Conventions of Thought and Behavior - Research Paper Example

Conventions of Thought and Behavior: Cynic Philosophy Introduction: Two principal philosophical schools emerged out of Socrates’ interpretation of ethics. Both these schools believed that the proper approach to philosophy was through personal ethics. These schools were the ‘Cynical’ and Stoical’ ones (Hock, Undated). This paper is specifically interested in investigating the modalities of thought and behavior that governed different classes of people in 3rd and 4th century B.C. Greece according to the precepts of the cynic school. This is done in context of the aristocrats and the marginals – the last being the philosophers marginalized by prevalent normative thought and behavior. This is a thesis proposal that seeks to investigate whether such norms were really prevailing or not among those considered within the paper’s scope, the last being small and limited. Background: The cynics of ancient Greece traced back their roots to Socrates though one of his pupils, Antisthenes (Hock, Undated). Nevertheless, it is confirmed that the actual propounder of this school of philosophy is one Diogenes of Sinope (404-323 B.C.) (Hock, Undated). From Diogenes Laertius it is known that Diogenes fled to Athens when his father, a banker, started adulterating money. There he met with Antisthenes and inducted some of the philosophical thought his teacher was heir to from Socrates. Thereafter he started leading what the cynics construe as a truly virtuous life – doubling up his cloak, carrying a begging bag for his food and eating and conversing wherever he could (Hock, Undated). He believed that ‘the minimum is the optimum’ – the cynic philosophy put in a nutshell (Hock, Undated). This may be taken as a very brief introduction to cynicism and a lengthier version of the background to cynicism will become available later in the paper. Hereafter the paper shall contrive to use some incidents or anecdotes, called chreiai in Greek, from Diogenes’ own life and some from his close disciple Crates (358-290 B.C.) (Hock, Undated) to bring out the essence of this thesis proposal. It shall also use some supplementary texts to do this. The Essential Cynic: The essence of cynicism is that the minimum of life is the optimum to live with (Hock, Undated). The extent to which the initiators – Diogenes and his students such as Crates – involved their personal lives with this minimalist philosophical precept is evidenced from their rigorously frugal life-styles. Diogenes even forsook the perusal of his drinking cup, which he took out of his begging bag and threw away, when he saw a boy drinking water with his bare hands (Hock, Undated). His envy at this simple act caused him to exclaim – “A mere child has defeated me in simple living” (Hock, Undated). That Diogenes understood the value of things in daily life of the people of his time is best evidenced by his following observation – “Things of great value can be had for almost next to nothing whereas things of no value command great prices” (Hock, Undated). The observation is in context to the fact that a statue, in those days, used to cost over 3,000 dollars while a daily ration of barley would cost only a few pennies (Hock, Undated). This may be taken as a commentary on the aristocracy of that time in Greece. Aristocrats chose to waste huge sums of money on trivia while the common people had to eke out a meager living. A Historical Background: Previous to the cynicism of Diogenes, Greek philosophers had become disillusioned by the habits of their times and renounced such ill-practices as prevailed in no uncertain terms (Russell, 1946, p. 240-241). They had, nevertheless, retained some hope of retraction from what they perceived as evil practices in the societies of their times. This measure of hope, no matter how slight, had enabled them to make efforts in seeking ways and means through which they could persuade those in charge to make the necessary changes and retract society to the desired levels of moral capabilities (Russell, 1946, p. 240-241). Unfortunately, in the times of Diogenes, the Greek city-states had gone and the entire Greek civilization was an exclusive preserve of the Macedonians under Alexander the Great. The Greeks had no autonomy and no say in how matters were being conducted in their own preserve. A relatively foreign force reigned over them and unfamiliarity ruled out any mutual compromise towards moral reconciliation (Russell, 1946, p. 240-241). It is observed that Antisthenes himself began the practice of extreme frugal living though he was not as radical in this as Diogenes. He did not care to spurn hope and happiness. Diogenes, who may have inducted a part of his special brand of cynicism from his teacher Antisthenes, went the whole way and saw no hope of redeeming the ways of the Greeks of his time towards a better state (Russell, 1946, p. 240-241). Instead, like many other Greek philosophers of his time, he sought personal achievement through his philosophy without seeking to persuade those in charge of the society of his time to heed his moral ways as a means to the betterment of the Greeks (Russell, 1946, p. 240-241). He, much like his contemporaries, did not care if his sense of morality had any followers or not. It was more likely that if someone did not like his philosophy he returned the insult but made no special efforts to persuade that person to accept his point of view. He sought to be exemplary without seeking any acceptance from anyone at all (Russell, 1946, p. 240-241). Thus, he did not directly accept the task of betterment of the Greek society of his times. Instead, on a take it or leave it basis, he went about in his own fashion heeding totally at all timers his own precepts of extreme frugality. It is not even that he hoped that this exemplary manner of life would get noticed by others and attract them to it. It is only that he understood that his way of life was a way good for humans and, being a human, he must follow it, no matter if none else did or not (Russell, 1946, p. 240-241). This may have been so because the Greeks, at that time, had foreign rulers and there was no prevailing mutual sympathy between the rulers and the ruled. Neither side saw any necessity at reconciliation, even if only to mutual advantage through a healthy sense of universal morality. The ruling class, thus, proceeded with their deemed or real debauchery while the general populace proceeded with theirs. Those of either side who cared to be deemed moral did so at their own initiative (Russell, 1946, p. 240-241). This last was the case of a few like Diogenes and his student Crates. The Greeks of his time contemptuously perceived Diogenes as a dog, eating, drinking and generally living wherever he could without inhibition. This perception led to the word cynic – a word that is somehow associated phonetically with the Greek word for ‘dog’ (Russell, 1946, p. 240-241). It is well-known also that Diogenes returned this dubious compliment by calling his contemporaries dogs. When they taunted him with eating out in the streets like a common mongrel, Diogenes countered with the same contempt saying that it was them who were dogs since they stood around like ones while he ate (Hock, Undated). Also, Diogenes acted in the same vein as with the one in which he acknowledged anyone who did not fit in with his ideal of humanity, when Alexander the Great, the Macedonian King under whose rule the Greeks were subjected to, came to visit him while he was getting a tan at a gymnasium outside Corinth. When Alexander told him that he could ask for anything he wanted and it would be granted him Diogenes told the great king to get out of the way of the sunshine so that he could get a good enough tan (Hock, Undated). Though this does not illustrate much of the common Greek’s opinion of their Macedonian rulers of that time since Diogenes was likely to have retorted with the same thing if a Greek had approached him with the same proposition as the great king yet it is indicative of what Russell, 1946, had observed of the general Greek philosophers of that time. These eminent persons, of whom Diogenes may be taken as one, had earlier in Greek history been considered the guardians of public morality and initiators of social and communal norms. Yet, at the time of Diogenes, when the Greek governance was in the hands of outsiders, these eminent persons retired to shells from within which they refused to emerge to assist anybody (Russell, 1946). The total despair with humanity that Diogenes manifested had earlier been completely missing from philosophical thought and behavior. There had, earlier, always been a contrivance to attempt at redemption. This, now, was completely missing. Aristocrats and Marginals: The paper investigates the conventions of behavior and thought that governed the aristocrats and marginals of Diogenes’ times. It is obvious from the previous sections that the aristocrats were aligned to foreign powers and most likely to have distanced themselves somewhat from the local populace. This, in itself, is bad. Diogenes may be taken to be a marginal whose sense of morality and rationality was ignored by the aristocracy since these normal values would have interfered with their indulgent life-styles. Nevertheless, there is an inkling here and there that Diogenes may have been marginalized by the aristocracy and may have withdrawn into a shell of his own as a result yet he was caring enough of the plight of the common people in a distant manner. In a chreiai he is observed as saying that if his slave, who had escaped, could live without him there was no reason why he, the master, could not live without his slave. This was when he was advised to go after his slave who had run away (Hock, Undated). Overtly, it seems that Diogenes is as uncaring in this as in everything else he said and did. Yet, this uncaringness works differentially. His ignoring the great king is meant to be a slight towards the patronage from foreign rulers who may later have asked the philosopher to compromise his stance on moral values. Thus, this uncaringness may have been for the greater good of Greek society. In the instance with the slave though, this uncaringness allows the slave to escape to his freedom. It seems thus that Diogenes does somehow manifest his preference for public norms though he does so in a peculiar manner. Common Perceptions: It is also important to find out what common perceptions were of philosophers like Diogenes. From the chreiai wherein a shoe-maker named Micyllus converses with his rooster, who professes to be Pythagorus reborn, it becomes observable that the common Greek of that time preferred to be rich and dreamt much of wealth, partly as an escape from the abject poverty they were forced to live in. It also becomes observable that they did not care much of philosophers like Pythagorus who had earlier, in his lifetime, advocated restraint from eating meat and talking too much. Thus, it is possible that they would not care much of Diogenes either since he was intent on leading a life that was as simple as that of a dog (Hock, Undated). The luxurious life the aristocrats led seems to be the ideal one common Greeks of the time preferred while they looked down on the simple one philosophers like Pythagoras and Diogenes advocated. From Micyllus’ dream it becomes obvious that the conventions of thought and behavior at a symposium at that time would be to indulge oneself as much as possible with rich food served on gold- and silverware while numerous slaves ran about attending to the minutest details (Hock, Undated). It would also seem that philosophers like Thesmopolis were despised for their moralizing and Micyllus was no exception in doing this promptly. He enjoyed everything about the symposium except his conversations with Thesmopolis (Hock, Undated). This attitude of slight that philosophers, including Diogenes, of that time faced from both the aristocracy and common people would seem to have earned them the euphemism ‘Marginals’. The paper shall now examine if this is entirely true. At the end part to this particular chreiai of Micyllus and his rooster it seems that the rooster, who professes to be Pythagorus reborn, does manage to convince Micyllus that the lives of the rich and the powerful were as strained with misery as his poor one (Hock, Undated). The rooster made Micyllus understand that nowhere on Earth could he find happiness unless he remained satisfied with whatever he had. Thus, he realized that his life of mending and making shoes was not more miserable that that of the aristocracy who often attended symposia and ate and drank to their heart’s content (Hock, Undated). This last part to the chreiai would seem to warrant thinking that philosophers like Diogenes and Pythagorus were not so marginalized as believed to be. Their stern attendance to moral norms could be understood by common people and accepted by them if only these were explained effectively to them. Since the rooster in the chreiai was able to make Micyllus understand the intrinsic values of these morals Micyllus was ready to adopt them for his own good. He was ready to lead a simple life, renouncing thoughts of the one that the rich and the powerful led. . Conclusion: The paper concludes that it has effectively brought out that philosophers like Diogenes, even though they became introverted by the subservient status of the Greeks of that time, were nevertheless effective in their teaching of moral norms. It has presented enough detail of how the foreign-oriented aristocrats of Diogenes’ times behaved and thought in self-indulgence while marginals like Diogenes – the philosophers – retreated into a self-absorbed shell within which they practiced a sparing way of life that they thought moral enough to suffice exemplary behavior. The later did this since they considered themselves far removed from the foreign powers that were. This last essentially meant that there was a deadly rift in communications between the marginals – the philosophers who consistently till then had upheld social ethics in Greece – and the aristocrats who were traditionally the people to whom the philosophers turned to in times of decadence to rejuvenate Greek morality and social ethics. Caught in this moral void it seems that the common person may have viewed Diogenes’ cynic philosopher as harsh but may also have well understood the utility and wholesomeness of the sparse philosophy, as is evidenced by the understanding gathered from even a poor and uneducated shoe-maker as Micyllus. This is the thesis finding the paper has set out to prove. References: Hock, R.F., Translated: Diogenes and Crates: Principal Representatives of Cynic Philosophy, Undated. Russell, Bertrand, 1946, A History of Western Philosophy, pp. 240-241, Unwin Paperbacks, London, 1984-85 Reprint, ISBN: 0 04 100045 5. Read More