|
|
Cynicism (philosophy) has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
Daily page views
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The modern usage of the term "cynic" is fairly clearly divorced from the ancient philosophical school. They should retain separate articles, since they are very much separate ideas. (anon)
I removed the merger template because the ancient school of philosophy is too different from the current meaning of the word, as also described by anon here.
Andries 10:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
""A cynic is one who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing." --Oscar Wilde" should not appear on Cynic (school of philosophy) page as it clearly refers to the modern definition of cynicism, not the philosophical school.
The last two paragraphs have a lot of POV. "Cynicism must be regarded"…"its defective psychology, its barren logic, its immature technique"…"two great and necessary truths"…"it is necessary to point out two flaws"…"separate the wheat from the chaff"…"a saner and more comprehensive meaning" and so forth. That's all from 1911 Brittanica, right? Anyway, they should be rewritten.
In the sections 'Antisthenes' and 'Supporters', I found two passages troubling: "The ordinary pleasures of life were for them not merely negligible but positively harmful inasmuch as they interrupted the operation of the will" and "Cynicism emphasizes two principles: [...] the autocracy of the will.". Is it not the case that the concept of the 'will' is derived from Christian doctrine (Augustine, etc.) and that there is no equivalent word in the Greek? If I am not mistaken, it would be quite inappropriate to use the concept of the 'will' in articulating Antisthenes cynicism. EmileNoldeSinclair 00:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I read a greek play... or was it a poem... (I have (obviously) forgotten the name of both the work and its author, otherwise I might have added this to the article) where several dead people are on the ferry to the underworld when it springs a leak. Everybody must throw all their possessions overboard at first, but it's not enough, it gets to be fairly esoteric. The philosopher must throw his wisdom and his large words overboard, the strongman must throw his muscles overboard, the lawmaker his morals, etc. However, the cynic has nothing to throw overboard. The ferryman values this greatly, and gives him the honor of taking away the possessions of the others. It's rather strange. If anyone knows the name of this play/poem/piece, please tell me. I'm sure I (or you) can find something to add to the article... even if it is just an addition to the 'cynics in literature' section —Preceding unsigned comment added by oneoverzero ( talk • contribs)
This is a problem with articles on wikipedia sometimes. They explain who was involved, and who thought what, but don't explain the concept itself. :-/
-- Kim Bruning 06:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I answered the call to "Clean Up" this page. I'm supposed to document what I've done here. Basically, I rewrote the entire thing from scratch, except, I think, the very first sentence, and I think I adopted a couple of sentences for the "Cynicism in the Roman World" section. I kept the external links, but I did remove a section on Cynicism in Literature, which had nothing to do with ancient Cynicism.
The stuff about Antisthenes which was here before I moved to the Antisthenes page, (but even then, I cut out a middle section, which seemed too opinionated for my liking - like a lot of these Encyclopædia Britannica 1911 articles.)
Anyway, it's hardly perfect, but I hope this page is bit better now. Singinglemon 00:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I find that this article meets the Good Article criteria. A few further comments can be found at my review. Shimeru ( talk) 03:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
1. Reasonably well written. I corrected a few instances of the use of 'we' and refactored a few sentences. Aside from that, I find the article well written for the most part. I do have some concern regarding the two sentences of the "Philosophy" section that begin with "A Cynic, then, has no property and rejects all conventional values of money, fame, power or reputation." I cannot tell whether this is an indirect quote from Long (which is the source cited following the second sentence), or whether it is not, in which case its tone seems a bit lecture-ish. I suspect that this is an indirect quote, but I would like someone with access to the source to double-check that assumption.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable. I see no issues.
3. Broad in its coverage. While there might be room for further expansion, I believe it's sufficiently broad for GA. It covers the basics of the philosophy and its historical impact, including some of the most influential Cynics.
4. NPOV. I see no issues.
5. Stable. It's undergone a spate of editing recently, but these are all fairly minor changes. No issues.
6. Images. Perhaps a little sparse, but you can't exactly take a photo of a philosophy. No issues with the fair-use rationales of the images that do exist.
7. Overall. Pass. But please follow up on those two sentences I pointed out in #1.
I think improvement, in the case of this article, will lie primarily in expansion. In order to meet Featured Article criteria, both the philosophy and the history sections should be covered in more depth, and perhaps with the use of more sources as well -- though the ones the article already has are certainly reliable. Still, there are many books about the history of western philosophy that might prove useful in further expanding the article.
Given the interconnection between Cynicism and Stoicism, a section detailing the relation between the two philosophies in more detail might be something to consider.
Reviewer: Shimeru ( talk) 02:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Propose - Merge Cynic into Cynicism. Two articles are not required on one subject. Currently Cynic is the main article, but Cynicism is the better term to describe the philosophy, as per Asceticism rather than Ascetic (redirect). Once merge complete, I suggest setting up a redirect from Cynic to Cynicism. nirvana2013 ( talk) 12:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
No objections posted after 10 days, so I have completed the merger. This article could do with further tidying and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Not sure what to do with Talk:Cynic. As for the merger of Modern cynicism into this article, they seem very different concepts. Perhaps we need two articles Cynicism (philosophy) and Cynicism (contemporary), with a cross-definition on both articles plus a disambiguation page for Cynicism. Skepticism has encountered a similar issue between Philosophical skepticism and the modern term. nirvana2013 ( talk) 19:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Surely this article should more thoroughly cover what the modern day understanding of 'cynicism' is (e.g. expand on what's covered by the like-titled wiktionary article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.113.40 ( talk) 02:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Except that the modern day usage is incorrect and unrelated to this ethical system. A well written article or two (this article and the related readings that can be found on Stanford university "Plato" collections are good places to start) can help undo some of the damage of having one of the most historically notable movements being associated with useless pessimism. Cynicism is used hand in hand with skepticism and pessimism, the original meaning is needlessly obscured by the miss use of words people don't understand. That is how languages decay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.220.85.172 ( talk) 21:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I propose moving this article to Cynicism (ancient philosophy).
This is to better complement Cynicism (contemporary), and to reduce confusion between cynic and wikt:cynic. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: closed after 47 days: pages moved: Cynicism → Cynicism (philosophy) and Cynic (disambiguation) to Cynic. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 15:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Cynicism → Cynicism (ancient philosophy) – To better complement Cynicism (contemporary), and to reduce confusion between cynic and wikt:cynic. No WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Relisted Cúchullain t/ c 13:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Kvng ( talk) 13:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I restored the word "cynics" to "Cynics" in this article. At some point recent!y someone has lowercased the word. Although the lowercase version might look more correct the fact is that standard usage in English-language textbooks is that the ancient philosophy is always capitalized as Cynicism to distinguish it from the modern depressive zeitgeist which is kept lowercase as cynicism. 86.184.196.105 ( talk) 01:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
2nd sentence, 2nd paragraph -
"He was followed by Diogenes, who lived in a ceramic jar on the streets of Athens.[2] "
Seems a bit odd. Someone who knows how to use wikipedia/knows who vandalised this should consider editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.100.225.150 ( talk) 11:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
|
|
Cynicism (philosophy) has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
Daily page views
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The modern usage of the term "cynic" is fairly clearly divorced from the ancient philosophical school. They should retain separate articles, since they are very much separate ideas. (anon)
I removed the merger template because the ancient school of philosophy is too different from the current meaning of the word, as also described by anon here.
Andries 10:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
""A cynic is one who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing." --Oscar Wilde" should not appear on Cynic (school of philosophy) page as it clearly refers to the modern definition of cynicism, not the philosophical school.
The last two paragraphs have a lot of POV. "Cynicism must be regarded"…"its defective psychology, its barren logic, its immature technique"…"two great and necessary truths"…"it is necessary to point out two flaws"…"separate the wheat from the chaff"…"a saner and more comprehensive meaning" and so forth. That's all from 1911 Brittanica, right? Anyway, they should be rewritten.
In the sections 'Antisthenes' and 'Supporters', I found two passages troubling: "The ordinary pleasures of life were for them not merely negligible but positively harmful inasmuch as they interrupted the operation of the will" and "Cynicism emphasizes two principles: [...] the autocracy of the will.". Is it not the case that the concept of the 'will' is derived from Christian doctrine (Augustine, etc.) and that there is no equivalent word in the Greek? If I am not mistaken, it would be quite inappropriate to use the concept of the 'will' in articulating Antisthenes cynicism. EmileNoldeSinclair 00:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I read a greek play... or was it a poem... (I have (obviously) forgotten the name of both the work and its author, otherwise I might have added this to the article) where several dead people are on the ferry to the underworld when it springs a leak. Everybody must throw all their possessions overboard at first, but it's not enough, it gets to be fairly esoteric. The philosopher must throw his wisdom and his large words overboard, the strongman must throw his muscles overboard, the lawmaker his morals, etc. However, the cynic has nothing to throw overboard. The ferryman values this greatly, and gives him the honor of taking away the possessions of the others. It's rather strange. If anyone knows the name of this play/poem/piece, please tell me. I'm sure I (or you) can find something to add to the article... even if it is just an addition to the 'cynics in literature' section —Preceding unsigned comment added by oneoverzero ( talk • contribs)
This is a problem with articles on wikipedia sometimes. They explain who was involved, and who thought what, but don't explain the concept itself. :-/
-- Kim Bruning 06:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I answered the call to "Clean Up" this page. I'm supposed to document what I've done here. Basically, I rewrote the entire thing from scratch, except, I think, the very first sentence, and I think I adopted a couple of sentences for the "Cynicism in the Roman World" section. I kept the external links, but I did remove a section on Cynicism in Literature, which had nothing to do with ancient Cynicism.
The stuff about Antisthenes which was here before I moved to the Antisthenes page, (but even then, I cut out a middle section, which seemed too opinionated for my liking - like a lot of these Encyclopædia Britannica 1911 articles.)
Anyway, it's hardly perfect, but I hope this page is bit better now. Singinglemon 00:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I find that this article meets the Good Article criteria. A few further comments can be found at my review. Shimeru ( talk) 03:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
1. Reasonably well written. I corrected a few instances of the use of 'we' and refactored a few sentences. Aside from that, I find the article well written for the most part. I do have some concern regarding the two sentences of the "Philosophy" section that begin with "A Cynic, then, has no property and rejects all conventional values of money, fame, power or reputation." I cannot tell whether this is an indirect quote from Long (which is the source cited following the second sentence), or whether it is not, in which case its tone seems a bit lecture-ish. I suspect that this is an indirect quote, but I would like someone with access to the source to double-check that assumption.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable. I see no issues.
3. Broad in its coverage. While there might be room for further expansion, I believe it's sufficiently broad for GA. It covers the basics of the philosophy and its historical impact, including some of the most influential Cynics.
4. NPOV. I see no issues.
5. Stable. It's undergone a spate of editing recently, but these are all fairly minor changes. No issues.
6. Images. Perhaps a little sparse, but you can't exactly take a photo of a philosophy. No issues with the fair-use rationales of the images that do exist.
7. Overall. Pass. But please follow up on those two sentences I pointed out in #1.
I think improvement, in the case of this article, will lie primarily in expansion. In order to meet Featured Article criteria, both the philosophy and the history sections should be covered in more depth, and perhaps with the use of more sources as well -- though the ones the article already has are certainly reliable. Still, there are many books about the history of western philosophy that might prove useful in further expanding the article.
Given the interconnection between Cynicism and Stoicism, a section detailing the relation between the two philosophies in more detail might be something to consider.
Reviewer: Shimeru ( talk) 02:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Propose - Merge Cynic into Cynicism. Two articles are not required on one subject. Currently Cynic is the main article, but Cynicism is the better term to describe the philosophy, as per Asceticism rather than Ascetic (redirect). Once merge complete, I suggest setting up a redirect from Cynic to Cynicism. nirvana2013 ( talk) 12:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
No objections posted after 10 days, so I have completed the merger. This article could do with further tidying and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Not sure what to do with Talk:Cynic. As for the merger of Modern cynicism into this article, they seem very different concepts. Perhaps we need two articles Cynicism (philosophy) and Cynicism (contemporary), with a cross-definition on both articles plus a disambiguation page for Cynicism. Skepticism has encountered a similar issue between Philosophical skepticism and the modern term. nirvana2013 ( talk) 19:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Surely this article should more thoroughly cover what the modern day understanding of 'cynicism' is (e.g. expand on what's covered by the like-titled wiktionary article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.113.40 ( talk) 02:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Except that the modern day usage is incorrect and unrelated to this ethical system. A well written article or two (this article and the related readings that can be found on Stanford university "Plato" collections are good places to start) can help undo some of the damage of having one of the most historically notable movements being associated with useless pessimism. Cynicism is used hand in hand with skepticism and pessimism, the original meaning is needlessly obscured by the miss use of words people don't understand. That is how languages decay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.220.85.172 ( talk) 21:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I propose moving this article to Cynicism (ancient philosophy).
This is to better complement Cynicism (contemporary), and to reduce confusion between cynic and wikt:cynic. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: closed after 47 days: pages moved: Cynicism → Cynicism (philosophy) and Cynic (disambiguation) to Cynic. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 15:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Cynicism → Cynicism (ancient philosophy) – To better complement Cynicism (contemporary), and to reduce confusion between cynic and wikt:cynic. No WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Relisted Cúchullain t/ c 13:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Kvng ( talk) 13:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I restored the word "cynics" to "Cynics" in this article. At some point recent!y someone has lowercased the word. Although the lowercase version might look more correct the fact is that standard usage in English-language textbooks is that the ancient philosophy is always capitalized as Cynicism to distinguish it from the modern depressive zeitgeist which is kept lowercase as cynicism. 86.184.196.105 ( talk) 01:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
2nd sentence, 2nd paragraph -
"He was followed by Diogenes, who lived in a ceramic jar on the streets of Athens.[2] "
Seems a bit odd. Someone who knows how to use wikipedia/knows who vandalised this should consider editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.100.225.150 ( talk) 11:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)