While committed to the argumentative and reasoned discourse recognizable in the work of contemporary professional philosophers, the actual practice that both Socrates and Diogenes routinely engaged in was in many ways more similar to stand-up and other forms of contemporary performative comedy. This paper analyzes the commonalities between Socrates’s and Diogenes's public philosophizing in Ancient Greece and performative comedy in the contemporary world, and emphasizes the subversive rhetorical efficiency and skeptical significance of public irony for their audiences. The paper begins (...) by exploring the ways in which ancient philosophers relied on irony and humor to promote skepticism and critical thinking, analyzes contemporary comic performances that seem similar, and concludes with reflections on the varieties of philosophical activity and experience. (shrink)

In 1983, two philosophers, Michel Foucault and Peter Sloterdijk, engaged with ancient Cynicism and the outspokenness and laughter of Diogenes as a critical practice. Foucault and Sloterdijk did so to position themselves ‘after’ critique: ‘after’ a period of and ‘beyond’ a certain style of dogmatism and theoretical deadlocks that troubled left thinking in the early 1980s (and continue to do so today). I show how Foucault and Sloterdijk, while differing in their critical politics, both read Diogenes’ politics of truth as (...) radical subversive otherness. While Diogenes performed this antagonizing critique from a subaltern position, his politics nevertheless risked ending up in a self-righteous intransigence to know the truth. As an alternative, I turn to another politics of laughter in Hellenistic philosophy, that of the Thracian Maid, and its sceptical impulse that is situated ‘before’, ‘beyond’ and ‘after’ critique in the space of what Hans Blumenberg calls Nachdenklichkeit (pensiveness). (shrink)

Diogène de Sinope se donne comme principe de falsifier les valeurs et d’aller à contre-courant de ses contemporains. Dès lors, on pourrait croire qu’il revendique dans sa conduite le paradoxe au sens de ce qui heurte l’opinion ; pourtant, il réfute cette qualification, afin d’insister sur l’adéquation entre son discours et son mode de vie, dans la continuité de Socrate, dont il ne reprend pas pleinement à son compte, néanmoins, les paradoxes sur la vertu. Avec le cynisme, le paradoxe ne (...) se présente plus tant sous une forme propositionnelle que comme une attitude qui se traduit par des gestes à l’encontre des opinions : c’est son corps même que le cynique oppose à la doxa. (shrink)