Ansgar Allen, Cynicism (The MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series), Cambridge MA and London: The MIT Press, 2020, VIII +
- PDF / 293,673 Bytes
- 2 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 83 Downloads / 165 Views
Ansgar Allen, Cynicism (The MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series), Cambridge MA and London: The MIT Press, 2020, VIII + 262 pp., ISBN: 978‑0262537889, pbk £12.99 Hugh Roberts1
© Springer Nature B.V. 2020
Cynicism might be considered the archetypal philosophy of the classical tradition. Virtually no authentic Cynic texts survive; so, unlike most other ancient philosophies, in a sense it only exists as a tradition, which consists mainly in a set of humorous sayings and anecdotes surrounding exemplary figures, especially Diogenes of Sinope. Already in antiquity, this tradition inspired various perplexed, outraged or playful responses, above all in literary texts by figures such as Lucian, as well as in more obviously philosophical works. Ansgar Allen’s idiosyncratic yet insightful introduction considers the ancient material and its reception up to the present day, with an increasing focus on ‘compar[ing] ancient and modern forms of cynicism in order to better understand the latter’ (p. 2). Rather than hide behind scholarship throughout, Allen aims to reinvigorate modern cynicism(s) with at least some of the spirit of ancient Cynicism by virtue of ‘return[ing] insistently to the matter of Cynic deviance’ (p. 9). In particular, education is a prevailing concern (Allen is a lecturer in education). This focus may seem implausible: Diogenes’s barrel is an unlikely alternative to the Academy of the Cynic’s principal philosophical adversary, Plato. Yet, as Allen rightly points out, the Cynics were educators too, including in their humour, which ‘requires the audience to fill in the gaps’ (p. 65). Indeed, given that ancient Cynicism tends to be improvisational, taboo-breaking and opposed to all impediments to freedom of speech and action, it is fair to say that academia ‘is antithetical to Cynic philosophy’ (p. 8). Hence an introduction to Cynicism that does not emerge from the philosophical mainstream is in many ways appropriate even if, as Allen disarmingly observes, ‘no book about Cynicism will be adequate to its object’ (p. 12). Following the introduction, two chapters on ancient Cynicism set out the ground well, drawing on previous studies to argue that ancient Cynicism was so playful and rebellious as to deny the possibility of dogmatic definition. Allen argues that the ‘construction of a Cynic tradition would, in effect, be the death of Cynicism’ (p. 24). * Hugh Roberts [email protected] 1
University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
H. Roberts
Perhaps, however, the improvised nature of ancient Cynicism was precisely what allowed for a Cynic tradition of the kind Allen proceeds to discuss, although not one of philosophical propositions. As if in fulfilment of his prophecy of the impossibility of writing adequately on Cynicism, occasionally Allen makes claims that would probably lead to a few strikes from Diogenes’ staff, such as the point that ‘Cynic truth is indexed to the Cynic body, which bears witness to reality’ (p. 38) – by no means an outrageous claim on its own terms but presumably
Data Loading...
