Cynical

I’ve occasionally been called cynical because some of the sentiments I express strike people as negative. But cynical, to me, does not strictly mean negative. It means something more along the lines of “faithless” — as in lacking the basic faith humans thrive when believing what they take to be true, rather than expedient, and doing what they think is right rather than narrowly advantageous.

In other words, my primary negative sentiment — that the cynical utilitarian ethos among our educated classes has caused and is likely to cause catastrophic outcomes — stems from a sort of disappointed idealism, not cynicism.

On human nature itself I am anything but cynical. I am convinced the strongest, long-term incentives are always to believe what is true, no matter the cost, and to do what is right. And by “right,” I don’t mean do-gooding bullshit, but things like taking care of one’s health, immediate family and personal responsibilities while pursuing the things one finds most compelling and important.

That aside, I want to touch on two real-world examples of what I take to be actual cynicism. The first is the tendency to invoke principles only when they suit one’s agenda or desired outcome, but not to apply them when they do not. This kind of hypocrisy implies principles are just tools you invoke to gain emotional support for your side and that anyone actually applying them evenhandedly is a naive simpleton who doesn’t know how the game is played.

Twitter threads don’t show up on substack anymore, but I’d encourage you to read this one with respect to objecting to election outcomes. I could have used many others, but this one (probably not even most egregious) illustrates how empty words like “democracy” or “election integrity” are when thrown around by devoted partisans. They don’t actually believe in democracy, only in using the word to evoke the desired emotional response. People who wanted to coerce people to take a Pfizer shot don’t believe in “bodily autonomy.” It’s similarly just a phrase that’s invoked to achieve an end.

The other flavor of cynicism I’ve noticed is less about hypocrisy and more about nihilism:

I’d encourage people to read the entire thread, but if you’re not on Twitter, it’s essentially about whether money (and apparently anything else) has essential qualities, or whether it is whatever peoples’ narratives tell them it is.

In other words, is money whatever your grocer takes for the groceries, or do particular forms of money have qualities wherein they are more likely to be accepted over the long haul? The argument is yes, gold, for example had qualities that made it a better money (scarcity, durability, e.g.) than say seashells which are reasonably durable but not scarce. You could sell the story of seashells as a money (and some societies not close to the sea used them as such), but ultimately such a society would be vulnerable to massive inflation should one of its inhabitants ever stroll along a shore.

The thread morphed into whether everything is just narrative, or there is an underlying reality to which a narrative must correspond in order for it to be useful and true.

The notion that anything could be money if attached to the right story, or any music is good if it’s marketed properly is deeply cynical. I am not arguing people can’t be convinced to buy bad records — clearly they can — but that no matter how much you market it, it will not stand the test of time unless it is in fact good.

In order to sell something that does not add value, meaning or utility to someone’s life, something you suspect they are likely to regret buying in short order, it’s awfully useful to convince yourself that nothing has inherent meaning or value, that “storytelling is all that matters.”

I am not against marketing per se, and effective storytelling might in fact point someone in the right direction — a good story can help someone discover a truth. But that storytelling is everything, and by implication the extent to which a story has correlates in reality nothing, is the ethos of scammers, the refuge of nihilists who left someone else holding the bag and prefer not to think about it.