Diogenes and Canisius

By Matthew Miranda, Contributing Writer

There seems to be a contention on campus, and the world at large, that critique and analysis is a mean–spirited act. Specifically, if someone says something, but it is factually wrong or poorly said, an analysis of that statement is not intended to degrade, but rather to offer a path of improvement and development. The natural disagreement, or even more mildly, the natural discourse that appears in conversation should not come to us as an insult to our intelligence, but rather as an opportunity for growth.

In the tradition of the philosopher Diogenes, the use of cynicism as a means for extracting truth remains relevant. While it is not a new or modern occurrence, rhetorical strategy and persuasion are often used in place of reason and logic in both conversation and formal conferences. The use of rhetorical strategy is not itself a poor device, but to be completely absent in intentional thought, relying on the ignorance of your audience, is certainly a lesser stance to take.

It is often believed that the cynicism of Diogenes was simply the drivel of an old man, or perhaps even the meaningless ramblings of a fool. But the modern scholarly consensus is that his actions were completely thoughtful and mindful of their outcomes. For Diogenes to disregard the potential gifts of a regent, or for him to humiliate himself in the town square, are not random and attention seeking acts, but critique in action. In his performance, we are prompted to ask ourselves “why do I even respect the regent?” And “of what use is public dignity?” 

It is true that critique is not inherently contrary. For a questioning person to ask for clarity or analysis of a statement is not the same as denying the statement outright. We, as students of higher education, are certainly familiar with questions in our classroom. Whether that be between the student and professor, or between students themselves, an ongoing dialectic should not be seen as an attack, as it is not one. 

Critique is the crucible from which thought becomes truth. If the mathematician or scientist were never critiqued and their words simply became truth, then there would be no point in the rigor of their fields. If it were not for the forms of critique that we experience today, the Jesuit tradition itself would be a poorer one, as it would not have resulted in the strength of social justice and spiritual growth that it upholds. For us to refrain from the pursuit of knowledge out of fear from authority is to fail in seeking God in all things and, further, in experiencing truth itself.

If Canisius is to continue with its long–standing Jesuit tradition, we must allow for open discourse with the maturity necessary to withstand critique.