Schmoo

So I looked back at where I got this from - an episode of Cool People Who Did Cool Stuff about Diogenes - and it seems this is more of an interpretation of Diogenes’ teachings by Margaret (the host) rather than something he said directly. Here’s the relevant portion:

Speaker 2 (27:57): Because he also wrote books, so he clearly owned more than and just these things. You know, at various points, maybe he’s like borrowing a pen to write a book. I don’t know whatever, And basically he’s like, hey, sell me to that guy, and people are like, oh, it’s because he believes so much in this philosophy. I think Diogenes is being canny and knew it would go better with that guy, probably because he knows he’s educated, like

(28:20): he himself is educated, and he’s like, oh, I can get myself into like a teaching job instead of a fucking mining job, you know, right. He works for Zeniades for a few years, running the man’s household and tutoring his kids, who apparently all loved him, and then he was freed. Letting people buy their own freedom was a

(28:41): way to recoup capital costs. You steal a few years of someone’s life and then you let them pay you back. Your upfront cost. And also if you promise the slave you’re going to free them, they’re much nicer to you.

Speaker 1 (28:53): Yeah, and you are able to extract their labor.

Speaker 2 (28:55): Yeah, totally. And so it’s technically hypocritical of him to want to become free again and to like buy himself this freedom. And I do not blame him for this hypocrisy at all. This is a completely natural thing. He taught that if you desire to better your station in society, like a slave who wants to be free, as the example uses, it’ll never be enough. You’ll get free, and

(29:15): then you’ll want to be a slave owner, obviously, naturally, that just happens to everyone, and then you’d want to be a landowner, and then a citizen, and then an officer, and then a king and then godhood. Where does it stop?

Speaker 1 (29:28): I know, it’s just too much slop, very slope.

Speaker 2 (29:31): But like whatever is a philosopher, he’s going to make random as philosophical points, and he sharees oak the freedom that was offered him, and he didn’t go and buy someone, so good on him.

The transcript is kinda terrible so maybe just skip to this part and listen, but that’s where I got it from. There are sources linked in the first episode description but I couldn’t find the specific quote about not improving one’s station in life after a quick search, so ¯\(ツ)/¯.

I’ll see if I can find a source for that and get back to you. I could be misremembering.

Ah, that makes sense. Even more hypocritical of him then to suggest slaves shouldn’t try to free themselves. He leveraged his privilege to obtain a favorable outcome for himself and then allowed that experience to paint the way he viewed the institution of slavery as a whole.

Too much avocado toast.

You probably know more about it than me, I’m just repeating it how I heard it. My understanding is that Diogenes sold himself to a wealthy family who admired him for his philosophy and wanted him to teach their kids. This was before he decided to live on the street in a clay pot, and after he fled the previous city he lived in due to being caught committing fraud (counterfeiting coins).

Historical revisionists like to find exceptions and present them as if they were the norm. There was a particular subset of slaves who served wealthy families as teachers, cooks, nannies, etc. that enjoyed a decent standard of living and were often considered a part of the family. This kind of slave contract was closer to being a sort of patronage and people with high social status but little wealth often sold themselves to wealthy families they had social connections to. The philosopher Diogenes did this and it shaped the way he viewed Roman slavery (he remarked that slaves should not try to free themselves because it’s worse to be poor; easy for him to say in his position as a well-liked and respected teacher serving a wealthy family). This kind of arrangement made up an incredibly small minority of Roman slaves.

Who cares? What difference does it make if counter revolutionaries try to restore the old royal family or make a new one? The problem with monarchy is the system itself, not whoever happens to occupy the position of monarch. Human beings are more than a symbol, no matter how powerful that symbol may be. There is no possible justification for the murder of children.