Today, the term ‘cynic’ brings to mind a person who has little or no faith in the goodness of the human race. In ancient Athens, however, it meant something quite different: one who rejects all social conventions in order to live in accordance with nature. The Cynics believed that such a life was necessary for freedom and virtue. Why did they think so? What are the most important tenets of Cynic philosophy? And are there any reasons to live now as the Cynics once did? John and Ken sincerely welcome Luis Navia from the New York Institute of Technology, author of愤世嫉俗者第欧根尼:对抗世界的战争。
John and Ken begin the show by providing some background on Diogenes—the greatest ancient Cynic, as John puts it. Diogenes, Ken tells us, lived around 300 B.C.E. John starts the conversation by noting that based on how he acted, you would think he’s quite the jerk. Ken speaks of Diogenes in a different light, pointing out that he was a principled man, one who thought that philosophers should focus on the physical world and basic human needs.
Explaining John’s concern about how Diogenes treated Alexander the Great and acted—publicly urinating, defecating, and masturbating—Ken explains that he was just living out his belief in the useless of arbitrary conventions. John, now in agreement that Diogenes was a principled philosopher, points out that now we use the word a bit differently.
The two are joined by Luis Navia, Professor of Philosophy at the New York Institute of Technology, and author of Diogenes the Cynic: The War Against the World. Navia shares that he was drawn to Diogenes perhaps by the touch of cynicism he himself has, viewing many things today as fundamentally detrimental to what he believes is the natural way of being human.Ken wonders how, if at all, Diogenes is able to reconcile what seems to be an inherent tension between Diogenes’ philosophy of radical individualism and Aristotle’s characterization of humans as necessarily social creatures. This seems to be an especially dubious part of his philosophy, adds John. Navia, in response to this, clarifies that unlike Plato and Aristotle, Diogenes was not a systematic philosopher, and often exaggerated his points to set a high bar.
Yet, he was still committed to reason, and a part of the ancient school of philosophy. Drawing from Navia’s characterization, Ken distills the thought as such: for Diogenes, philosophy was not writing down thoughts and airtight arguments, but more performing and presenting them.
在听众的电子邮件和电话指导下，他们三人开始考虑如何将这种哲学应用于21世纪。纳维亚透露，他和叔本华一样悲观，但肯质疑他，怀疑是否真的没有办法让事情变得更好。In what John calls a consolation, and Ken a project of self-amelioration, they conclude with Navia’s notion that all we can do is make changes on our own individual level, and make things a bit better in that small way.
