging his tail” (instead of “fawn,” which most other translators use but which is archaic), and ponērous as “bad people” (instead of “wicked” as Mensch translates, “scoundrels” as Usher, or “rascals” as Hicks).

There are many other dog stories too. Such a character as Diogenes was received poorly by certain people. In public, some would express that they were afraid of Diogenes biting them. Diogenes replied to such expressions by saying that dogs don’t eat beets. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, VI.45, 61. The implication is that dogs don’t eat useless or unsavory things, such as those not valuing Cynics. In one extreme case, some dinner guests threw bones at Diogenes like a dog. So, as he was leaving, he peed on them like a dog. VI.46.

^[8] For a discussion on how literally to take the comparison to dogs, see: Navia (2005), pp. 143-53.

^[9] Running parallel to the lantern story, when Diogenes left somewhere busy, people would ask him if there were a lot of people there. He often replied that there was a large crowd but not many people. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, VI.32, 40, 41, 60.

^[10] A big part of the Cynic lifestyle was anaideia, a Greek word that is usually translated as “shamelessness” but might also be rendered as “impudence” or “irreverence.” The key is that anaideia has the alpha privative (the prefix “a” that means whatever follows is negated or absent) and the root aidōs, which means “shame,” “modesty,” “reverence,” or “respect.” The point is that Cynics lacked the typical modesty, shame, or respect associated with many things. They wanted to live natural lives, and they felt that any aspect of natural life should not cause shame at all. Diogenes of Sinope was notorious for this. Athenians, for example, did not like when people ate in the marketplace. Diogenes, however, would routinely eat there, refusing to feel shame for the taboo or the transgression of manners in conventional Athenian society. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, VI.58, 61, 69. But the most notorious of Diogenes’ acts concerning shamelessness is the time (perhaps many) that he masturbated in the marketplace. Passersby scorned him. But his reply was, “If only one could relieve hunger by rubbing one’s belly.” Diogenes Laertius (2018), VI.46. See also: VI.69. Diogenes was unashamed for masturbation because sexual urges are perfectly natural, and masturbation, a sexual act concerning only oneself, transgressed no moral boundary and no social convention worth respecting. Eating, using the restroom, satisfying sexual urges, sleeping—Cynics heeded any natural urge in public. It made no sense to Cynics to be ashamed of things that all animals do. Perhaps the best summary of the Cynic view of shamelessness comes from a non-Cynic, Roman Emperor Julian. In his “6th Oration” he explains how Cynics evaluated shame: “Let him [Diogenes] trample on pretense. Let him make fun of people who hide under cover of darkness what are necessary, natural functions. What I mean is the secretion of what is superfluous. And yet those same people busy themselves in the middle of our marketplaces and cities with the most outrageous behavior, inappropriate to our nature: stealing money, sycophantic conniving, unjust lawsuits, and the pursuit of other rubbish of this sort. Whereas, when Diogenes farted or shat or did anything else like that in the marketplace, as they say he did, his actions were aimed at trampling on the pretense of those people, to teach them that they were engaged in business much more sordid and problematic than his. For those [Diogenes’] activities are natural to us all, whereas their activities, to put it plainly, are natural to no one. To engage in all such things springs from a perversion of Nature.” Usher (2022), pp. 171-3. The point should be clear: Cynics held that doing what animals must do should never lead to shame. And the fact that society treats natural functions as shameful, but doesn’t do much about the ways humans hurt one another or themselves through business or politics shows how backward conventional values are.

^[11] For a more detailed explanation of Cynic commitments against materialism, see: Trujillo (2022).

^[12] The Cynic commitments to freedom and simplicity led them to admire Herakles–the demigod who wore a lion’s pelt, carried a club, and slayed the monsters troubling humanity. Cynics–with their own sticks and pelts–traveled from place to place to slay the social conventions that prevent people from living naturally and freely. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, VI.71. Cynics also routinely argued that Prometheus, the titan who gave humans the gift of fire, made a mistake. Rather than humans using Prometheus’s gift for knowledge, craft, or survival, they used it for luxuries, which made them soft and led to vice. Cynics are therefore anti-Promethean. See: Dio Chrysostom, “6th Discourse,” 25. To put the point starkly, no Cynic would ever accept millionaires or political leaders into their ranks. Cynicism is incompatible with deep involvement in society because society runs opposite to nature. Cynics rejected civilization.

^[13] Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, VI.71.

^[14] Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, VI.22, 49.

^[15] See: Aikin and Vollbrecht (2022), p. 282.

^[16] One quintessential Cynic action was paracharattein to nomisma, or altering currency. It is a storied phrase for two reasons. First, it refers to how Diogenes ended up in Athens. He was expelled from his home city of Sinope for altering the currency. Kicked out of his home with next to nothing, he had to make his way in the world differently, which led him to philosophy. Second, there is a play on words. Nomisma can mean both an official coin for economic transactions, or it can mean anything sanctioned by convention. This second meaning is more important for Cynicism. Cynics took it as their mission to deface the currency of civilization, to deface the values of conventional society and render them useless.

^[17] Diogenes Laertius (2018), VI.44.

^[18] There is a Cynic motif surrounding Cynicism as a “shortcut to virtue.” It is mentioned in: Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, VI.104. It is discussed briefly by Hard (2012), p. xix.

^[19] This essay was improved by comments from Scott F. Aikin, Noah Greenstein, Kristin Seemuth Whaley, Chelsea Haramia, and Nathan Nobis.

Free Speech by Mark Satta

Virtue Ethics by David Merry

Happiness: What Is It to Be Happy? by Kiki Berk

Meaning in Life: What Makes Our Lives Meaningful? by Matthew Pianalto

The Meaning of Life: What’s the Point? by Matthew Pianalto

Why be Moral? Plato’s ‘Ring of Gyges’ Thought Experiment by Spencer Case

Rousseau on Human Nature: “Amour de soi” and “Amour propre” by Corey McCabe

PDF Download

Download this essay in PDF.

About the Author

G.M. Trujillo, Jr. is Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Texas at El Paso. He specializes in ethics, especially virtue ethics and bioethics. www.Boomert.info

Follow 1000-Word Philosophy on Facebook and Twitter and subscribe to receive email notifications of new essays at 1000WordPhilosophy.com

Discover more from 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1. The Mangy Dogs of Greece and the Natural Lives They Led