Résurgence et transformation du cynisme au XVIIIe siècle : la réception de Diogène dans les Lumières françaises

Now pervasive on the political scene, cynicism has been contentious from its beginnings. The scandalous way of living to which it is linked raise the issue of whether or not Diogenes and the Cynics must be considered as part of the history of philosophy. Besides, what do today’s cynical practices share with those of Diogenes? Some interprets situate the emergence of a new conception of cynicism peculiar to modernity during the Enlightenment, but few historical studies have been centered on this question. It is consequently important to return to the sources of cynicism to measure this hypothesis’ validity. Through a study of cynicism’s history and its transmission we trace the evolution of the major issues at the core of cynic movement and its posterity, and present a synthesis of its significations and their internal tensions. Many references allow us to define the place that cynicism occupies within the XVIIIth century. Philosophers have tried to reclaim Diogenes’ antique wisdom while also accommodating his shameless frankness to the requirements of sociability. The study of the reception of cynicism in the XVIIIth century french Enlightenment must therefore be seen within the scope of the moral debates of that time. Those debates aim to elaborate a materialist moral on a natural basis, trying in doing so to tackle the problem of amoralism revealed by La Mettrie’s statement of the inadequacy between happiness and virtue. To do that, Helvetius reduces the scope of natural determinisms by underlining the importance of exterior factors when managing behaviors. Diderot and D’Holbach, on their part, emphasize the notion of sociability to make sure there’s a moral sense within human nature itself; this belief reinforces an already profound disagreement between the ideals of Enlightenment and cynicism. But is this approach that widespread? Or is cynicism subject to vary according to authors? This thesis proposes, by studying the occurrences of cynicism in French Enlightenment’s texts, to give an account of its different meanings in order to identify the issues that are put forward. Therefore, texts such as Aihcrappih by Godart de Beauchamps, Le Diogène décent by Prémontval, Le Socrate en délire by Wieland, Le cynique moderne by Cœtlogon, Le désapprobateur by Castilhon, Le cosmopolite by Fougeret de Monbron, Le paysan perverti by Restif de la Bretonne, and Arlequin Diogène by Saint-Just will be taken into account, as will be cynicism in Diderot’s texts; this thematic is present in his whole work, Le neveu de Rameau being the most achieved expression of it. Exposing his doubts, Diderot also finds its place in our exposition of the Enlightenment’s critics as they have been formulated by Rousseau and Sade; we’ll also analyze the relevance of their cynical stakes. The conclusion of this thesis is that the modern and contemporary meanings of cynicism entail important conceptual distinctions that forbid us to amalgamate them. Our analysis of cynicism in French Enlightenment’s texts shows that up until the end of the XVIIIth century, we are faced with a modern conception of cynicism that rests to a considerable extent upon the rediscovery of Diogene’s immodesty. More precisely, the XVIIIth century cynicism can be characterized by a solitary and misanthropic withdrawal, which opposes the Philosophers’ humanist optimism. Cynicism is therefore a rejection of sociability, a value put forward by Philosophers in response to the general state of corruption of society. In other words, if one can locate the emergence of a new form of cynicism in the Enlightenment, it’s not that some authors understood cynicism as we do now: it is because the debates linked with the construction of a materialist conception of morality, be it be founded on interests or sentiments, show that these fundaments carry some weaknesses. It is as though the disillusioned man who takes for granted the incorrigibility of nature and society and chooses to take advantage of it despite the immorality of doing so has given birth to the postmodern cynic. This is he who breaks with a tradition which, up to the modern era, considered the cynic as the figure of a blunt truth teller, disapproving of mankind. If immodesty, driven into a corner, leads the postmodern cynic to shamelessness in lying, he in a sense pursues the motto of the alteration of values initiated by Diogenes, but now contributes to maintain the corruption of society, which no cynic, may he be ancient or modern, would have accepted to silence.

Keyphrases: History of philosophy, Modern philosophy, Cynics / Cynicism, Human nature, Sociability, Morals of interest, Education, Disillusions, Misanthropy, Instrumentalization of others