The aim of this article is to present an explanation of two of the ethical principles of cynical philosophy: “shamelessness” (anaideia) and “unpopularity” (adoxia). To make this possible, besides resorting to anecdotes of philosophical cynicism, it was necessary to approach the different interpretations of this strand that are found in contemporary studies such as those of: Peter Sloterdijk, Carlos García Gual, Bracht Branham and Marie-Odile Goulet-Caze. The explanation of these ethical foundations of the cynical “proposal”, will at the same time be an apologia for the philosophical relevance of these urban sages, who have long been disqualified as mere shameless individuals, as well as dispensable for any history of philosophy because of their lack of “doctrinal system”.