Modern-day Cynic Philosophers?

This week in my online class we studied Paul's letters to Thessalonica. I'll spare you the intricacies of controversies over the dating, authorship, provence and literary style of the books. Yawn. Give me content over style any time. Well... maybe most of the time. Style can be pretty compelling, too - but it has to be really great to overcome mediocre substance. It's the reason I always judge a good song not just by the rhythm and vocal performance, but by the quality of the melody, the substance of the lyrics and the appropriateness of the chord structure and arrangement to set off both.

Wow. Half a dozen sentences and I'm already off subject. And this is just the intro... Do I never NOT have an opinion on something? Hmm. Don't answer that.

So, in 1 Thessalonians (which I think was written second, but never mind) Paul goes into this lengthy defence of his ministry, showing how he worked hard for his living, didn't live off the charity of his listeners, conducted himself respectfully and was circumspect in his speech, etc. But... who said he wasn't? Who's criticizng him that he has to make such a defence? It's one of the mysteries of these letters - who was opposing Paul? He refers to false teachers coming in, and people claiming to have letters from him that he didn't write, but... who?

The commentators make a pretty good case that it was the itinerant philosophers of the day who made the rounds of the Greek city-states (and Thessalonica was pretty big for its day - 100,000 people) and made their living by either renting lecture halls and speaking there (the Sophists) or setting up on street corners or in the marketplace and spouting off to whomever would listen, *and* contribute (the Cynics). Since Paul didn't stay in town long, people may have been saying "ahh, he's just another one of those philosophers looking for an audience and never seeing anything through." So he defends himself and his motives, and reminds people how he behaved (honorably) and why he didn't stay (driven out of town by a mob of opposition.)

Alright. With that as background - here's the point of the post today. A contemporary of Paul, a Roman author and social critic named Lucius, in his dialogue "The Runaways", wrote about Sophists as lecture-circuit philosophers (like todays seminar leaders), with a critical eye toward their tendency to not live lives that matched their message. The Sophists were orators (motivational speakers?) who developed followings of paying disciples who wanted to learn the secrets of moving up in civic life. Cynics on the other hand, tended to preach austerity and detaching oneself from the social structures of the day (anarchists?) to live more simply, even sponging off others if necessary (I have an interesting pamphlet from some anarchists on "freecycling" that actually advocates shoplifting to live more simply!). Lucian zeroed in on the Cynics as being particularly hypocritical, saying this of them:

"There was a tendency of common laborers to leave their workbenches and pursue the luxury of life as a fake philosopher. Anyone could gain a following by donning the short tunic, wallet and staff of the Cynic philosopher and spouting a torrent of abusive language about humanity in general. With a group of paying disciples in place, it was then a short step to a life of public austerity but private luxury - a purse full of gold, a table full of delicacies, and a life full of promiscuous sex."

Hm. Sounds like the Punk rockers and Rap stars of our day. You don't need a ton of talent - that's not how you gain a following. You only need the brass to step up on a platform and spout abusive language, set rhythmically to something vaguely resembling music, scream wildly or perhaps move suggestively, oh and be sure to wear the "uniform". Black studded leather, piercings, black/red dyed hair and makeup, work boots, chains, etc. for the Punk, and basketball jersey, baseball cap with flat brim off center, lots of gold chains, baggy pants low on hips, etc. for the Rapper. You look the part, you pepper your lyrics with cursing invective, scream against the system or praise a life of crime and exploitation, break things in a rage or grab crotch in a frenzy, etc. - and you'll get a following. And eventually... some degree of wealth, fame, sex and a comfortable lifestyle.

So, are the Punkers and Rappers the fake philosophers, the dime-a-dozen sidewalk Cynics of our day, fooling the young mob into thinking they're sincere when all they want is the comfortable lifestyle that having a following promises? Maybe I have less of a problem with rap stars since they at least aren't hypocritical - they preach the lifestyle, AND live it. It's degrading and brutally hedonistic, but - they're honest about it. But the successful punk rocker lives a very different lifestyle from what their followers live, very inconsistent with the earth-friendly, simple-living, liberal, or anarchist literature you find available at their tables. (see post of 11/28 "Anarchists Knitting Mittens") They rail at the very system that helps them become wealthy and allows them to privately live the life of conspicuous consumption which they publicly condemn.

I think I prefer the alternative non-Punk semi-folky or ethereal music of the day right now (either that or dance/house/electronica with no lyrics to interfere with the fun.) Better musicianship, and kinder, gentler lyrics that connect across generations (timeless stuff about love & loss, dreams & hurts, you know?) Why pay money to listen to either fake rage or unabashed self-indulgence?

You go, Lucius. You had it right 2000 years ago. Anybody with enough guts and little or no shame can get himself a following. There's always someone to fool. And so did Solomon have it right 3000 years ago: There *is* nothing new under the sun.