Final answer:
A cynic typically challenges societal norms, believing happiness derives from living in accordance with nature, often in conjunction with provocative actions. A critic, however, provides knowledgeable, rational evaluations of cultural or literary works, guiding audiences to a deeper understanding supported by specific schools of criticism and research-backed assessments.
Step-by-step explanation:
In understanding the difference between a cynic and a critic, it is essential to recognize the distinct roles each places in their approach to subjects of discourse. The cynic is often perceived as skeptical or dismissive of societal norms and conventions, believing that true virtue and happiness are found in living in accordance with nature, often in defiance of social constructs. This perception originates from the historical Cynics, who practiced what they preached with a lifestyle that aggressively rejected conventional society. Diogenes, for example, is a notable figure from this school of philosophy, renowned for his extreme actions that flouted social expectations and challenged authoritative figures directly.
In contrast, a critic, particularly within a literary or cultural context, is someone who studies, analyzes, and renders judgment based not on a rejection of societal norms, but on knowledgeable and rational evaluation. Critics not only provide an assessment of a work but also consider its broader cultural significance. They strive to be open-minded and offer constructive criticism backed by research. In their reviews, critics guide audiences in understanding a work's place within the wider cultural landscape, often by employing various schools of literary criticism such as New Criticism, Reader-Response, or Feminism. These approaches each have their specific methods for analyzing texts, ranging from a focus on the text's internal elements to the reader’s personal reaction.