People have a variety of motives for their actions. Actions vary in how verbal or symbolic they are, and motives vary in how explicit, conscious, and proximate to action they are. Motives also vary in being “high” vs. “low” on a standard ranking of the nobility of motives.
I would like to know if there is something like the 10 commandments of the cynic or a book that teaches how to be more cynic?I'm trying to become more cynical but I'm wired to try and look for the best on everyone and like people in general so I have no idea how or where to start. Thanks for the help.
In non-coerced cooperation games, there is a third alternative: avoid. Instead of being forced to deal with everyone, simply avoid dealing with people you fear may defect against you, or that you dislike enough to want to defect against.
"The Cynics (Greek: Κυνικοί, Latin: Cynici) were an influential group of philosophers from the ancient school of Cynicism. Their philosophy was that the purpose of life was to live a life of Virtue in agreement with Nature. This meant rejecting all conventional desires for wealth, power, health, and fame, and by living a simple life free from all possessions. As reasoning creatures, people could gain happiness by rigorous training and by living in a way which was natural for humans. They believed that the world belonged equally to everyone, and that suffering was caused by false judgments of what was valuable and by the worthless customs and conventions which surrounded society. Many of these thoughts were later absorbed into Stoicism."
It might be possible that a few present-day cynics with no knowledge of Greek philosophy might still believe in this same thing (humans are motivated by base motives, if you get rid of these base motives, they might become good), only with the addition that it would be impossible for anyone to achieve this idealism...
What are the relatively utilities to accomplishing things of cynicism and idealism? Where are the great accomplishments of the cynics? The great institutions founded by cynics?
I choose constant refills of of idealist bias because it seems to me that this makes me better able to do things that are good for me and for other people, i.e., to be productive in the grandest sense. Years ago I believed I had to choose between personal experience in the form of drugs and engagement in the real world. It seems to me it was allowing, even pushing, my idealistic interpretations to the fore that lead me to put my goals in reality and not in finding more time for better drugs.
Cynicism is the degenerate aspect of critical thinking.
Following on the comments about marxism above, I have been taken by the idea of rational development: thesis, antithesis, and THEN synthesis. The FIRST thing we learn in any area should be an idealistic thing: equations of marginal pricing and utility, straightforward models of atoms underlying the periodic table, newtownian mechanics. THEN, with a complex structure in place, we learn the limits of that structure, that is antithesis. (I am thinking those we characterize as cynics get stuck in antithesis. They are so fascinated by the limits of the ideal structures, they never move past seeing those limits.) FINALLY we have synthesis, which i have always taken as looking for the more complex models that to some extent resolved the conflict between the ideal and the cynical.
At your deepest level, Robin, it seems to me you are COMPLETELY idealistic. You believe in rationality and its power. You believe in what you do here. If I were to teach someone else about you, about your approach, would this not be an overwhelmingly idealistic teaching?
You gave two explanations for cynical moods. Both of these make your proposed project seem less worthwhile than the idea of promoting true ideas initially sounds.
1. Idealistic explanation of cynicism (high motives and/or insight leads to disappointment) - The cynical textbooks demoralize the students and turn them into underachievers.
2. Cynical explanation of cynicism (low motives or ability) - You are targeting an audience that probably isn't going to do much with the truth in the first place.
At the very least, it suggests that there should be some calculation of the trade off between encouraging cynical moods among a number of people against the value of those people understanding the cynical belief.
A good example of a cynical textbook is the book "The Game" by Neil Strauss. It can be seen as part of a textbook itself or as a story about a bunch of guys who discovered the cynical textbook on male/female interactions. Many of the guys got what they wanted in the short term with this information, but the their ability to form longer relationships was damaged. This is either because they believed they knew how girls really worked and were disillusioned, or because the new cynical beliefs were incomplete and yet were enough to make older knowledge about how things are supposed to work seem (incorrectly) useless and irrelevant.
Perhaps we could imagine a sort of "idealistic cynicism", a synthesis of the two views that would retain good qualities of each. The idea would be to recognize the importance of "low" and "base" motivations, but to cast those in positive and approving terms. Rather than acting ashamed of these forces, we would applaud and glorify them.
You see this somewhat in Libertarian philosophy, exemplified perhaps by the quote, "greed is good." Greed, traditionally seen as a base motive to be disparaged and denied, is instead celebrated. After all, the world is a good place, much better than caveman days, and base motives have no doubt driven much of the change.
Your definition of cynicism is so broad as to be useless. Are you saying selfish motives are completely omitted from textbooks? Give me a break! Don't they still teach the "invisible hand"? What about the Trail of Tears?
And you don't have to be a cynic to see selfish motives at work in the world. Maybe a realist. True cynicism is just a crutch for smug, lazy, depressed, or unsympathetic minds.
One of the stronger memories I have of middle school (a long time ago) was reading in class the Shirley Jackson story "The Lottery". Does that count as teaching realistic cynicism? Or rather because it exaggerates an unattractive human behavior into horror, is it clandestine idealism, since it allows us to feel superior? Lord of the Flies, also commonly taught in schools, is also along these lines
Or, take a left-wing textbook like Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. It is plenty cynical (about the motives behind various actions of the US) when compared with more standard texts. But it's also teaching idealism, because it conveys a sense of moral outrage at these acts. (I am personally somewhat more cynical than Zinn, because I simply expect governments to do the sorts of things that they do).
The more I think about it the less useful this distinction becomes. Behind almost any human act lies a rich mixture of motivations, both selfish and idealistic, low and high.
For what it's worth, when I was around 14 I got to read The Selfish Gene. While Dawkins writes somewhat idealistically that we're the only species on earth capable of changing our innate tendencies, the obvious (cynical) conclusions on human nature are inescapable. Strongly recommended.
If by cynical, one means something that views us in a more or less negative light (ie, our lesser selves), then I've seen social studies books that address propaganda, and in the netherlands, I've heard that they're required to watch some of hitler's speeches to hear how easy it is to slip into finding them agreeable, but I think the best place to do it would be in science class where maybe they could do experiments in cognitive biases.
Personally, I'd prefer it this way, because it would allow us to say that the idealistic version is probably how most of us see the world (with our own actions), but how things end up far different from what would be expected from a world full of good people. I think it makes for a better worldview generally, and requires more mental effort to build a more complete model of things.
Then again, I'd just be happy if they gave philosophy in high school, but that's not happening either....
I agree. It isn't about reality but about how we wish reality to be. Idealism is aspirational concerned not with what is but what could be. Cynicism is just the path to the apathetic, inert and negative, nothing matters because nothing can matter, the future will be no different from the past and if that is depressing slit your wrists now. That is much different than merely seeing imperfections, obstacles, and failures and considering how they may be overcome. That is merely being careful, cautious, and critical, not cynical.
I would like to know if there is something like the 10 commandments of the cynic or a book that teaches how to be more cynic?I'm trying to become more cynical but I'm wired to try and look for the best on everyone and like people in general so I have no idea how or where to start. Thanks for the help.
In non-coerced cooperation games, there is a third alternative: avoid. Instead of being forced to deal with everyone, simply avoid dealing with people you fear may defect against you, or that you dislike enough to want to defect against.
I haven't that his book (or even "The Logic of Political Survival), but he has a few podcasts for EconTalk that are very entertaining.
Cynicsm was once a Greek philosophy. Says right here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
"The Cynics (Greek: Κυνικοί, Latin: Cynici) were an influential group of philosophers from the ancient school of Cynicism. Their philosophy was that the purpose of life was to live a life of Virtue in agreement with Nature. This meant rejecting all conventional desires for wealth, power, health, and fame, and by living a simple life free from all possessions. As reasoning creatures, people could gain happiness by rigorous training and by living in a way which was natural for humans. They believed that the world belonged equally to everyone, and that suffering was caused by false judgments of what was valuable and by the worthless customs and conventions which surrounded society. Many of these thoughts were later absorbed into Stoicism."
It might be possible that a few present-day cynics with no knowledge of Greek philosophy might still believe in this same thing (humans are motivated by base motives, if you get rid of these base motives, they might become good), only with the addition that it would be impossible for anyone to achieve this idealism...
"Predictioner's Game" by Bueno de Mosquita, gets high grades for cynical spelling out of implications of game theory to politics.
Thesis, Antithesis, SYNTHESIS. Google it.
What are the relatively utilities to accomplishing things of cynicism and idealism? Where are the great accomplishments of the cynics? The great institutions founded by cynics?
I choose constant refills of of idealist bias because it seems to me that this makes me better able to do things that are good for me and for other people, i.e., to be productive in the grandest sense. Years ago I believed I had to choose between personal experience in the form of drugs and engagement in the real world. It seems to me it was allowing, even pushing, my idealistic interpretations to the fore that lead me to put my goals in reality and not in finding more time for better drugs.
Cynicism is the degenerate aspect of critical thinking.
Following on the comments about marxism above, I have been taken by the idea of rational development: thesis, antithesis, and THEN synthesis. The FIRST thing we learn in any area should be an idealistic thing: equations of marginal pricing and utility, straightforward models of atoms underlying the periodic table, newtownian mechanics. THEN, with a complex structure in place, we learn the limits of that structure, that is antithesis. (I am thinking those we characterize as cynics get stuck in antithesis. They are so fascinated by the limits of the ideal structures, they never move past seeing those limits.) FINALLY we have synthesis, which i have always taken as looking for the more complex models that to some extent resolved the conflict between the ideal and the cynical.
At your deepest level, Robin, it seems to me you are COMPLETELY idealistic. You believe in rationality and its power. You believe in what you do here. If I were to teach someone else about you, about your approach, would this not be an overwhelmingly idealistic teaching?
I wonder if even the Internet will be forced into idealism over time.
You gave two explanations for cynical moods. Both of these make your proposed project seem less worthwhile than the idea of promoting true ideas initially sounds.
1. Idealistic explanation of cynicism (high motives and/or insight leads to disappointment) - The cynical textbooks demoralize the students and turn them into underachievers.
2. Cynical explanation of cynicism (low motives or ability) - You are targeting an audience that probably isn't going to do much with the truth in the first place.
At the very least, it suggests that there should be some calculation of the trade off between encouraging cynical moods among a number of people against the value of those people understanding the cynical belief.
A good example of a cynical textbook is the book "The Game" by Neil Strauss. It can be seen as part of a textbook itself or as a story about a bunch of guys who discovered the cynical textbook on male/female interactions. Many of the guys got what they wanted in the short term with this information, but the their ability to form longer relationships was damaged. This is either because they believed they knew how girls really worked and were disillusioned, or because the new cynical beliefs were incomplete and yet were enough to make older knowledge about how things are supposed to work seem (incorrectly) useless and irrelevant.
Perhaps we could imagine a sort of "idealistic cynicism", a synthesis of the two views that would retain good qualities of each. The idea would be to recognize the importance of "low" and "base" motivations, but to cast those in positive and approving terms. Rather than acting ashamed of these forces, we would applaud and glorify them.
You see this somewhat in Libertarian philosophy, exemplified perhaps by the quote, "greed is good." Greed, traditionally seen as a base motive to be disparaged and denied, is instead celebrated. After all, the world is a good place, much better than caveman days, and base motives have no doubt driven much of the change.
Robin,
Your definition of cynicism is so broad as to be useless. Are you saying selfish motives are completely omitted from textbooks? Give me a break! Don't they still teach the "invisible hand"? What about the Trail of Tears?
And you don't have to be a cynic to see selfish motives at work in the world. Maybe a realist. True cynicism is just a crutch for smug, lazy, depressed, or unsympathetic minds.
One of the stronger memories I have of middle school (a long time ago) was reading in class the Shirley Jackson story "The Lottery". Does that count as teaching realistic cynicism? Or rather because it exaggerates an unattractive human behavior into horror, is it clandestine idealism, since it allows us to feel superior? Lord of the Flies, also commonly taught in schools, is also along these lines
Or, take a left-wing textbook like Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. It is plenty cynical (about the motives behind various actions of the US) when compared with more standard texts. But it's also teaching idealism, because it conveys a sense of moral outrage at these acts. (I am personally somewhat more cynical than Zinn, because I simply expect governments to do the sorts of things that they do).
The more I think about it the less useful this distinction becomes. Behind almost any human act lies a rich mixture of motivations, both selfish and idealistic, low and high.
For what it's worth, when I was around 14 I got to read The Selfish Gene. While Dawkins writes somewhat idealistically that we're the only species on earth capable of changing our innate tendencies, the obvious (cynical) conclusions on human nature are inescapable. Strongly recommended.
If by cynical, one means something that views us in a more or less negative light (ie, our lesser selves), then I've seen social studies books that address propaganda, and in the netherlands, I've heard that they're required to watch some of hitler's speeches to hear how easy it is to slip into finding them agreeable, but I think the best place to do it would be in science class where maybe they could do experiments in cognitive biases.
Personally, I'd prefer it this way, because it would allow us to say that the idealistic version is probably how most of us see the world (with our own actions), but how things end up far different from what would be expected from a world full of good people. I think it makes for a better worldview generally, and requires more mental effort to build a more complete model of things.
Then again, I'd just be happy if they gave philosophy in high school, but that's not happening either....
I agree. It isn't about reality but about how we wish reality to be. Idealism is aspirational concerned not with what is but what could be. Cynicism is just the path to the apathetic, inert and negative, nothing matters because nothing can matter, the future will be no different from the past and if that is depressing slit your wrists now. That is much different than merely seeing imperfections, obstacles, and failures and considering how they may be overcome. That is merely being careful, cautious, and critical, not cynical.
Such a text book might be harmful because Cynicism is dangerously naive