Today I picked out a major contention that I have with Diogenes (yes! Possible paper topic). According to Dr. Layne, he claimed to be living the rational life, meaning that even his shameless actions were for the good or the purpose of enlightening through exemplification. Diogenes believed that the convention of shame was a societal superstition, and chose to live “naturally”. But upon closer examination, the life of Diogenes was neither rational, not natural.
But Aristotle would argue that man’s rational faculty, or nous, is characterized by its ability to draw out universals from particulars. Therefore, that which is rational is universal. The problem that arises from Diogenes’ lifestyle is it elitist nature. I know it may sound silly to call a homeless beggar an elitist, but hear me out. Diogenes survived merely by the productive energies of others. He begged constantly to barely sustain himself, and slept in buildings he took no part in constructing. Besides the irrational contradiction of Diogenes’ commitment to independence and simultaneous parasitism, he also created an ethical system that is far from universal, and therefore, irrational in Aristotle’s sense of the word. Imagine for a moment an entire society of cynics, each begging from each other, laying around with no codes of conduct, scoffing at any attempt to create order, tradition, or law. It wouldn’t function. They would die. That is why I call it elitist—only a select few could possibly have the privilege of engaging in the pure cynic way of life.
One could at least say, if not rationally, that Diogenes existed naturally, right? It’s a trick question, because it contains an imbedded contradiction. No, the life of Diogenes was not natural, because humans are rational creatures. Humans, naturally, use their rational abilities to produce things for themselves. That is how we survive: production. Diogenes, on the other hand, stifled that drive and instead chose to exist as a sub-human parasite, living outside, naked like an animal. Diogenes’ inhumanity is illustrated in his glee at the prospect of not using bowls or utensils. His reasoning is absurdly off base. It is natural for homo-sapiens to create tools that make their lives more comfortable and efficient. That’s what natural is for us. We adapt our background to fit our needs. Diogenes, like an animal, does the opposite. It is self-tyranny, and it is no wonder that he accepted the name Dog.
Production is a characteristic of the vegetative level of life. Rationality is something that must be exclusive to humans, such that no other living being can participate in it. Now I agree with you that Diogenes was wrong to a certain extent, but i differ as to why. Aristotle's argument makes much more sense: contemplating the nature of justice is something that no other animal can do. of course, humans are the only creature that can build with complexity, but a plant produces its own food, which is certainly something humans are not capable of. So under the production model, which is greater, building a house or producing your own food? If some creature were able to do both, we would certainly grant being able to just plant itself into the ground is far greater that building a house.
ReplyDeleteNow your are right that Diogenes "produced" nothing for society, but to say that he merely survived off of the productive energies of others would result in many more claims being leveled against teachers of ministers, which many people, including yourself, are not prepared to claim do nothing. After all, you are taking this class.
But if you want to argue for the production model, you have to account for why a dependent mode of living is better, because anyone living in society depends on each other far greater than a plant that needs some nutrients, water, and sun depends on anything else, for humans also need these and more. After doing so, you would run into a further problem: namely that the child, the senior citizen, the mentally handicapped person, the lazy person all have the highest modes of existence, because they are most dependent on others.
You seem to confuse rationality for production, without any sort of justification. When that is given, I think you will recognize the deep flaws that this model implies.