“There is, however, the other side, in which we are reminded that Diogenes was nothing but a ragpicker and a ragamuffin, a man of no intellectual worth (…) whose confused ideas are ultimately nothing but “a doctrine of inaction and negation of life.. His pessimistic one-sidedness concerning the value of human accomplishments, his contempt for practically all human beings, his unwillingness to recognise in anyone even the faintest trace of honesty and good intentions, his merciless campaign to debunk and undermine social and political institutions, his exaggerated and histrionic behaviour, his shamelessness and his pride about his shamelessness, the coarseness of his speech and manners, his reported inability to transcend the realm of the concrete and the particular, and his incapacity to understand and appreciate universal concepts – all these and other alleged uncomplimentary aspects of his life and personality have been emphasised by some scholars, from whose point of view, then, there is nothing worth studying about Diogenes (…) Nothing attractive or substantive, accordingly, can be found in him (…) and his life, characterised by exhibitionism and exaggeration, contained nothing edifying or worth remembering”
And while we’re on Diogenes/Grantaire comparisons, I came across this passage in the book “Diogenes of Sinope (the Man in the Tub)” (and when I say ‘book’ I obviously mean ‘free Amazon Look Inside preview’ because omg that is one expensive book) and it kind of blew my mind a little bit! Like, for all I’d been ‘hum yase look at all these personality parallels’-ing to myself, I hadn’t considered that Diogenes might be just as divisive a figure in his own fandom academic field as Grantaire kinda is for Les Mis folks? And for largely the same reasons? And that Diogenes-stans get equally irritated by Diogenese-detractors as do their Grantaire/Les Mis conspecifics? AND THEN THERE WAS THIS QUOTE which was also fascinating;
“It might be possible that in order to understand and appreciate the value of Diogenes as a philosopher and as a stereotype of Cynicism, one may have to be a Cynic oneself or at least have certain inborn Cynic tendencies (…) In order to grasp the significance of Diogenes’ life and philosophy, it is necessary to have within oneself at least some incipient dosage of Cynicism and have that rare philosophical ability to see behind and around things, to use Nietzsche’s phrase. As Diderot pointed out (…) “one may choose to become an Academic philosopher, or an Eclectic, or a Cyrenaic, or a Pyrrhoist, or a Skeptic, but one must be born a Cynic”.
Because, like, it’s basically what people were saying in this thread about not being able to identify with Grantaire? Some quotesI think I just realised why I can’t identify with Grantaire as much as others, despite the fact that I do like him a lot. (and ngl, sometimes he makes me cry)
I’ll need to write it down when I’ve got time.
(Until then, though, does anyone feel they can’t identify with Grantaire either? He seems to be one of the most popular characters – and I can’t blame fandom, he’s a fascinating one! But I’m wondering if others feel this way, too, and have thought about why.)
I personally can’t identify with him for a number of reasons.
1. He is a cynic and believes in nothing (but Enjolras). I admit to being a cynic sometimes (mostly about myself), but not to believe in anything? I just can’t.
I can’t identify with Grantaire either – I’m a teetotaler who hates attention and never talks, I’m an overachieving nerd, my beliefs are super-idealistic, and I’m usually put off by people who just sort of SAY STUFF all the time. Etc. etc., I’m nothing like Grantaire!
I know that for me personally, it’s because I’m a strongly idealistic person. My mind cannot “dispense with belief,” though it tries; if it does, my heart will “dispense with friendship.” He takes “great care to believe in nothing” while I take great care to believe as much as I can. It’s my lifeline. He has “not one entire idea left in his mind” through skepticism while I cannot live without ideas.
I can’t identify with him because (1) I’m not actually cynical. I thought I was, or pretended to be, for a while, but you know, I can’t really keep it up, a
Like *flails* that’s exactly in line with what Navia is saying? (Except he’s being kind of snotty about it when like there is literally no reason to be down on someone for not being a C/cynic wow.). So, idk, what are our ~thoughts~, do you have to be born a cynic to “understand and appreciate the value” of Grantaire? (Like for my part idk that’s a little prescriptive & I wouldn’t ‘doubt’ anyone who does see themselves as understanding/appreciating him without personally being a cynic, that would be dumb). But! I’m interested to see if anyone does see their appreciation of him that way?? (I definitely drift into the arena of cynicism sometimes personally {tho try not to, like actually one of my new years resolutions was to be less cynical} so cant really id with those who don’t id with R in that way {but do hopefully ~understand and appreciate them :V})