D.S. Mayfield Artfuul Immorality ~ Variants of CynicismDissertation ("Liter - Gracin, Diderot, Nietrsche”), Freie Universitit September 2013, Revised for Publication July 2014, July 2015, “This Project was frnled by the Excellence Intistive of the German Federal and State Governments, anel earmpleted al the Friedrich Schlegel Graduate School of Literary Studies, Freie Universitit Berlin, ISBN 978-3-11-443849-2 eISBN (PDF}978-3-11-043159.9 eISBN (EPUB) 978-3-1]-043 183-4 Issn 2198-9370 Publication Dat 1s been applied far at the Library of Congress Library of Congress Cataloging A CIP catalog record for this back Bibliogeaphic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliotkek The Deutsche Nationsalbibliothek lists this publicat Deutsche Nationalbiblingratie; letaled bibliographic data are available oa the [nternet at bttp/idab.dab.de. © 2015 Wolter de Gruytee GmbH, Berlin’Boston (Cover itlusation; unter Verwendung von Typus orbis terrarum (Weltkarte des Abraham Ortelius), Kup ersiigh, koloriert, 1STI. alke-images. Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck 6 Printed om acidefice paper Printed in Germany ‘worwrdegruytercomTable of Contents L.Arifil Immorality: Jmprimis.... 11. Method 1.2, Brief Overview OF Research 1 eis OF Theses, Contents, Findings ‘The Figure “Diogenes” And Its Reveption ... 13.2. ‘The Warking Description OF Cynicism... 133. The Clase Reading uso . 133.1. Elegant Expediency: Machiavelli's # Principe (~1513) 133.2, Acute Concinnity: Gracidn's Ondculo Manual (1647). 133. A "Diogenes Redlvivus’: Diderot’s Le Nevew De Ranieau (1774). 13.3.4, Beyond Morality, Or Cynicism: Niewsehe's Nochkap (1884-1889) Cynicism 2. Ancient Cynicism 1. The ‘Source Type" In D. Lacrtius* Lives dnd Opinions Of Eminent Philosophers .x.0s22 211 The Cynical Statement... perenne 21.2, The Cynical Stance... ne 2.1.3, Working Deseription OFCynicism : 7 boron 5B 2.2. The Stoic Attempt At Incorporating Cynicism In Epictetus’ Diseourses reo 56 2 Stoieism As Presented By Epictetus 22.2. Epictetus’ Version Of Cynicism, 3, The Clase Readings. 3.4. Elegant Expediency: Machiavelli's #f Principe (~1513). 3.11 The Prince's Present Reception. ‘The Rhetoricization OF Hf Prinetpe Contingency... a 3.14. The Cynical Statement. Bld * Fen’, BAA2 Ugamare” enn ons 3.143. “Grandezza’ And "Gloria Imitation Superseded By Aduptution.. 3.15.1. The Prince As The New Protcus. 3.15.2. ‘Anthropological Constants? 6. Radical Affirmation And AuddPte tress so ssn Acute Cancinnity: Gracian’s Ordeulo mamaral y arte de prudencia (U64P 0.0 1. The Orcctuer Manual’ (Neo-)Stoie Front 3.2.2. Adaptation ~ Breaking Ground For Cyn3.23. The Question OF A Cynical Stance... 3.24. Cynical Statements And Aphorisms 3.2.4.1, “Oneself, at The Other's Cost 3.242. ‘Manipulation Of Others’... 3243 7 32.4, “Negation OF The Other's Value And V 3.25. ‘Erga Deciplatw” 7 - 33, Diogenes Redivivis": Didetor's Le Neveu De Ravieas (“1774 1805 1891 3.3.1, The Cynical Unerance 3.3.2. The Cynical Stance oem 332.1. The Nephew And “Diogenes 3322. Self-interest As Recourse to Nature 3323. Affirmation OFSelf......... 33.24. Society's View OF The Cynic.. 3.3.3. Coningentiar Furura And Evdsimonta 34. Beyond Morality, Or Cynicism: Nietzsche's Naclgefaxsene Pragaterte (1884-1889) 34.1. Related And Discordant Stances ~ Skepticism ~ Nihilism. 3.42. Contingentir Furura ~ Act As Affirmation ~ “Am Leitfaden Bes Leibes’.... 3.4.3. Cynical Thrusts - Description As Affront ~ The Role OFPolermies 34.3.1, First Thrust: Morality As Unnatural ~ A “Recourse To Nature’ 3432. Second Thrust: Morality As Immoral 3433. Third Thrust: Morality As Hypocrisy 3.43.4, Final Thrust; Endorsement OF "Evil Bad, Overcoming Morality — Limits OF Cynicism... 34S, Diiogenical Fashioning: Private Eva And Cynical Stance . 34.6. “The Conelusion OF The Matter” 4. Morality’s Contingenes Scribal Abbreviations... Bibliography’... Primary Literature, Secondary Literature. Index.1. Artful Immorality: /mprimis The first impulse is.almost always good, one must suppress i. ‘Talleyrand (qt, in: Niehues-Probsting AYN 353; trans, mine) The statement is first — a refined immorality, cultivated brutality, acute animality, ingenious uncultivation, artful bestiality, erudite inhumanity. Granted, the above remark is not the most unpleasant imaginable, does not exploit the potentials sophisticated ruthlessness affords; but then, such may not be the adequate commencement for a work of scholarship, even on cynicism, The texts here studied are among the highpoints of Westem literature since the Renaissance ~ also as tegards (and, arguably, not least due 10) their cynicism. This first part will do what introductions are designed to do— to serve as a succinct autling, while giving the reader a sense of the endeavor even so. 1.1. Method ‘Yet is conceptual history the only and sufficient legitimization for the status of the concept? Is it not necessary 10 also keep in mind that there is shhigh degree of indifterenc: hhetween the concept and its history’ penbere (egitimitit 29; trans, Bh [T]hat no morality, but also no antismorality is thinkable without the of [various forms af] rhetoric, which aid them in asserting themselves, [and] indeed shape them already in their specific content. ‘Schulz-Buschhaus (MéP 247; trans, mine}! What Bergson says about the comic — that it “has a knack of baffling every effort, of pping away and escaping only to bob up again” (1) ~ may be applied to cynicism, the same as his procedural remark: “We shall disdain nothing we have scen. Maybe we gain Cf Jakobsen: “‘poeticalness is not a supplementation of discourse with rhetorical adornment but a total reevaluation of the discourse and of all its components whatsoever” (Eanguage 93); re “poctic function” and ‘poeticity’ (cf Larguage 691%; 93; 378; ef Holenstein pédaomenslogischer Stragturalisorus 1681; “Einfihrung” 244; Poerik $3),2 Artful lamoratity: [mprimis from this prolonged contact [.,.] something more flexible than an abstract definition” (1), ‘Concerning cynicism, this study's purpose is to be descriptive: for, as everyone knaws, moral valuations are best left to whosoever might feel called upon. Also, the analysis herein is not historieal in tendeney — it is not a study of influence, nor is its focus conceptual history: rather, this endeavor tenders an altemative reading, wherefore it may: bbe described as a hermeneutic effort resting on philological groundwork; as a rhetorico- structural analysis balanced by discursive deliberations. Conversely, most inquiries in this field proceed by initially defining cynicism (historically, ethically, etc.), followed by: an altempt at making a given time, writer, of formation fit the definition; such attempts. assume they know what ‘cynicism’ is, then decree how it had better be — naturally finding ‘it wanting. Surveying the studies extant, the query ‘what is cynical” does not seem to be: answered by recourse to everyday definitions thereof.? This study proposes that two. aspects discernible in remarks. reecived as eynical be treated in an analytical manner, order to deseribe what is constitutively a simultaneity in cynicism: the confluence of, in abstract terms, a eivilized form with an ‘uncivilized’ content — the former is analyzable with tropical and topical approaches, via a combination of rhetorical terms and a hermencutic madus; the content axis of ‘uncultivation’ requires the tw complementary methods of discourse analysis (in a loosely Foucauldian sense) and intellectual history (specifically as refined by Blumenberg’s prasis).* ‘As to the presuppositions in approaching the cynical stance, analyzing Ancient ‘Cynicism reveals a tendency that does not require a consistent, teleological movement, tradition, or school ~ to say nothing of a founder. Thus, this study suggests taking, ‘Diogenes’ in the way he has ever been taken: as a figure of thought, a fictional Jocus of projection, identification, appropriation, rejection in the name of propriety? As to ‘anthropological constants’, Cynicism renders problematic ~ in an active, selfassertive verbally aggressive manner — a basic assumption underlying every stage and any form of social order, namely “what itis to be human’.S The answers to this query vary aver time; In dictionaries, far instance ~ wherefore such are deliberately quarantined al this point; as to changing definitions in English since Early Modern times, cf. Mazella (passim; spec. Sf; 183; 262n.) The interpretation of discourse analysis relevant here is Kapper's (ef. Diskurs-Renovertio 30.) Blumenberg's approach might be described as a paradigmatic endeavor tracing metaphors, idpoi, Jogol, argument structures, tendencies — a comprehensively hermeneutic praxis, “comprchending by comparing’; see Most as ta rhetorie’s comtinued presence therein (62), As to ‘rhetoric’s being replaced by hermeneutics’, cf. Most (63): “ohne etwas Gemeinsames kénnte die eine nicht die andere cersetzen, und ohne etwas Verschiedenes wiBlen wir gar nicht, dat) dies passiert ware” (68). + Cf, Largier, speaking “von einem Leben, das, seis in der Anerkennung oder in der Ablehnung, nie seine Fastination verloren hat. Diogenes ist denn auch immer cin Typus, cin Exempel, cine rhetorisehe Figur, dic als solehe in den Texten lebt und die Jahrhunderte in einer anderen Weise als die hrigen Philasophen der Antike iherlebt” (ix). Further down, Largier speaks of a ““Denkbild’ (70), and of ‘Diogenes’ as a “reine|...| Wentifikationsfigur” (75) Taking Ritler's specific ( statement as a general one: “Skepsis scheint die notwendige ‘Voraussetzung der Anthropologie zu sein" (39), and assuming anthropology’ link to Moralstit, thisArtfiu! Immoratity: Imprimis 3 ence, these responses are comparable. In line with its subject matter, this study traces and treats elemental human queries such as cantingeney and determinism, nature and culture, adaptation and imitation, individual and society — with the respective ‘and? coalescence, This, in tum, is reflected in cynicism's denoting an oscillation, osmost liminality: living in the midst of society part, endorsing a form of cultivation against culture ~ without finally overtuming the latter. Cynicism is, then, an incisive perspective ‘on a given society, culture, morality, tradition, therefore subject to attempts at total incorporation, or thorough exeision. ‘Still, the perdurability of ‘eynicism’ (in any sense) is grounded in its adaptation and adaptability — and, not least, in the myriad attempts at overcoming cynicism by reintegrating, purging, excising, or condemning it to oblivion; for incorporations found it indigestible, -expurgations stressed what they had aimed to expurgate, excisions created a counterforce ‘of equal strength, and attempts applying damnatio memoriae came up against a most basie human capacity for remembering negative advertisement all the better. To conelude these procedural remarks, a more general comment as to method may be pertinent. [tis the premise of this study that the humanities would consolidate by focusing ‘on their forte, meaning, to return to what has ever been theirs ~ the text itself, Given a topic as volatile as cynicism, the task of turning to the texts themselves is paramount. The natural aim of this study is to have as diligent a recourse to the sources as possible, cursivity from within — and precisely 1.2. Brief Overview Of Research In Cynicism [Burt the answer to everything is often that one may be rather economical with what has been ‘handed down. There is, of course, a great hermeneutical chance in this also, and of this We here avail ourselves unseruputously. Sloterdijk (304n.; trans. mine) Commencing around the carly 1980s, scholarly interest in cynicism was on the rise — evidenced by Niehues-Prbbsting’s early, Foucault's and Sloterdijk’s later analyses; the latter's efforts led to an increase of related studies in the 19905 and beyond (cf, Stanley “Retreat” 385; 388), Nichues-Probsting’s analyses are comprehensive. Foucault's and Sloterdijk’s work is informed by one strand of Cynicism’s reception, the Stoi Enlightenment one; while the former describes Epictetus’ Stoie ‘Cynicism’ meticulously, Sloterdijk’s essayism caters to a popular taste for dichotomies.® Specifically in the study stresses the latter's (largely disregarded) cynical strand, as complementary to the skeptical one. * By stressing physical aspects, eg; Foucault's remark is courteous: a “book, by someone called Sloterdijk [...] whieh F have not read (.,.J hears the solemn title Krifk der synischew Vereen? [o.. ‘No critique of reason will be spared us, not of pure, or of dialectical, or of political reason, and sa4 Artful lamoratity: [mprimis Anglophone world, the latter's efforts inspired a surge of studies — of which virwally all took his work as their starting point; after Sloterdijk at least, there seems to be a nigh universal consensus (o ignore the phenomenon of cynicism itself, and focus instead on its “special virulence” (Stanley EMC 177).7 The gross of these studies does not intend to describe cynicism, but to discredit it — as if that were necessary: The discernible added value of Sloterdijk’s Kritik der zynischen Vernunfi (1983) may be to have re-popularized the apparently fashionable genre of broad-spectrum, noninvasive philosophizing in the public sphere. These are his views: Cynicism is the enlightened false consciousness. It is the modernized unhappy eanseiousness, on which enlightenment has labored both successfully and in wain. It has learned its Enlightenment lesson, but it has not implemented it and it probably could not implement it, Well-off and miscrable at the same time, this consciousness is not affected by any ideology critique: its falschood is already reffexively cushioned. (Sloterdijk 37¢; trans. minc) Enlightenment does not simply enter social consciousness as an unproblematic bringer of light Where it takes effect, a twilight results, 2 deep ambivalence. We will characterize it as an atmosphere in which, amid a ravel of factual sclf-preservation alongside moral selfenial, the cynical erystallization takes place. (64; trans. mine) Ancient Kynicism, the primary, aggressive one, was a plebeian antithesis against idealism, Modem eynicism, however, is the masters’ antithesis against their own idealism as ideology and fs masquerade. |...) Fhe eynicixm of the masters is am impertinence thar has switched sides. (222; trans. mine)* now we have: “critique of eynical reason’. It is a book in two volumes about which | know nothing. Thave been given some, let"s say, divergent views om the book's interest” (Courage 179). A conceptual disease discourse is cultivated as to “cynicism” (ef. Yaos 61; Stanley “Retreat” 386, 392, 404; Desmond Pratse vii; Chalowpka wii, ¥¥, 15; Shea CE niv, 47, 56), Cf, Bewes: “Cynicism [.-is therefore an ailing sensibility whose pathology is of «kind with the defeatism manifested by thase advocates of a ‘middle way" (199), The “topos of the “iM badly politie™” is longstanding, standard at least singe Tacitus (Fricke 47; sf Hafter 140). ‘At Limes, as Schreier points out, cynicism is taken asa throughway ~ though wit effects: “Failing to camestly reproduce normalized practices, cynicism is teleologically reinseribed 1s cither a correctable pathology, or|...] 8 pravisional agency of renewal. In any case, it is deseribedt wholly in legible, hegemonic terms. [...] cynicism is in these accounts in fact written off” (Schreier 20f,), Stanley is among those who hedge theie bets (ef. “Retreat” 404-407); “Instead, we must leam, to live ‘with a cenain level of eynicism, to work phrongh cynicism to eteate a political practice appropriate to our time, rather than condemn wholesale en attitude that isn’t going anywhere Retreat” 405); this approach usually makes use of a form af downplaying that verges om the sentimental: “Wwe could learn what the cynic isn’t quite so eynical about (...] (and { would mai that almost every cynic is only a partial cynic)” (*Retreat” 406). ° Sloterdijis suggests a “tendency toward squinting” in. ‘master cynics’ (279; trans. mine), while “[e]he eyes of marked cynics betray themselves by a hint af silver, 9 tacit insvard- or outward-turning of the one organ” (279; trans. mine), and “[e]ven some children, whom life gave a raw deal, have these bitter fang} seantyy mouths, from which itis s@ hard to still elieit any affirmation of something good” (274; trans. mine). Everything becomes conflatable: “Assyrian army kings" and “modem imately the sameArtfiu! Immoratity: Imprimis 5 These claims are ta expedite his desired schism between a ‘good’ Ancient Cynic and a depraved modern version, allowing for the stylization of the ‘kynical’ idol by projecting unto him all that Sloterdijk deems good in this world - rendering the *kynie” # messianic prophet, a completer and enforcer, instigating hope, chalking up the salvific path, leading the tltinre ratio into the last resort: ‘The cynicism of the means, which characterizes our “instrumental reason’ (Horkheimer), may only be compensated hy a return to the kynicisur of'the end, This means: leave-taking from the spirit of the long-term objectives, realization of the original futility of life, containment of the ddesice for power and the power of desire — ina word: to grasp Dingenes” legacy. (Sloterdijk 366; trans. mine) Yet this part eulogy, part encomium of Ancient Cynicism ~ hinging also on a perceived duality of (Ancient) activity and (modern) passivity (ef, 34£) — ereates a schizophrenic concoction that, in its totalizing claim, vitiates the division. Sloterdijk is his own best customer: his usage of the term “eynicisin’ proves his thesis as to eynicist’s supposedly ‘diffuse’ quality (ef. 33; 34; 41; 180; 225; 369), inconveniently disqualifying his initial ‘claim aiming at rendering distinetive his attempt: It initinges upon [common] linguistic usage to designate cynicism as a universal and dittuse phenomenon; in the general view, cynicism is not diffuse, but distinctive, aot universal, but remote and highly individualized, {Sloterdik 34; trans. mine) If that was the ease in 1983, it is so no longer, as almost all of Sloterdijk’s follow-ups prove — everything and anyone is ‘eynical’, “[iJn aur cynical age” (Chaloupka 52). All told, these classifications do not seem rewarding from a descriptive viewpoint ~ being not only prescriptive, but proscriptive, The Critique of Cynical Reason dees not pravide dependable footing if the task is to describe cynicism as such ~ meaning, without recourse to value judgments and moral indignation, ‘The groundwork for this study is referenced in an unlikely place. At the very end of his efforts, Slotcrdijk acknowledges having been informed by one study to such an extent ‘hat he feels unable to indicate precisely where such influencing occurred (ef. 954); but ichues-Pribsting's analysis Der Kyuisomes des Diogenes und der Begriff des Zymismus (1979), from which he alleges to be drawing, should reasonably have rendered impossible Sloterdijk’s later attempts at dichotomizing and then ‘diffusing’ cynicisms (cf, 34), This is reflected in the incredulity with which Niehues-Prébsting finds himself defending his work against the claims af the book he supposedly influenced — not, indeed, upholding his own case after having been criticized, but having to defend against the absence of his argument in a work that else claims to have been influenced by his: bureaucracy” (222: tins. mine), the “Roman patriciate” with “Christianity” (431; trans. mine), Sloterdijk, no novice to the pathetic, thinks “the point is to uneramp Heidegger's pathos” (290, trans. mine}. Sloterdijk later develops his “cynicism af the masters”, dividing it into six principal, th secondary eynicisms (397-597); added value of Sloterdik's and ese ane modifications oF the same, CF. Schreier's etiticism of the rek's ideology critique (266).6 Artful lamoratity: [mprimis In this book [Ancient] Cynicism and [macern] cynicism are not differentiated judgmentally and brought itilo apposition to each other: cynicism is neither exposed to a unilaterally negative critique, nor is Cynicism presented as the only antidote te the eynieal comuption of reason. The back abstains from morality and moralization. It docs not offer a concept of the enemy ['Feindbild”] and no role model: itis thus considerably cooler [se. more tescrved] than Peter Slotonlijk’s later Kririt ler synischen Vernanft ~ and dryer [se. more sober, serious]. (RYN 2s trans. mine; from the second edition) Nichues-Prébsting’s critique is threefold. First, Sloterdijk “disrupts the continuum of conceptual history by construing Cynicism and cynicism as opposites”, resulting in a one- sided devaluation of the latter, with the former as the “only effective antidote against the intellectual-moral paralysis of our time” (KYN 8; trans. mine)."" Secondly, Nichues- Pribsting asks, rhetorically, whether “both terms are not thereby overloaded” — for cynicism “as the label for all of our moral-intellectual maladjustments is in danger of losing its contour, which is revealed by the unresolved relation between ‘diffuse cynicism’ and ‘cynicism of the masters” (KYN 8; trans, mine). Finally, *kynicism’, as Sloterdijk construes it, “is ultimately not eapable of yielding those measures of value that the Kritik der zynischen Vernunft implicitly utilizes in its judgments” (KYN 8; trans. mine)."! This study cites from Niehues-Pribsting’s work wherever pertinent. © Despite Nichues-Pridbsting’s a prior’ refutation af attempts such as Sloterdijk’s: "so wilre gegen manche moderne Begrifishestimmung von “Zynismus’, die eine sirikte Ablrennung vom Kynismus vornimmt, das Moment der historischen Kontinuitst 21 behaupten und schlicht zu betonen: das Kynische war doch immer achon das Zynische” (XYN 262): of, “we should resist the recurring. ‘argument that classical Cynicism and modern cynicism are different phenomena” (Schreier 40); contrast Mazella (185). Schreier (spec. 41-43) is onc of the few to second 2 critique of Sloterdijk's sehism: “Far from representing a fundamental break with classical Cynicism, however, [ would like {o argue that modem eynicism continues in the mold of irreverent criticism of narmslized patterns of thinking and acting that the Cynics embodied in ancient Greece. Precisely in its embedded attack-on hegentony is i's contestation af sincerity identified with Cynicism; itis asa kind of opetation, rather than as a programmatie position, that exnicésm should be examined" (Schreier 43), This smd would argue that both the operation and the stance are describabe C£“Il seems thal a critique of Cynicism and cynicism cannot get armund such a valuation [ofa good" Ancient, a “depraved” madern version). in whieh the measure is an extemal one. Very quickly and. inadvertently, the critique af cynicism blunders into these: common moral fundamenial values and their concretizations, which are the core inventory of that which is of Ise termed a “high cultural ethies" and whieh is predominantly the inheritance of Plaonism, Christianity and tke Enlightenment” (Nichues-Prabsting “DRD" 75; trans. mine). ‘A précis of Nichues-Prbsting’s key theses — neferred to in apposite foci — is here provided. As to the term’s use: “Der Vorwurt des Zynismus spricht dem Betrotfnen die moralische Einstellung ab; daher evaziert er, auBer beim wirklichen Zyniker, stets Empérung” (RYN 365); the point being that ism is precisely cynicism’ (ef. KHN 262). As to the Cynical stance: "Der Uunvermeidlich immer dann, wenn der Mensch in seiner Fntwieklung.dber das Tier hinaus nicht den Weg der Moral einschltigt, wenn er sich selber, aus komischer oder wissenschatilicher Perspektive, ‘ussehlieblich als ein animalisches, trieheesteuertes Wesen begreift und Iegitimien und damit den Glauben an Freibeit und an eine autonome Moral als Vorusteil entlarvt oder der Komik preisgibt*Artfiu! Immoratity: Imprimis 7 Selected Sloterdijkian sequels are here critiqued, while those stu comprehension of the texts to be teated are discussed in the respective foci. A. pre- Sloterdijkian lecture by Heinrich has: We can say, om the one hand: This human does not cherish illusions, he is at least cynical, and by this we mean a ~ maybe inhibited — form of sincerity. And we ean, on the other hand, condemn the eynic as a human, to whom [...] nothing is serious, dignified or holy. This charge is not new. (131; trans. mine). Heinrich goes on to apply both versions to ‘Diogenes’, approving of Dudley's study as presenting Cynicism “without the omission of its dark side” (Heinrich 133); but Heinrich is still a forerunner for Sloterdijk’s diffusion and devaluation of a supposedly depraved modern cynicism: (Cynicism — this we know from observation and experience — constitutes, widespread, a form of sclEassertion. We feel the fear of the cynic to be losing his self, and we feel that his cynicism offers him shelter against the looming loss of self. (Heinrich 131; trans. mine) This ultimately leads Heinrich to sce modern cynicism as “resignation” (148; trans, mine), and “as a kind of neo-Buddhist solution, related to Zen” (154; trans, mine), At the latest in Sloterdijk, anything appears to wax ‘eynieal’ and ‘kynieal’: from melancholy (Sloterdijk 274-278) to irony (330), from monasticism to Buddhism (275f,)."° The same goes for another supposed identity: Bewes’ equates cynicism and irony (37-41; and passim); so does Keyes (37;67-70), specifically: “irony has come to be the way pervasive -eynicism is expressed” (68; contrast 82); similarly Caldwell: ““ironie behavior’, is really ‘nothing more than a manifestation of a common defense of the eynie” (1OL). The latter's ‘offorts are indicative of anything undesirable being labeled ‘cynical’: Caldwell equates ‘cynicism’ with “disappointment”, “disillusionment”, “doubt and skepticism” (99), while having stated at the outset: (RYN 326); “Cynicism [...] comes into being when man leaves behind animal nature [...} and does not reach morality, but assumes a consciousness fee of morals. Cynicism is the conscious and demonstrative rejection of a required moral attitude” ("MRC” 360), As to the cynical statement: “Heute kann der Begriff des Zynismus allgemein jede bewulite Verdriingung. einer wertenden Einstellung, sei es durch gencrelle Nivellicrung oder durch den Weehsel auf eine niedrigere ‘Wertebene, bezeichnen” (KUN 367); “Zymisonns as «name for an attinude that does not recognize anything as sacred and that insults values, feelings, and decorum provacatively, with biting sarcasm, ‘or even just by deliberate indifference” MRC” 3310) Ch. Largier’s grasp, jumbling “asketische Befreiang mit auiklarerischem Elan, nirrisch-obszine Kamperlichkeit mit der Sorge um sich, Melancholic und Ironic, harsche Koulturkritik mit Plidagogischem Emst und historische Erfahrung mit revolutionarer Prophetic” (381). Re the supposed affinity, ef. Cutler: “there are strong arguments ta suggest that Cynicism may have been influenced by Eastern thought and philosophy” (10). While relying heavily on Sloterdijk (cf. Cutler 146-175), Cutler upholds cynicism as a defensive move: “Cynicism is neither a dead philosophy af ‘the ancients nor a destructive toxin that undermines the ‘wisdom’ ef the modem world, It is the way8 Artful lamoratity: [mprimis ‘We often mistake it [sc. cynicism] for skepticism, for irony, for critical realism, for pessimism, oo for misanthropy or use il where simpler words will do, Meanwhile, the term is being tossed about so carelessly that it may soon cease te have meaning at all. (151.3! Yet this is not the end of diffusion: “Defined concisely, cynicism is the condition of lost belief (Chaloupka xiv)."5 “Modem cynicism is a condition of disillusion, whieh can appear as a temperament of aestheticism, or even nihilism” (Bewes 1) — blended in with Hegelian notions of “scepticism” (30), “decadence, relativism”, “a strategy of perpetual irony” (31). In the Christian discourse, ‘cynicism’ seems tied to a listing of sins: “Cynicism, as we use the word today, has to do with seeing through and unmasking positive appearances to reveal the more basic underlying motivations of greed, power, lust and selfishness” (Keyes 11).!? It would seem as though virwally anything is potentially ‘cynical’: “all of us, occupying our tiny workspaces (Dilbert’s cubiele in place ‘of Diogenes® barrel) make our own whimper of protest; be it a Dilbert cartoon, an irreverent aphorism, or some other minor aet of delinquency” (Cutler ).'* This is the ‘which all of us seek to maintain our sanity, iP only by ridiculing our desperate attempts to order and regulate the chaotic world in which we exist” (8) Contrast Caldwell; "Censin aspects af the modern hippie movement supply excellent examples of modem kynicism. And recent pop culture is filled with kynics [...]. Many contemporary comedians are kymics""{21); he calls the Critique of Cynical Reason a “definitive work” (21), a “valiant effort” (32). Foran earlier account of the term's diffusion, ef, Yous (5711), who-critiqueseynieism’s frequent equation with “scepticism, pessimism, irony’. selfinterest ethic, misanthropy, disenchantment, and idealisey” (57): even so, his version still seems implausible seeing thal he considers cynicism in moral tems — e.g. deeming Swift cynical, hence equating irony with cynical statements (58; ef. 61). Mazella takes this rhetoric further, speaking of “the dangerous, disbelieving. moxem cynic” (103), “The modem eynic—whose attributes include distrust, disbelief, shameless indifference, and contempt for all motives beside self-interest an! the pursuit of power” (174). CE Desmond: “Some might relegate such deep cynicism to ‘old Eurape’, but the malaise is not European aksie: the scores of recent books int Enghish of eynicist go fat to carvoborate Sloterdik’s contention that the contemporary era is pervaded by a deep, even nihilistic cynicism" (Praise vis! Cynics 21; and even Ancient Cynicism is mixed in by can founding Stoicism and Pyrshonism: “Here the Cynics are at their mast negative and most idealistic at once. Their wisdom is a total skepticism. \with regard to extemality” (Praise 23). The term seems diffuse to such a degree that consistency need. no longer be-decmed needful: “cynicism, by which I mean a melancholic, selfspitying reaction to the apparent disintegration of political reality [..] is the result of'a process [...] I have characterized as the ‘reifiewion’ of postmodemity” (Bewes 7); arguably exacerbated by: “It will be apparent orn ofthe above that the question of whether postmodemism (in whatever sense of the term) really is or (30) —in a book called isn’t ‘eynical” (in whatever sense of the term) is of no interest ta mie here Cinicism and Postmodernity (ef, Stanley's criticism: “Retreat” 3864; 402 Keyes equates ‘cynicism’ with “a subtle skepticism” (78), with “suspicion” passim fe.g. $2, $6.76, 91, 111; 153-155: 171: 184, 215}, Even typological archetypes such as Job and Asaph are thought to have heen ‘eynical” qua having “a deop suspicfon about God's intentions” (46), Mazella traves the meaning of cynicism qua selfinierest to D'Israeli’s seeing in Machiavelli, Hobbes, La Roctiefoucauld, et.al, “polished Cynies!"” (qu, in: Mazelia 72: ¢f, 173), ™ Cutler sees “[iJhe signifieance of Dilbert [eartoons, in] hat he represents the cynic in all of ws” (3).Artfiu! Immoratity: Imprimis 9 effect of deeming vicarious cynicism not only a possibility but the norm: as per the Sloterdijkian conception of the ‘mass cynic’ (ef. 35f.; Chaloupka 12), reiterating cynical formulations picked up as broadcast by mass media, anyone repeating a cynical remark would become cynic (pace Chaloupka’s “ensemble effet", xv} — a notion as renders the term’s usage gratuitous; for any consumer would then be all the things he consumes, and to any extent reproduces. Yet, with Boyd’s “In Defense of Cynicism’ (from 1928) “No man is bom eynical, nor—contrary to popular belief—ean eynicism be thrust upon. ‘one: it must be achieved by experience” (195).!° ‘Trailing Sloterdijk and his adherents would mean to empty the signifier ‘eynieism’ of all significance, allowing the cessation of its being instrumental to academic pravis. For ‘even if the statement that “Cynicism by its very nature defies scholarly interpretation™ (Cutler 12) were plausible, such would still not, by argumentum ¢ contrario, justify simply deeming everything ‘cynical’, Yet it is common to equate ‘eynicism’ with melancholy, nihilism, irony, ennui, postmodernism, pessimism, hypacrisy, blaseiment, skepticism — ineluding any other ‘ism’ thinkable: the commonsensieal definition of ‘cynicism’ would then be that ‘cynical’ is whatever anyone wishes to attack from what they deem their licit moral high ground.*" The term has as much vehemence and ‘vagueness as *Epicureanism’, "Averroism’, or ‘atheism had at other times (ef. YN 100). “Cynicism” scems a conceptual compost heap for any and everything that whosoever chances to be speaking might deem vile, without wishing to go to the trouble of stating why this be so: “One must not overlook how such structures of reproach become plausible: as integrated into a familiar schematic, which constantly gains in evidence by its variability” (Blumenberg Legitimiit 130; trans, mine)2! The process of ladening a term might be described a5 a metaphorical chain reaction: between a signifier and a reference, the signified is the tacit ‘ertium, corresponding only to the speaker's mental structures and strictures. Consequently, this docus is always occupied by a productive ‘exegetic “failure” on the part of the recipient, associating another, ar several tertta with the respective signifier — often in contradiction to what the speaker may have had in mind, ‘Keyes arguably transcends it all by insinuating a Satanie hissing: “Cynicism is a subtle whispered to millions [...] The genius of cynicism is that it is 2 voice in your ear” (78); alled eynieal apropos his dealings with Job (ef, 107; 109; 161). ‘Contrast Mazella, who deems the statement “Cynics are made, nox born” an “Anonymeus” one (8). Generally, e£. “cynical remarks do not a cynic make” (Yous 54) 2 Ck “The term “eynic® shifts relative to moral points of view. The critic of the eynic speaks of the ‘eymic as essentially callous, captious, fiault-finding of what he considers moral. The term ‘eynic* thus becomes pejorative in the eyes of the persan towards whom cynicism is directed” (Y¥aos 60). Still, “Y¥oos’ account of cynicism is partial to the morally superstructured, basically Stoic rendering, which he calls a “healthy cynicism” (61). “Man darf nicht dberschen, wie solche Vorwurfastrukturen plausibel werden: als einer vertrauten Schematik integrien, die durch ihre Variabilitit stindig an Evidene gewinnt” ~ Blumenberg here fers to “secularization10 Artful lamoratity: [mprimis (given his doxographic knowledge of eynicism, say), Such trains of mnifiers may stretch act infinitum, representing the process by which language compels its omnipresence and longevity. Via @ tradition of a term’s usc according to myriad personal preferences of exegesis, one signifier acquires a host of signifieds, a veritable ‘army’ of rertia (cf. Nietzsche KSA I, 880). The term * icism” has taken on any negative meanings there be, is thus truly “diffuse”, hence without descriptive value. This study is not in the ‘business of contesting that the term is factually used to stand in for “all that is wrong, this world’: a sufficient number of individuals so use it — and may well continue to da so: what the analysis at hand does dispute is that the term have any academic value if'so used. consciousnes ‘Schrei + Tes ing the urge to reject cynicism as just another form of false "" (xxiii), is among the few recent scholars to have attempted describing cynicism for its own sake: In line with Schrei 1 do not think [ have erred in presenting eynieism as something more complex and ambivalent than the quietism, apathy, nihilism, hypocrisy, or selfishness for whieh it is often (and willfully? mistaken, As an intellectual mode that cannot take for granted the satisfaction of normative desires inseribed in a Society's regular practices, procedures, and expectations, eynieism questions how knowledge is habitually put to use, (Schreier xvii). Irreducible to simple apathy, pessimism, hypocrisy. or nihilism, cynicismis na longer convinced of the recognizability by which things “as they ought to be’ underwrite “things as they are’. The cynical inability to cnvision a redemptive future poses a challenge to the imperium of recognition in thought, and therefore to the foundational assumption of transparency that authorizes se many eultural practices—namely, that experience is transparently interpretale, that this interpretation has a kind of essential Link to actual, indisputable historical conditions af, existence [...]. Naming the becoming-conspicuous of this presuppositianal ground, the loss af its self-evidence, cynicism therefore endangers the legib 23) [Clynicism arises in the failure of the self-evidence through which hegemonic culture reproduces itself, the effect ofa displacement of normalization. (xxii) “s tendency, though taking a different path, this study proposes describing cynicism as a phenomenon in its own right, thereby endowing the term with a plausibly academic significance, While drawing upon conceptual history, the objective here is a structural approach. The stability of a term across millennia naturally 2 CF, Stanley: "How can we make an ill-defined concept like eynieism the object of rigorous seruti Retreat” 388), Schreier's meta-critical objective is im Hine ith such an approach: “We should thus avoid the ary texts: if, as I will argue, cynicism upsets the hegemonic construction of normative self-evidence by rendering conspicuous the historical, national, economic, psychological and ethical boundaries that regulate social practices, then it must be admitted that cynicism might upset too the normative capacities of the epistemological procedures that presume to fix, know, and articulate its significance. [...] ltry here to examine how we, as literary critics, think about the literature we think about” (xix); “ihe cynic doubts the normalized self We of a situated ideal of knowledge lied necessarily to competence; and this conceptual Link between knowledge and competence is as essential to how we think about democracy—that is, as & tendeney to *historicize” the eynicism of liArtfiu! Immoratity: Imprimis ul presupposes changing signifiants (cf. Blumenberg Legitimiras 98) —or else it would have gone the way of all concepts, for “even concepts have died a miserable death” (Nietzsche Sa 11. 654; trans, mine), Yet a ground swell, a bottom line is naturally discemible; and if cynicism is ever a form of reduction, it might not be altogether inadequate to have recourse to a structural analysis, since “[i]t is about potentials, when talk is of pattems” (Blumenberg, Hollen 41; trans. mine). Blumenberg’s abjective conceming the term “secularization” — that “for a long time occurs with @ nencommittal polysemy and occasionality not even aiming for precision” (Legitinsisait 30; trans. mine) — is equally applicable to ‘cynicism’; hence this study is also an “attempt at distilling a more precise meaning from a term that so far has been used primarily bona fide, assuming it would somehow mean something” (Legitianitdt 73; trans. mine).?* 1.3. Précis Of Theses, Contents, Findings ‘The following gives an overview of the study at hand, Its policy is concision. Detailed analyses, including critical engagement with relevant secondary literature, will be found in the main part 1.3.1. The Figure ‘Diogenes’ And Its Reception [T]he story of Diogenes, like a snowball rolled downhill, gathered additions w itselfas it went along, Dudley (19) ‘Diogenes’ is here taken to be a textual persona, a figure of thought. Anecdotes are chiefly taken from D. Laertius; the “source type’ Cynic emerging from this corpus does nat normalized system for understanding and rhanaging social reality—as it is to how we think about titerasy and cultural criticism —that is, as a normalized system for understanding and. managing the significance of cultural production. Rather than signaling an evacuation af nommative concern, synisism attests to the persuasiveness retained by norms even when they prove discontinuous with ‘our attempts fo navigate experience” (3) “Um Potenziale get es, wermn von Mustem die Rede ist” “Die Verwendung von ‘Sikularisicrung’ erfolgt sehr lange in ciner unverbindlichen Vieldeuti ‘und auf Prazision gar nicht angelegten Okkasionalitat”; “Dieser Versuch, einem Ausdruck pr ‘Bedeutung abvaugewinnen, der bisher berwiegend in dem guten Glauben gebraucht wurde, er werde schon etwas bedeuten”; ef. Niehues-Probsting’s assessment of ‘cynicism’: “Im 20, Jahrnundert sgewinnt der Begriff des Zynismus zunehmend cine soziologisch-politisehe Bedeutung; mehr noch als in Asthetischen Zusammenhingen liegt hier allerdings das Gewicht auf seinen Wertungs: stati auf den Beschreibungsqual Zynismus ist eine polemische Vokabel mit auficrordenttichem intrichtigt entsprechend die begrifliche Pragnanz" (KY 363),