was indicating, by his answer, that
he was a citizen of the world, was that he
was no citizen at all. He did not belong to
any polis.
So, in other words, the claim of being a citizen
of the World, is to be understood here as
a negative claim, rather than a positive one.
Which means that by saying, that he is a citizen
of the World, Diogenes is saying that he is
no citizen. And he is, in fact, beyond and
above all the rights and obligations that
bound individuals in ancient Greece with their
polis, and binds individuals today with their
nation-state.
Now, this idea of renouncing the ties with
all geopolitical entities, be it a Polis or
a nation state, this kind of renunciation,
as a kind of cosmopolitanism, has been shared
by very few people in history. Yet, the critics
of cosmopolitanismhavethinking
about the world, first emerged in Greece during
the 3rd century BCE. And since then it has
passed through many phases and transformations.
And, here again I will not bore you with a
detailed history of the various phases and
transformations of Stoicism as a branch of
philosophy.
But, what is to be noted here is, unlike Diogenes
the Cynic, the Stoics believed that being
a citizen of the world was not in itself in
opposition to being a citizen of a particular
State. In other words, the notion that one
is the citizen of the world, is not in conflict
with the idea that one is also the citizen
of a particular state. The Stoics, in fact,
considered themselves to be citizens of the
wrld. Because, they believe that all human
beings formed part of a universal community.
And any individual had duties and obligations,
not