Talk:Cynicism (philosophy)/Archive 1

Archive 1

separate articles

The modern usage of the term "cynic" is fairly clearly divorced from the ancient philosophical school. They should retain separate articles, since they are very much separate ideas. (anon)

I removed the merger template because the ancient school of philosophy is too different from the current meaning of the word, as also described by anon here. Andries 10:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

""A cynic is one who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing." --Oscar Wilde" should not appear on Cynic (school of philosophy) page as it clearly refers to the modern definition of cynicism, not the philosophical school.

• • I would think that a discussion that bridges to the evolution to the modern usage would be essential in making this a really useful article. When a reader encounters a definition that is 180 degrees removed from the general understanding of the term, that merits some explanation. Douglas Brown.

POV

The last two paragraphs have a lot of POV. "Cynicism must be regarded"…"its defective psychology, its barren logic, its immature technique"…"two great and necessary truths"…"it is necessary to point out two flaws"…"separate the wheat from the chaff"…"a saner and more comprehensive meaning" and so forth. That's all from 1911 Brittanica, right? Anyway, they should be rewritten.

Yet another 1911 Brittanica orphan. Same thing on Potemkin. Needs a rewrite. --Yossarian 05:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. It still lacks citations for the opinionated phrase "defective psychology, barren logic, and immature technique", though.

cynicism and the will

In the sections 'Antisthenes' and 'Supporters', I found two passages troubling: "The ordinary pleasures of life were for them not merely negligible but positively harmful inasmuch as they interrupted the operation of the will" and "Cynicism emphasizes two principles: [...] the autocracy of the will.". Is it not the case that the concept of the 'will' is derived from Christian doctrine (Augustine, etc.) and that there is no equivalent word in the Greek? If I am not mistaken, it would be quite inappropriate to use the concept of the 'will' in articulating Antisthenes cynicism. EmileNoldeSinclair 00:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

values and possessions

I read a greek play... or was it a poem... (I have (obviously) forgotten the name of both the work and its author, otherwise I might have added this to the article) where several dead people are on the ferry to the underworld when it springs a leak. Everybody must throw all their possessions overboard at first, but it's not enough, it gets to be fairly esoteric. The philosopher must throw his wisdom and his large words overboard, the strongman must throw his muscles overboard, the lawmaker his morals, etc. However, the cynic has nothing to throw overboard. The ferryman values this greatly, and gives him the honor of taking away the possessions of the others. It's rather strange. If anyone knows the name of this play/poem/piece, please tell me. I'm sure I (or you) can find something to add to the article... even if it is just an addition to the 'cynics in literature' section — Preceding unsigned comment added by oneoverzero (talk • contribs)

Tells me about the who, not about the what

This is a problem with articles on wikipedia sometimes. They explain who was involved, and who thought what, but don't explain the concept itself. :-/

--Kim Bruning 06:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of this page.

I answered the call to "Clean Up" this page. I'm supposed to document what I've done here. Basically, I rewrote the entire thing from scratch, except, I think, the very first sentence, and I think I adopted a couple of sentences for the "Cynicism in the Roman World" section. I kept the external links, but I did remove a section on Cynicism in Literature, which had nothing to do with ancient Cynicism.

The stuff about Antisthenes which was here before I moved to the Antisthenes page, (but even then, I cut out a middle section, which seemed too opinionated for my liking - like a lot of these Encyclopædia Britannica 1911 articles.)

Anyway, it's hardly perfect, but I hope this page is bit better now. Singinglemon 00:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

I find that this article meets the Good Article criteria. A few further comments can be found at my review. Shimeru (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Talk:Cynic/GA1