According to Dictionary.com, cynicism is defined as “an attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others.” I have been accused on many occasions of falling victim to this definition where my outlook on life is concerned.
Many have called me cynical, pessimistic, and occasionally this is considered offensive enough for me to be thought untenable as company. I’m a drag, you see, a terribly droll individual who insists that it is not negative to indulge the reality of the situation from time to time.
Many of you who have read my earlier work for the East Tennessean (from last spring) will find moral convolution and cynical commentary as an integral part of my work. Yet, for those more familiar with my recent work of semesters past and current, I most likely appear, if not positive, at least attempting to avoid a negative perspective.
Cynicism can be a valuable tool, however. It allows one to view life as bleak, but not without humor. I must say that I am more than a bit cynical. I would describe myself as a person who wishes he could be an optimist, but who has been around long enough to know better.
Now you are asking the question, “So what does this have to do with anything?” Well, I wish to talk about a particularly cynical issue I am feeling right now, and I thought it appropriate to introduce it in such a manner so that it will not appear to “come out of left field” and blind side those who suspected that I felt that life was not so bad.
This also provides me space to say to those people that, if you wish to continue to see me in that light, and do not wish to read a depressing discussion about humanity, my advice would be to skip this column, and wait for the next (which I promise I will try to make not as bleak).
That being said, I feel sufficiently “backed up” to talk about my issue: the unreliability of people in general.
People are unreliable. But then, we all knew that, didn’t we? I don’t say that to be mean or “find fault,” but rather to point out one of the many natural occurrences in human existence. We are born to fail, and there is little we can do about it.
I don’t mean fail a test, fail at a life well-lived, but rather, fail each other.
It is impossible to depend on other people because eventually, they always let you down. They forget to pick you up at the airport, they take that promotion in another state, even though they told you they would talk it over with you first, they decide they don’t love you anymore, or that you’re too much responsibility.
And as bad as these may seem, we must remember one thing – they are not at fault. And I am not being sarcastic.
Then what do I mean when I say people are designed to fail? It comes down to a couple of things.
First, it is considered by many to be “wrong” to demand of people more than they should be expected to give (i.e., why girlfriends get mad when asked to “check-in” and why friends can’t demand that other friends take them to the mall).
We have no justifiable expectation that we should be able to make people do what we want them to do. This is rooted in the idea of moral equality. For if all are equal, one can not rightfully subjugate another against the will of those that would be enslaved.
We can force, cajole, manipulate and coerce, but not demand. This set of actions is often referred to as “interpersonal communication” or “being in a relationship,” whereby one party attempts to control the other.
Secondly, humanity consists of egocentric creatures (which we discussed last time). Any one person thinks of himself, consciously or otherwise, as the center of his universe. Each individual is the protagonist in his or her adventure, and life is the TV program upon which their experiences are played out for the joy of their choice of higher being, or (if they so choose) they may have no viewers save themselves.
As such, each decision made is, in the thinking of the individual, to be made with the best possible (or most desirable) outcome in mind. This leads persons to be self- interested and to act in such a manner as to precipitate proximity and maintenance of their interests and desires.
Thus, if we accept the posits that individual persons are egocentric creatures, and that, having free will, self-interest and moral equality, they have a justified expectation in pursuing those interests, it follows that if at some point those interests conflict with the interests of another, both parties are perfectly justified in pursuing their own interests.
Note that this does not extend to ideas of direct physical harm, for which multiple theories have been put forth to validate the idea that such action is both morally wrong and counterproductive. Consequently those actions do not fulfill the requirements to be in the “preferred interest” of a given individual.
What this means is that people aren’t reliable and everything someone does for another is something they wish to do, or at least something they choose to do as opposed to an option they would probably prefer less. That’s why any kind of relationship is difficult. It’s not that we are justified in expecting people to like, love, or accept us but, rather that we must learn to love people in spite of the fact that they will eventually betray us for their own desires.
All love is on someone else’s terms. We can love another, but we cannot require them to love us. We can treat them with kindness and sacrifice, but cannot rightfully expect the same. Love is giving, not receiving. That’s, perhaps, the most complex idea of all.
To love, one must first learn to love the world, knowing that it is most likely that our feelings, kindnesses and generosity will most likely not be reciprocated or even noticed. For love, that is immaterial. To love is to give; to receive love is to accept from another that which they have no right to expect in return.
This is the nature of human interaction – the battle between love for another, and love of the self. Some would say that it is not possible to love another, or that you must first love yourself. Yet, how does one learn to love oneself?
Rather, it should be learn to love others, and expect them to hate or ignore you. For if we love those who would not return our love, we strengthen our understanding of ourselves and the nature of love. If we love those that we know already love us, we are only “returning the favor.”
It is impossible for the failure of love to be the fault of another. For love is not dependent on another, but on the self. We can love those who would hurt and harm us or never even notice us, for we choose who we love.
To conclude, let me say that people are born to fail. At some point everyone you meet, love and trust will let you down. So what are we to do? Forgive but do not forget. Love all, but trust no one. A contradiction, perhaps, or is it? I can love my enemies, but I definitely would not let them stand behind me with a loaded gun. Love is blind not stupid.
So I say, let me keep my “attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others.” For even in darkness and humor, there is insight. Even in cynicism, there is hope.
Cynics are people who’ve been damaged by life and don’t know who to complain to. They’ve experienced (or witnessed) many let downs, betrayals, and unfairness in life and accept it as the status quo, but that doesn’t mean they wish the world was the way it is. Perhaps cynicism then is the haunting fear (or suppressed hope) that maybe, just maybe, things aren’t as bad as they appear.

Author