[Ghost of V]

I've been called cynical by many people. I actually kind of like it, because I agree with them. Although, sometimes people will call me cynical for the wrong reasons.

Say, I come up with a theory about someone based on their behavior, and I come to the conclusion that they are cheating on their spouse. Usually, I have a well developed theory on why this is the case, based on what I observe ... forget for a moment that this is even any of my business.

Since I came to this conclusion just with normal logic and skepticism, it would not be considered cynical. It would be more like an educated guess, or a scientific hypothesis. Wouldn't it?

Well, anyways, I got into an argument about this with one of my friends and it led to me simply googling 'cynicism'. This is when I learned about the ancient Greek philosophers, the Cynics. Who, in my opinion, were pretty fucking dumb.

These people lived in the streets, and were named Cynics because it means 'dog-like' in Greek (or something). They rejected 'sex, power, and rock n roll' because these things were not 'natural' for humans. Opting to live more 'pure' lives by rejecting these concepts and living on the streets.

As Wikipedia puts it:

"As reasoning creatures, people could gain happiness by rigorous training and by living in a way which was natural for humans, rejecting all conventional desires for wealth, power, sex, and fame. Instead, they were to lead a simple life free from all possessions."

This is, however, not why they are fucking stupid. They are fucking stupid because "power, wealth, sex, and fame" are all completely natural and, pretty much, the dominant concerns of all humans since humans evolved or were made by Allah from desert sand or whatever.

Naturally, every human society or small group will turn into a power struggle. Someone is going to be the leader, and the others are going to be the followers. This is evidenced simply by looking at our society, world governments, etc. These groups will eventually become larger and develop some sort of barter system to make their lives easier and accumulate worth, which covers the wealth aspect. Sex is by far the worst offender amongst their beliefs. How the hell is sex unnatural? I don't even have to make a case for this one. Fame is a bit trickier, but I believe fame simply ties into the power aspect. All these things are natural for humans, in my opinion.

So simply by observing how humans naturally live (houses, huts, some sort of governing system, etc), wouldn't it be more logical for a classic Greek cynic to live like that? Instead of on the streets? Like dogs? It seems they believe that living like animals is more natural for humanity, but they are forgetting that because of our higher intelligence we are not capable of living like other animals, and that our way of living is actually very similar to how most animals live, albeit on a more advanced level (relatively).

Basically I think classical Greek cynicism is backwards and silly and I'm looking for some insight into how someone who calls themselves a 'philosopher' can possibly subscribe to this way of thinking? I apologize for any typos, I am using tapatalk.

[Saddam Hussein]

You're defining the term "natural" so broadly that it's essentially redundant at this point.  Everything in the world is natural by your logic.  Spaceships are natural.  Robots are natural.  Nuclear bombs are natural.  Obviously, the Cynics chose to interpret it as living outside of the norms and restraints of human social groups.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Well, VAUXY, I happen to think you are right, in terms of your evaluation of the Cynics. I have a healthy amount of respect for the philosophy of Ancient Greece (which respect does not extend to include their, well, rather unusual habits with boys). But I do find some of the more denialistic approaches of any philosophical or religious system a bit distasteful, unless it is understood that such a system is meant not as a standard, but as an exception.

[Rushy]

You're defining the term "natural" so broadly that it's essentially redundant at this point.  Everything in the world is natural by your logic.  Spaceships are natural.  Robots are natural.  Nuclear bombs are natural.  Obviously, the Cynics chose to interpret it as living outside of the norms and restraints of human social groups.

To a sufficiently advanced civilization, spaceships and robots may be natural, in much the same way we view a beaver's dam or an anthill as a natural occurrence.

[Ghost of V]

You're defining the term "natural" so broadly that it's essentially redundant at this point.  Everything in the world is natural by your logic.  Spaceships are natural.  Robots are natural.  Nuclear bombs are natural.  Obviously, the Cynics chose to interpret it as living outside of the norms and restraints of human social groups.

I consider something natural if it was created naturally. Humans creating something falls into that category, because we're natural beings.

Why wouldn't a robot be natural if we created it?

[rooster]

You're defining the term "natural" so broadly that it's essentially redundant at this point.  Everything in the world is natural by your logic.  Spaceships are natural.  Robots are natural.  Nuclear bombs are natural.  Obviously, the Cynics chose to interpret it as living outside of the norms and restraints of human social groups.

I consider something natural if it was created naturally. Humans creating something falls into that category, because we're natural beings.

Why wouldn't a robot be natural if we created it?

Particle Person? Is that you?

[Vindictus]

You're defining the term "natural" so broadly that it's essentially redundant at this point.  Everything in the world is natural by your logic.  Spaceships are natural.  Robots are natural.  Nuclear bombs are natural.  Obviously, the Cynics chose to interpret it as living outside of the norms and restraints of human social groups.

I consider something natural if it was created naturally. Humans creating something falls into that category, because we're natural beings.

Why wouldn't a robot be natural if we created it?

>aircraft carriers

If the definition is stretched that far, then the word becomes functionally useless.

[garygreen]

The distinction between natural and unnatural probably is useless.  It's a total contrivance.

[Ghost of V]

I think I agree with garygreen. The distinction is pretty much useless if you think about it hard enough. Everything is natural.

Yes, even nukes. Stars. Have you heard of them?

[Tau]

Yeah, the Greek Cynics were kinda weird. Really all of the Greek philosophy-religions were kinda like that. Ancient Greeks were weird.

[markjo]

You're defining the term "natural" so broadly that it's essentially redundant at this point.  Everything in the world is natural by your logic.  Spaceships are natural.  Robots are natural.  Nuclear bombs are natural.  Obviously, the Cynics chose to interpret it as living outside of the norms and restraints of human social groups.

I consider something natural if it was created naturally. Humans creating something falls into that category, because we're natural beings.

Why wouldn't a robot be natural if we created it?

Because humans are not nature.  Think of it this way:  Nature invented marijuana and man invented beer.  Who do you trust?

[Ghost of V]

Man might have invented beer, but that is derived from yeast and natural processes. Man also invented the means of smoking marijuana.

I guess I disagree with you thinking that 'humans are not nature', because basically we are nature. We are here due to natural processes and are a product of nature because of that, therefore anything we create is natural as well.

[Roundy]

You're defining the term "natural" so broadly that it's essentially redundant at this point.  Everything in the world is natural by your logic.  Spaceships are natural.  Robots are natural.  Nuclear bombs are natural.  Obviously, the Cynics chose to interpret it as living outside of the norms and restraints of human social groups.

I consider something natural if it was created naturally. Humans creating something falls into that category, because we're natural beings.

Why wouldn't a robot be natural if we created it?

Because humans are not nature.  Think of it this way:  Nature invented marijuana and man invented beer.  Who do you trust?

So humans are supernatural then?

[markjo]

You're defining the term "natural" so broadly that it's essentially redundant at this point.  Everything in the world is natural by your logic.  Spaceships are natural.  Robots are natural.  Nuclear bombs are natural.  Obviously, the Cynics chose to interpret it as living outside of the norms and restraints of human social groups.

I consider something natural if it was created naturally. Humans creating something falls into that category, because we're natural beings.

Why wouldn't a robot be natural if we created it?

Because humans are not nature.  Think of it this way:  Nature invented marijuana and man invented beer.  Who do you trust?

So humans are supernatural then?

No, that isn't what I said.  Being of nature (natural) is not the same as being nature and artificial (not natural) is not the same as supernatural.  But then I should have expected you not to understand.

[Roundy]

You're defining the term "natural" so broadly that it's essentially redundant at this point.  Everything in the world is natural by your logic.  Spaceships are natural.  Robots are natural.  Nuclear bombs are natural.  Obviously, the Cynics chose to interpret it as living outside of the norms and restraints of human social groups.

I consider something natural if it was created naturally. Humans creating something falls into that category, because we're natural beings.

Why wouldn't a robot be natural if we created it?

Because humans are not nature.  Think of it this way:  Nature invented marijuana and man invented beer.  Who do you trust?

So humans are supernatural then?

No, that isn't what I said.  Being of nature (natural) is not the same as being nature and artificial (not natural) is not the same as supernatural.  But then I should have expected you not to understand.

I have difficulty understanding nonsense.  I absolutely get that there's a distinction between something being "natural" and "artificial" but I think the distinction is an invention we created because of our natural tendency to consider ourselves above nature, which was actually seriously believed even by intellectuals until very recently in our history, and is clearly utter claptrap when considered from any reasonable modern scientific or philosophical framework on the subject.  If you're not saying we're supernatural, then what are we?  Are we extranatural? 

By making a statement like "nature invented marijuana" you are positing that nature is capable of having a purpose and possessing creativity.  You are imbuing nature with what we commonly regard as "will".  Do you know that this flies in the face of conventional scientific wisdom?

If you are trying to make a serious scientific or philosophical point you should really try doing so with something resembling serious scientific or philosophical terms.

Most people would consider a beehive or a spiderweb as part of nature.  I would submit a house is just as much so a part of nature, despite being according to the strictest definition of the word artificial.  We are products of nature and unless you posit a supernatural (or extranatural, if you prefer) aspect having been added to our existence it follows that everything we create is also a product of nature.

QED, bitch.

[Ghost of V]

Got damn, Roundy.

[Saddam Hussein]

You're defining the term "natural" so broadly that it's essentially redundant at this point.  Everything in the world is natural by your logic.  Spaceships are natural.  Robots are natural.  Nuclear bombs are natural.  Obviously, the Cynics chose to interpret it as living outside of the norms and restraints of human social groups.

I consider something natural if it was created naturally. Humans creating something falls into that category, because we're natural beings.

Why wouldn't a robot be natural if we created it?

Because humans are not nature.  Think of it this way:  Nature invented marijuana and man invented beer.  Who do you trust?

So humans are supernatural then?

No, that isn't what I said.  Being of nature (natural) is not the same as being nature and artificial (not natural) is not the same as supernatural.  But then I should have expected you not to understand.

I have difficulty understanding nonsense.  I absolutely get that there's a distinction between something being "natural" and "artificial" but I think the distinction is an invention we created because of our natural tendency to consider ourselves above nature, which was actually seriously believed even by intellectuals until very recently in our history, and is clearly utter claptrap when considered from any reasonable modern scientific or philosophical framework on the subject.

You literally just used the term in the exact same sense that you're arguing is nonsensical within your very argument that it's nonsensical.

Anyway, this is all just equivocation.  The fact is that nature can simply be defined a few different ways.  To superimpose the definition of "not supernatural" over all uses of the term is just poor communication that only leads to confusion.

[Ghost of V]

You're defining the term "natural" so broadly that it's essentially redundant at this point.  Everything in the world is natural by your logic.  Spaceships are natural.  Robots are natural.  Nuclear bombs are natural.  Obviously, the Cynics chose to interpret it as living outside of the norms and restraints of human social groups.

I consider something natural if it was created naturally. Humans creating something falls into that category, because we're natural beings.

Why wouldn't a robot be natural if we created it?

Because humans are not nature.  Think of it this way:  Nature invented marijuana and man invented beer.  Who do you trust?

So humans are supernatural then?

No, that isn't what I said.  Being of nature (natural) is not the same as being nature and artificial (not natural) is not the same as supernatural.  But then I should have expected you not to understand.

I have difficulty understanding nonsense.  I absolutely get that there's a distinction between something being "natural" and "artificial" but I think the distinction is an invention we created because of our natural tendency to consider ourselves above nature, which was actually seriously believed even by intellectuals until very recently in our history, and is clearly utter claptrap when considered from any reasonable modern scientific or philosophical framework on the subject.

You literally just used the term in the exact same sense that you're arguing is nonsensical within your very argument that it's nonsensical.

Anyway, this is all just equivocation.  The fact is that nature can simply be defined a few different ways.  To superimpose the definition of "not supernatural" over all uses of the term is just poor communication that only leads to confusion.

He seems to be arguing that everything is natural, and is using the term "natural" to show that humans have a tendency to associate themselves as greater than nature - which is a natural tendency because it is a tendency to begin with. I don't see how he's using the term incorrectly or how it proves your point, and I don't think you do either.

[Saddam Hussein]

Right, I'm sure he just happened to use that term in the sense that would have made it completely redundant in that context.   Anyway, at this point, we might as well just consult the dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature

This is the definition that you and Roundy apparently think is the only valid one:

the universe, with all its phenomena:
Conservation of energy is a universal law of nature.

However, there are others, including:

the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.

the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization:
In nature, wild dogs hunt in packs.

That's what the Cynics were referring to, and it's what people mean when they talk about things like natural history, natural selection, etc.  It's not a hard-and-fast scientific principle; it's just language.

[Ghost of V]

Yes, it was kind of redundant, but who cares? I'm aware of the differing definitions of the word "natural", but I am not wanting to get into a semantics debate about this. The Cynics were philosophers, not linguists. So spouting dictionary definitions is not really going to help here. If the Cynics were going by the second definition listed then they would have killed themselves because that definition does not allow room for human beings to begin with. They obviously had their own ideas as to what "natural" meant, and it was derived from philosophical thinking, not perusing a dictionary.