Whilst there is a clear connection between Aristotle’s ethics and Cynicism, in that both will stress the importance of being true to your nature, it would be a mistake to think that one followed from the other. They are, to all intents and purposes, totally different schools of thought that have totally different approaches to living well. In fact, in terms of outcomes, Cynicism is pretty much the polar opposite of Aristotelianism. Any connection between the two schools of thought can be accounted for by their common Socratic ancestry: a shared root that branched in very different directions.
First, a word about the word: Cynic. It is a word with which we are all familiar; we all know what a ‘cynic’ is, what it is to be cynical, to do something cynically, or to take a cynical attitude to something. ‘Cynic’ is an eponym, deriving from the ‘Cynics’, a philosophical school of thought that began in Ancient Greece roughly around the same time as Plato and Aristotle (4th century BC). The origin of the word seems to have two possibilities: one connected with the location where the school of thought originated, another connected with the behaviour of its most infamous defender.
The origin for Cynicism is said to be another student of Socrates, slightly older than Plato, called Antisthenes. There’s little evidence that Antisthenes considered himself anything other than a disciple of Socrates’ philosophy, but nonetheless philosophers have tended to point to him as being an originator of a distinct Socratic legacy. Many would say it is the true Socratic legacy, far truer to Socrates’ philosophy than the metaphysical speculations of the heir-apparent Plato.
Antisthenes was born of an Athenian father and a Thracian mother, which meant he had to exercise at a gymnasium for those who were not of pure Athenian parentage. This gymnasium was called the ‘Cynosarges’, and it is there that Antisthenes did his teaching, leading to one claim that the word ‘cynic’ comes from the fact that it was taught at the ‘Cynosarges’.
But there’s little to suggest Antisthenes or his contemporaries would have recognised the word ‘cynic’, let alone used it. The word itself comes into use at least a generation later, attached to its most infamous follower: Diogenes of Sinope, also known as Diogenes ‘the dog’. In Ancient Greek, ‘kynikos’ is the word for ‘dog-like’, giving rise to the other claim to the origin of the word ‘cynic’: To be a Cynic is to be dog-like, like Diogenes.
Of the two possible etymologies, I much prefer the second. I think most people do, which is why that is the dominant etymology in most of philosophical history. Even if it’s not true, it’s too good a fit to pass up. It’s the best of fits for two reasons:
Firstly, that etymology captures the essence of their philosophy in just one word: ‘cynic’, meaning ‘dog-like’. Dogs live in the now, by their instincts, expressing their nature, requiring very little, loyal to what is known and naturally hostile to what isn’t. This is Cynic philosophy.
Second, that etymology started as an insult – to call someone ‘like a dog’ was meant to be insulting – but the Cynics turned it on its head, making it a virtue to be what society insults you as being. Taking an insult as a complement in such a way shows the ignorance and small-mindedness of society, the contrastingly superior virtue of Cynics, and the self-deprecatingly humorous attitude that is so typical of Cynicism. When the norms of society are so stupid, you are glad and amused to be insulted by them. Would you rather be praised by these ignorant fools?!
tobybetenson.com 