why does cynacism and criticism get a bad rep?

Post Reply New Topic

I mean words like cynical or critical, these things are totally necessary. All belief systems (be it religious, political, sociological, cultural, w/e) should be questioned to a healthy extent, should they not? I mean, not asking questions breeds ignorance. I link this to the fact that we live in a dangerously over-optimistic culture, which encourages lazy thinking and apathy. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.

I don't think words such as "cynical" or "critical" deserve such a bad rap. Cynacism and criticism are necessary to keeping balance and making informed decisions.

Yeah but a lot of jerks use them to dominate other people in discussions. It's a shame because they really are necessary for intelligent decision-making.

I would think it is because cynicism and criticism can lead to extreme levels of skepticism and beliefs often considered unsavory by large numbers of people. Let's just say that I argue that morality in all factuality does not exist and that there is really no moral difference between eating a sandwich and butchering babies? That is a cynical and critical take on a major idea accepted by most people and in a manner that leads to an unsavory conclusion. Is my criticism necessarily wrong? No, moral skepticism is a valid position, but it is unacceptable to many. So, if my conclusion is wrong, then the methodology must also be wrong, and thus we have to curtail cynicism and criticism to a limit we consider acceptable. Now, given that each group has its own uncrossable barrier (I picked on that was more common), we will find that cynicism and criticism will be very much curtailed.

Not necessarily so... Aristotle's belief that a peice of iron could be spit in half indefinitely and still be iron, wasn't a result of bad methodology, it was a result correct methodology applied to insufficient facts. Another example would be Tesla's belief that electrons and atoms existed independently of eachother. His incorrect conclusion was nonetheless a workable model.

Well, that is true, but I was assuming that all participants had equal knowledge of facts I suppose. A misinformed champion of any idea would be seen negatively.

The question kinda answers itself. Negative people ensure their own continued social isolation by being perversely negative.

That's not to say people with a pathological inability to acknowledge the world's evils will fair any better. The rose-coloured glasses will let you down just as surely as the lead-coloured glasses.

A balanced attitude towards life makes for a healthy individual.

Never heard of "critical" being anything deserving of a bad rap, but Cyncism in a philosophical context does, and deserves a bad rap.

I myself am cynical about a few things... but cynicism itself is the creed that centers around a malevolent universe premise rules by the notion (also a murphy's law) people are basically bad and things tend to always come out unfavourably.

Therefore it gets a bad rap.

As for skepticism... the actual philosophical movement is about being skeptical that anything exists. I.E. anything you say is bull crap because in essence nothing can be proved. It denies the primacy of existence. Over time that brand of skepticism has been packaged with a healthy amount of skepticism (not taking anything at face value without proof.)

Skepticism as a philosophy, eh? Doubting the primacy of existence ... would be a fun thing to do while you wait for REPO to take all your possessions into their big truck.

That is an area of study much unlike cancer research or architecture. You know why, right?

I agree with this.

What is not useful is when cynicism and criticality is an outward excuse for peoples insecurities. I have known people IRL who felt inferior in some circumstances and instead of owning up to not knowing about something or not acknowledging hidden jealousies used these valuable tools as a cover for painful feelings.

Academics use constructive criticism to further understanding and knowledge and criticize each others work as a way of clearing out what is not useful and thereby furthering current knowledge in a given area. This kind of criticality is interesting to read and helps our own minds think around a topic. It opens up new possibilities and avenues of thought, challenging our own views. I would go so far as to say it is life-enhancing.

In healthy doses, criticism is vital to any creative process. Constructive criticism is a necessity.

Skepticism is like your epidermis-- it protects from external environment. Part of growing up and becoming a grown man or woman is having what my family calls "tough feelings."

If you are never skeptical of anything, you are a fool and a simp.

If you can balance skepticism with faith & optimism, you have won.

Cynicism, to me, is the last bastion of a wounded soul.

Well yeah, I mean skepticism to the point of this New Age modernism/post modernism/existentialism/deconstructionism sci-fi "nothing is real" level is just stupid. But all situations, ideologies, and such should be held to a skeptical standard. All points of view in a society need to be balanced, criticized, etc.

Fair and balanced requires criticism, I am talking to you Fox News.