Critique of Cynical Reason (Theory and History of Literature, Volume 40)

I needed this book for some research, so I'm pleased Amazon had it. The book itself while well known has some issues, so one needs a good background in Cynicism to understand where the problems are with Sloterdijk's views.

Very good

I'm convinced - Kynicism might just be my antidote to the impersonal distanced culture of today. Working on the practicalities of it...... cheekiness is my second nature.....

Great philosophy. Great read. Laughs and insights.

In Critique of Cynical Reason, Peter Sloterdijk offers a critique, elucidation, explication of modern cynicism and its ancient and more respectable counterpart and source--kynicism. First he has to establish that indeed cynicism is such a dominant approach to life and things in our times. If you're like me and have never given much thought to cynicism then this will be a revelation. He will go into detail how cynicism arises and manifests itself in a variety of areas: military, politics/power, religion, sexuality, knowledge, medicine. Contrasting to cynicism is the kynicism as exemplified by Diogenes the dog. This kynicism is characterized by cheeky insolence, making light of all things dead-serious, of power, and those who wield it. It reminds us of the mere animality of man just when man pretends to transcend everything just human.Things are off to a very slow start though. The first 260 page (pagination of the German edition) "short" part I is rather forgettable and unfocused. Sloterdijk early on defines cynicism unhelpfully as "enlightened false consciousness" this perhaps a kynic definition in itself once we find out that he isn't a Marxist at all. It allows him to go into detail about how enlightenment has presented itself in a variety of areas as well as the development of consciousness to a polemic consciousness. Once we get to the massive part II things come into focus. It consists of 4 parts--the physiognomic (yes, physiognomic), phenomenological, logical, and historical main parts. It is rather surprising to find a 200-page part on history since for the previous 700 pages we've already been dealing extensively with history as Sloterdijk enjoys nothing more than analyses and critique of history. It's past the midpoint of the book when he manages to clarify cynicism most successfully in the section of knowledge-cynicism. It's in the logical main part that he discovers something that has shaken him to the core: war. Perhaps as someone growing up during the cold war it was unavoidable that Sloterdijk got caught up in the paranoia of the alleged imminent nuclear destruction of life on the planet. We know now a bit more than he did in 1983 and the cold war seems more like a most cynical business endeavor by the West's military industrial complex. Nevertheless, his insights remain significant even more so now that Washington is yet again intent on cynically provoking Russia in order to cause armed conflicts in every corner of the world. His identification of neoconservatism as early as 1983 as a leading political current turned downright prophetic.The book's final historical part deals with the short-lived Weimar Republic of all things as perhaps the most pointed and dangerous representative of cynicism in an era. Since that's what he did his doctoral work on it was inevitable that it would make an appearance in one of his early books. Sloterdijk still manages to make it interesting. Moreover, every German writer who wants to be seen as respectable and have his work promoted has got to address National Socialism. His analysis through the arts and literature and with no less than 10 excursuses is an effort to answer the question, "how was it possible?" and "who was responsible?". But once he returns in the very concluding chapter to philosophy, we do realize how far off the Weimar discussion has taken us and how this entire part is an excursus.This book presents a new and original voice in philosophy and you can see how it could have taken Germany by storm in 1983. It's not one of Sloterdijk's better books, however. If there is a main goal it would be to point out the significance of cynicism, but that's not a controversial issue. Neither is the idea that kynicism is a better alternative. The method he uses in this book isn't all that clear to me either. He's at his strongest when he's analyzing deep issues. I particularly enjoyed his discussions of psychoanalysis, religion, Hegel, dialectic, Marx, Faust, Heraclitus, polemos/polemics. Trying to glean the forest for the trees might be a fruitless endeavor for in this work it is much more fruitful to get lost with Sloterdijk in the details.

Sloterdijk provides an astute description of our current state of mind. As we read Critique of Cynical Reason, we are compelled to see our own reflection in the mirror. What we see in the mirror is our pretentious attitude to everything. We pretend and don’t really give a damn after all—we’re quick to offer critique, but less willing to offer the hard work it takes to develop solutions that are grounded in bold visions.According to Sloterdijk, our pretentious attitude is the distorted result that came about with the Enlightenment project, which emphasized a turn to reason, individualism, and skepticism. As a result of this turn, we have become extremely rational, calculable and strategic, and this analytical mindset has developed into a cynical reason that is critical of any truth related to feelings, aesthetics, and ideals.Sloterdijk call this “the enlightened false consciousness” of cynicism. Our analytical mindset has made it easy for so many of us to be smart. We know so much about how the world works. But this smartness does not translate to wisdom and passion, and we seem to have lost the ability to recognize the most important aspect of existence: How to live a good life. The cynical reason can’t engage in a dialogue about the good life, because it’s not really interested. So we don’t really gain from a cynical ideology critique.Our cynical self believes that nothing has value—that the world is meaningless—and thinks of the idealist as naive and stupid. The problem with our cynical attitude is the innate blind spot. With the prevalent cynicism in society there’s really no standpoint left from which the cynic can make a genuine critique. Because to which grand narratives or higher values can the cynic point to?So it seems that we haven’t really become modern after the Enlightenment. We haven’t managed to fully develop modern values. In the last chapter (the most rewarding to me) Sloterdijk returns to the Enlightenment motto, the Latin phrase sapere aude, which can be read as ‘dare to use your own understanding and judgment.’ This is what we’re still missing. Sloterdijk hopes to revive a critical existentialism, an ”agile, worldly-wise intelligence,” as he calls it, that walks the talk—that is the antagonist to cynicism as a genuine interest in solutions that cultivate a better human life.

"The fertile ground for cynicism in modern times is to be found not only in urban culture but also in the courtly sphere. Both are dies of pernicious realism through which human beings learn the crooked smile of open immorality. Here, as there, a sophisticated knowledge accumulates in informed, intelligent minds, a knowledge that moves elegantly back and forth between naked facts and conventional facades." (p. 4)This goes on, more or less like that, until a few pages from the end, p. 544, in "Conclusions", we get:"Under the pressure of suffering in the most recent crises, members of our civilization see themselves forced, quasi-neoclassically, to repeat the "know thyself," and in this they discover their systematic inability to communicate in the way that would guarantee true de-escalation."If you are seeking to read 547 pages of that type of writing, this is your book.

An insightful account of the cynical "Zeitgeist." Sloterdijk's book is-after 15 years-still a fresh wind in the grey landscape of Philosophy. He writes with "verve," thinks wonderfully unsystematic, and says what we all (more or less) think. Highly recommendable to the flexible mind. Juergen Kleist, Plattsburgh, New York

This is for Adorno's scholars. You need to be a philosophy student to understand this book.