The most striking question from “Candide” was whether to view life optimistically, or to view life as a living hell. In the beginning of the story, Candide looks at life as an amazing gift, and believes the world is perfect. As he journeys through life he is physically and mentally beaten at every turn, and it appears that nothing can go his way. Even upon finally reaching his dream of finding Cungonde, he finds her to be slowly becoming more and more unattractive both inside and out. Through it all, he managed to hold on to his positive outlook on life, until encountering the misery of others, and eventually conceding to life as living hell.
The story made me question whether when forced to choose between looking at life as perfect, or looking at life as completely bad, which was the better option. I found myself frustrated at Candide’s inability to see the negative aspects of the world, but disappointed when he completely surrendered to the idea that life is terrible. When applying this to our current world, I found myself questioning what the students at Cristo Rey High School would say about the world.
Cristo Rey is a high school that only takes students who are living in poverty, and it is a high school that acts as a college prep high school. All of the students are required to do an internship, to give them exposure to the world beyond high school, and to help build their self esteem and professional skills.
My first day at Cristo Rey began with Ms. Hughes asking me to edit a student’s paper. The purpose of the essay was to tell a first person narrative about something that happened in the past. As I began to read the story I was struck by two things; the language and the content. The girl chose to write a story about her grandmother getting very ill, and how terrifying it was, and how difficult it was for her in the hospital. As a ninth grader, I went into the school with the assumption that the students would have an understanding of the past and present tense, but this was not the case. Almost every verb was written in the present tense, but in a sentence with past tense context. I tried to help the student by having her read the sentences out loud. If she couldn’t pick up on the error, I would then point to the verb and ask her if it was in the present or past tense. This seemed to work, and soon she was finding her own errors, and excitedly changing them. The entire time, the girl had a smile on her face, and seemed so excited to be learning and talking to someone about her writing.
I found myself feeling upset, that someone with such a desire to learn, because of their financial situation, or physical location, was not able to get the same level of education as I did. It was amazing to see the drive that some of the student’s had to succeed. I couldn’t help but ask myself if I was growing up in their situation, with the many educational disadvantages, if I would be able to remain positive and hopeful, or if I would look at the world in a constant negative lens at what I did not have.
If I had to choose between looking at life as all bad, or looking at life as all good, I think I would choose to look at life as all good. If you focus on the negative you can succumb to it, and loose hope for a better life. While it is not good to be naive, I still think it is better to be positive. Volunteering is one of the experiences that allows you to find a common ground between these two extremes. It is important to hope for positivity, and do everything you can to insure positivity, but it is also important to be aware of the negative aspects of life, and the struggles that others, as well as yourself face and will have to face in the future.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
The most fairly decent of all possible worlds?
The “best of all possible worlds” is a perfect idea in theory but in reality this kind of world is not one that provides a person with riches, status, and health but rather provides comfort. I believe that it is human nature to be upset when life doesn’t go your way and that comfort is disrupted, but as a human I also believe that uncertainties, tragedies, and failures comes with the price of humanity. This is why I think Candide fails miserably as a human being. However I cannot blame Candide entirely for his ignorance, his education is responsible for his lack of an open mind. Dr. Pangloss is the real culprit in painting Candide’s life as this wonderful utopia of bubblegum and sunshine. It is clear that Voltaire is satirizing aristocratic lifestyle and the dangers of their close mindedness. Dr. Pangloss presents the dangers of education; one cannot rely on simply being educated but you must rely on the sincerity and truth of the source your education is coming from. False knowledge is just as bad if not worse than ignorance. All the characters in the novel are at a complete disadvantage in the real world because they were all taught that their life is the best of all possible lives.
This theory seems to carry over even into the parts of their lives where they suffer great misfortunes. These characters compete with one another over whose misfortunes are the “best of all possible” misfortunes. These instances are obviously meant to be satirical and set up a parallel between misfortune and fortune. For example, as readers we follow Candide through his many misfortunes and during his journey we encounter Pangloss, Cunegonde, the Old Woman, Paquette, and others who explain to one another just how horrible their life has been. As hilariously absurd this exchange seems to be, it is not foreign to social practices today. Just the other day I was speaking with a couple of my friends, one of whom just recently broke up with her boyfriend. Rather than provide her with advice on what she should be doing to make herself feel better, we all rambled on about how we’ve been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. One girl’s breakup was way worse than the others, but couldn't possibly compare to this other girl’s, and so on and so forth. Although this tactic may serve as some sort of reality check, life letting you know that “hey, things aren’t always going to be great”, but it does seem cruel and unnecessary.
The characters in this novel however cannot accept the fact that bad things are happening in their life because not only do they assume they live the most perfect of all lives, but that they themselves are the perfect examples of men and women. For example, Candide laments that he has killed three men, he does not grieve because of the actual murder but because he believes himself to be “the best-natured creature in the world.” (Voltaire, 36) He is unable to accept human inclination to sin. It is as if Pangloss failed to mention to his pupils that free will and choice are basic everyday occurrences.
The first positive revelation that Candide has is when he ventures to El Dorado and reflects to himself that “It is evident that one must travel.” (Voltaire, 44) This is the first instance where Candide realizes that perhaps his thought-to-be-dead ex-teacher may have not had everything he taught correct. In order to claim that one world is the best of all possible worlds, maybe one should check out all these other “possible worlds” before making such a bold statement. This would be if someone said that Baltimore is the best of all possible cities without having seen New York City, Paris, London, etc.
I would have to say that the only character in the novel that seems to have somewhat of the right depiction of life is Martin, quite possibly the most negative characters in the novel. Martin serves as the “anti-Candide”, Candide being the glass half full kind of guy while Martin is the token pessimist. He assumes that life’s purpose is to “plague us to death” (Voltaire, 54) and is content in the end living life on a farm because he believes he would be just as miserable anywhere else in the world. This allows Martin to obtain something all the other characters lack completely, patience. In the end, Candide is also able to perhaps not achieve patience, but at least becomes content with his life when he states that they must “cultivate [the] garden” (Voltaire, 87). Martin agrees with this Idea and says, “’Let us work,’ said Martin, ‘without disputing; it is the only way to render life tolerable.’” (Voltaire, 87) This is also a very modern idea, a sort of 16th century way of saying when life gives you lemons, make lemonade. This encourages Candide to finally make his own luck, stop fainting, moping, and be proactive with whatever life hands him. Thus creating a more realistic version of the world for Candide, no longer the best (an idea that clearly will always remain an idea) but perhaps the most fairly decent of all possible worlds.
This theory seems to carry over even into the parts of their lives where they suffer great misfortunes. These characters compete with one another over whose misfortunes are the “best of all possible” misfortunes. These instances are obviously meant to be satirical and set up a parallel between misfortune and fortune. For example, as readers we follow Candide through his many misfortunes and during his journey we encounter Pangloss, Cunegonde, the Old Woman, Paquette, and others who explain to one another just how horrible their life has been. As hilariously absurd this exchange seems to be, it is not foreign to social practices today. Just the other day I was speaking with a couple of my friends, one of whom just recently broke up with her boyfriend. Rather than provide her with advice on what she should be doing to make herself feel better, we all rambled on about how we’ve been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. One girl’s breakup was way worse than the others, but couldn't possibly compare to this other girl’s, and so on and so forth. Although this tactic may serve as some sort of reality check, life letting you know that “hey, things aren’t always going to be great”, but it does seem cruel and unnecessary.
The characters in this novel however cannot accept the fact that bad things are happening in their life because not only do they assume they live the most perfect of all lives, but that they themselves are the perfect examples of men and women. For example, Candide laments that he has killed three men, he does not grieve because of the actual murder but because he believes himself to be “the best-natured creature in the world.” (Voltaire, 36) He is unable to accept human inclination to sin. It is as if Pangloss failed to mention to his pupils that free will and choice are basic everyday occurrences.
The first positive revelation that Candide has is when he ventures to El Dorado and reflects to himself that “It is evident that one must travel.” (Voltaire, 44) This is the first instance where Candide realizes that perhaps his thought-to-be-dead ex-teacher may have not had everything he taught correct. In order to claim that one world is the best of all possible worlds, maybe one should check out all these other “possible worlds” before making such a bold statement. This would be if someone said that Baltimore is the best of all possible cities without having seen New York City, Paris, London, etc.
I would have to say that the only character in the novel that seems to have somewhat of the right depiction of life is Martin, quite possibly the most negative characters in the novel. Martin serves as the “anti-Candide”, Candide being the glass half full kind of guy while Martin is the token pessimist. He assumes that life’s purpose is to “plague us to death” (Voltaire, 54) and is content in the end living life on a farm because he believes he would be just as miserable anywhere else in the world. This allows Martin to obtain something all the other characters lack completely, patience. In the end, Candide is also able to perhaps not achieve patience, but at least becomes content with his life when he states that they must “cultivate [the] garden” (Voltaire, 87). Martin agrees with this Idea and says, “’Let us work,’ said Martin, ‘without disputing; it is the only way to render life tolerable.’” (Voltaire, 87) This is also a very modern idea, a sort of 16th century way of saying when life gives you lemons, make lemonade. This encourages Candide to finally make his own luck, stop fainting, moping, and be proactive with whatever life hands him. Thus creating a more realistic version of the world for Candide, no longer the best (an idea that clearly will always remain an idea) but perhaps the most fairly decent of all possible worlds.
what he wants as opposed to what truly is
In Voltaire's satire, Candide, I couldn't help but notice the bland nature of relationships between men and women dispersed throughout. The series of interactions that struck me as especially dull are those that occur between Candide and Cunégonde, which are so nondescript and devoid of a deeper meaning. It is strange that Candide is eternally dedicated to Cunégonde even though Candide's thoughts of her as a virtuous woman are proven incorrect as the novel unfolds, and her personality is portrayed as flat and unstimulating.
I resolve that Candide is in love with the image of Cunégonde that is established in the beginning of the novel--that she is a pure, vulnerable woman. He continues to buy into the notion that he needs to save her Cunégonde from every discomfort that comes her way--an antiquated and distorted view of chivalry. Thus, as a result, he is crippled from seeing any of these discomforts as her own making (even though some of them are). Meanwhile, Cunégonde uses Candide's chivalrous nature to her advantage time and time again, always knowing she can come back to him and he will be ready and willing to protect her, regardless of how she has wronged him.
The initial description of Cunégonde in Chapter I is "fresh-coloured, comely, plump and amiable," which we later can tell is a deceiving portrayal, because she does not really come off as "comely" or "amiable" at all. I ultimate decided that she did not have much to offer anyone besides sex. Oddly enough, Candide views Cunégonde as a paragon of female morality, and so he is willing to "save" her from the Grand Inquisitor and Don Issachar, who both use her as a sex slave. He slays the two men as a symbol of his undying love to her, which he never lets go of--even when she leaves him for Don Fernando in the superficial pursuit of riches. To him she can do no wrong, even though this is clearly an indication that she is not nearly as dedicated to him as he is to her. This twist in their relationship reminds me of today's idea that "nice guys finish last," when a male is too giving, kind, and generous. Typically, these kinds of guys are seen as either trying to hard, or too easy to get by today's women. Candide would fit into this category, as he continuously tries and tries again to get to Cunégonde, even though she blatantly chose another man over him. When she hits a bump in the road, she returns to Candide, even though the passion isn't really there on her part. In today's society, this also occurs--when you are wronged by the mysterious choice, you go for the one who basically worships the ground you walk on as a temporary crutch.
Cunégonde plays up her role as a damsel in distress repeatedly throughout the novel, which I believe is illustrated by her incessant fainting in the face of danger. In Chapter VIII, her dramatic nature is exposed from the getgo. She begins her story with "I was in bed and fast asleep...A tall Bulgarian soldier, six feet high, seeing that I had fainted at this sight, attempted to ravish me. At that I recovered my senses. I cried, I struggled, I bit, I scratched... " Her descriptions are all dramatized and attempts to evoke sympathy from Candide, and they never fail to be effective. This aspect of Cunégonde's personality is seen in today's society as well, in the same exact way. Women oftentimes play up their vulnerability in order to get attention from men.
As I continued reading, I could not fathom why Candide remains faithful to this image of Cunégonde as his ideal mate, because to me, she is clearly manipulative and shallow. She has no real redeeming qualities, but for some reason, Candide remains obsessed with her. Perhaps this is because Candide is neither complex nor intelligent, but merely a product of naivite, desiring to make Cunégonde into the figure he has created in his mind. I do suppose that birds of a feather flock together, and so ultimately, when Candide and Cunégonde do wind up together, it makes sense because they equally lack depth and conviction, but the question that eats at me remains. Both in Candide and in today's romances, what makes us idolize these images we create of someone that are such obvious deviations from the person's true self?
I resolve that Candide is in love with the image of Cunégonde that is established in the beginning of the novel--that she is a pure, vulnerable woman. He continues to buy into the notion that he needs to save her Cunégonde from every discomfort that comes her way--an antiquated and distorted view of chivalry. Thus, as a result, he is crippled from seeing any of these discomforts as her own making (even though some of them are). Meanwhile, Cunégonde uses Candide's chivalrous nature to her advantage time and time again, always knowing she can come back to him and he will be ready and willing to protect her, regardless of how she has wronged him.
The initial description of Cunégonde in Chapter I is "fresh-coloured, comely, plump and amiable," which we later can tell is a deceiving portrayal, because she does not really come off as "comely" or "amiable" at all. I ultimate decided that she did not have much to offer anyone besides sex. Oddly enough, Candide views Cunégonde as a paragon of female morality, and so he is willing to "save" her from the Grand Inquisitor and Don Issachar, who both use her as a sex slave. He slays the two men as a symbol of his undying love to her, which he never lets go of--even when she leaves him for Don Fernando in the superficial pursuit of riches. To him she can do no wrong, even though this is clearly an indication that she is not nearly as dedicated to him as he is to her. This twist in their relationship reminds me of today's idea that "nice guys finish last," when a male is too giving, kind, and generous. Typically, these kinds of guys are seen as either trying to hard, or too easy to get by today's women. Candide would fit into this category, as he continuously tries and tries again to get to Cunégonde, even though she blatantly chose another man over him. When she hits a bump in the road, she returns to Candide, even though the passion isn't really there on her part. In today's society, this also occurs--when you are wronged by the mysterious choice, you go for the one who basically worships the ground you walk on as a temporary crutch.
Cunégonde plays up her role as a damsel in distress repeatedly throughout the novel, which I believe is illustrated by her incessant fainting in the face of danger. In Chapter VIII, her dramatic nature is exposed from the getgo. She begins her story with "I was in bed and fast asleep...A tall Bulgarian soldier, six feet high, seeing that I had fainted at this sight, attempted to ravish me. At that I recovered my senses. I cried, I struggled, I bit, I scratched... " Her descriptions are all dramatized and attempts to evoke sympathy from Candide, and they never fail to be effective. This aspect of Cunégonde's personality is seen in today's society as well, in the same exact way. Women oftentimes play up their vulnerability in order to get attention from men.
As I continued reading, I could not fathom why Candide remains faithful to this image of Cunégonde as his ideal mate, because to me, she is clearly manipulative and shallow. She has no real redeeming qualities, but for some reason, Candide remains obsessed with her. Perhaps this is because Candide is neither complex nor intelligent, but merely a product of naivite, desiring to make Cunégonde into the figure he has created in his mind. I do suppose that birds of a feather flock together, and so ultimately, when Candide and Cunégonde do wind up together, it makes sense because they equally lack depth and conviction, but the question that eats at me remains. Both in Candide and in today's romances, what makes us idolize these images we create of someone that are such obvious deviations from the person's true self?
Reason over Religion in Candide
I would argue that this story stands as a work that says that men of reason are more ethical than the morally corrupt men of the cloth. The whole work praises the optimist teachings of a philosopher named Dr. Pangloss whilst it demonizes Catholic Church leaders. The only religious person to be displayed in a positive light is a Protestant who appears only briefly in the text. This argument is supported every time we encounter a religious person.
The first mention of religion comes in the form of James, an Anabaptist that helps Candide. James, who is described as “good” and “honest”, saves Candide’s life but is then subsequently drowned by a sailor. This positive portrayal of a Protestant then sets up a dichotomy where all of the other Catholic Church leaders are then found to have committed one or more sins and are contributors to Candide’s disillusionment of the morals of humanity rather than confirming the positive outlook on the world taught to him by Dr. Pangloss.
Then the first mention of a Jesuit is when Pangloss traces the origins of an STD that he contracted from a “pretty wench”. The Jesuit supposedly got the disease from novice under the service of Christopher Columbus and then the Jesuit gave the disease to a page. Thus with at least two sexual partners the Jesuit is not following his celibacy vows and is thus made a hypocrite.
The next holy man we meet is an Inquisitor that burns, hangs, and whips so-called offenders in a ritual called auto-de-fé in order to “hinder the earth from quaking” including: a Biscayner that married his godmother, two Portuguese men who rejected bacon that larded a chicken they were eating, Dr. Pangloss for “speaking his mind” and Candide for listening to Dr. Pangloss. This same Inquisitor threatened Don Issachar with the auto-de-fé if he does not share Cunegonde with him. So a holy man who is supposed to be celibate is actively pursuing a woman, violently murdering or injuring men in a ritual that seems less Christian and more of a human sacrifice akin to the Aztecs. And he also threatens a man’s life which paints a far from devout portrait of a priest.
Then when the priests of the Brotherhood find both the Inquisitor and Don Issachar slain they interred the Inquisitor into a “handsome church” and then they threw the body of Don Issachar (a Jewish man) on a dunghill. It would make perfect sense that they would take special care of a fallen brother (even though he was corrupt) because it is respectful to do so. Even though Don Issachar was a man of questionable morals and of a different faith, the priests should have given him a proper burial out of the mere shred of respect that the deceased deserve. Instead they defile his remains because of, I presume, primarily due to his faith rather than the circumstances surrounding his death.
Then further into their travels, a Grey Friar steals the money and jewelry of Cunegonde and this is confirmed later when he is caught.
The next and more detailed portrait is that of a Jesuit Commander who also happens to be the Baron (Cunegonde’s brother). Even though the Jesuits take a vow of poverty, he goes against that vow with home filled with expensive furnishings including gold marble, rare birds, gold vessels, and crystal goblets. In fact Cacambo comments before they even reach Jesuit territory that the “…Fathers possess all, and the people nothing; it is a masterpiece of reason and justice”. Furthermore the Commander strikes Candide in the face with the back of his sword prompting Candide to kill him with one blow. This priest, though an old friend of Candide, lives a life of luxury and is prone to violence. The local people attack Candide when they think he is a Jesuit and then praise him when they find out that he has murdered a Jesuit.
And lastly another portrait, this time of Friar Giroflée is one of a priest who hates the holy life and says that his brothers in the monastery have the same disgust at their lives. He said that his parents forced him into this life and that jealousy and fury run rampant in his heart. Also he says that the Prior steals half of his money and that he himself spends the rest on girls. In his portrait he says that all priests despise their lives and are envious of those who do not have to live the holy life. He also hints to church corruption in how much money is taken from him as well as his own corruption as a priest who lusts after women.
Considering all of this, Candide is the hero for whom we sympathize and yet he kills two priests. This plot point gets to the heart of the matter that the Catholic Church is corrupt in the portrayal given in this narrative. Modern examples of books that have been banned for attacking the Catholic Church or Christianity in general include The Da Vinci Code as well as The Golden Compass. In these novels the main villain is a murderous Monk who is a member of the sinister Catholic group Opus Dei in The Da Vinci Code and The Golden Compass supposedly attacks organized religion and was banned by The Catholic League.
The first mention of religion comes in the form of James, an Anabaptist that helps Candide. James, who is described as “good” and “honest”, saves Candide’s life but is then subsequently drowned by a sailor. This positive portrayal of a Protestant then sets up a dichotomy where all of the other Catholic Church leaders are then found to have committed one or more sins and are contributors to Candide’s disillusionment of the morals of humanity rather than confirming the positive outlook on the world taught to him by Dr. Pangloss.
Then the first mention of a Jesuit is when Pangloss traces the origins of an STD that he contracted from a “pretty wench”. The Jesuit supposedly got the disease from novice under the service of Christopher Columbus and then the Jesuit gave the disease to a page. Thus with at least two sexual partners the Jesuit is not following his celibacy vows and is thus made a hypocrite.
The next holy man we meet is an Inquisitor that burns, hangs, and whips so-called offenders in a ritual called auto-de-fé in order to “hinder the earth from quaking” including: a Biscayner that married his godmother, two Portuguese men who rejected bacon that larded a chicken they were eating, Dr. Pangloss for “speaking his mind” and Candide for listening to Dr. Pangloss. This same Inquisitor threatened Don Issachar with the auto-de-fé if he does not share Cunegonde with him. So a holy man who is supposed to be celibate is actively pursuing a woman, violently murdering or injuring men in a ritual that seems less Christian and more of a human sacrifice akin to the Aztecs. And he also threatens a man’s life which paints a far from devout portrait of a priest.
Then when the priests of the Brotherhood find both the Inquisitor and Don Issachar slain they interred the Inquisitor into a “handsome church” and then they threw the body of Don Issachar (a Jewish man) on a dunghill. It would make perfect sense that they would take special care of a fallen brother (even though he was corrupt) because it is respectful to do so. Even though Don Issachar was a man of questionable morals and of a different faith, the priests should have given him a proper burial out of the mere shred of respect that the deceased deserve. Instead they defile his remains because of, I presume, primarily due to his faith rather than the circumstances surrounding his death.
Then further into their travels, a Grey Friar steals the money and jewelry of Cunegonde and this is confirmed later when he is caught.
The next and more detailed portrait is that of a Jesuit Commander who also happens to be the Baron (Cunegonde’s brother). Even though the Jesuits take a vow of poverty, he goes against that vow with home filled with expensive furnishings including gold marble, rare birds, gold vessels, and crystal goblets. In fact Cacambo comments before they even reach Jesuit territory that the “…Fathers possess all, and the people nothing; it is a masterpiece of reason and justice”. Furthermore the Commander strikes Candide in the face with the back of his sword prompting Candide to kill him with one blow. This priest, though an old friend of Candide, lives a life of luxury and is prone to violence. The local people attack Candide when they think he is a Jesuit and then praise him when they find out that he has murdered a Jesuit.
And lastly another portrait, this time of Friar Giroflée is one of a priest who hates the holy life and says that his brothers in the monastery have the same disgust at their lives. He said that his parents forced him into this life and that jealousy and fury run rampant in his heart. Also he says that the Prior steals half of his money and that he himself spends the rest on girls. In his portrait he says that all priests despise their lives and are envious of those who do not have to live the holy life. He also hints to church corruption in how much money is taken from him as well as his own corruption as a priest who lusts after women.
Considering all of this, Candide is the hero for whom we sympathize and yet he kills two priests. This plot point gets to the heart of the matter that the Catholic Church is corrupt in the portrayal given in this narrative. Modern examples of books that have been banned for attacking the Catholic Church or Christianity in general include The Da Vinci Code as well as The Golden Compass. In these novels the main villain is a murderous Monk who is a member of the sinister Catholic group Opus Dei in The Da Vinci Code and The Golden Compass supposedly attacks organized religion and was banned by The Catholic League.
What does it matter?
At the end of every chapter of Voltaire’s Candide, Candide speculates on the answers to philosophical questions. Pangloss, who first suggests to Candide that this is the “best of all possible worlds,” (pg. 1) creates the need for an answer to questions that may not have an ultimate answer. One of the first times Candide witnesses atrocities that might challenge Pangloss’ optimistic claim, he describes war as “heroic butchery” (pg. 5). “Heroic butchery” acts as an oxymoron that makes Candide question not only a cause and effect relationship, but a “sufficient reason” that would merit “heroic butchery” in the “best of all possible worlds”. Candide does not find such a “reason” and so he flees the military only to encounter more suffering.
Candide, in his escape from the war, reconnects with Pangloss, who claims that he is dying from an infection derived directly from Columbus, but steadfastly holds onto his hope and optimism, saying,
It was a thing unavoidable, a necessary ingredient in the best of worlds; for if Columbus had not in an island of America caught the disease, which contaminates the source of life, frequently even hinders generation, and which is evidently opposed to the great end of nature, we should have neither chocolate not cochineal. (pg. 8)
Pangloss explains that a disease that “contaminates the source of life”, “hinders generation”, and resists “the great end of nature” is acceptable, even “necessary” so that the world might have “chocolate”. Such an absurd comparison emphasizes not only the ridiculousness of Pangloss’ theory, but also the ridiculousness of the human desire for an ultimate answer about the nature of the world. Voltaire even goes so far as to suggest that attempting to answer the questions Candide spends his life trying to answer are a waste of time. James is the first person to present another theory for Candide to consider; opposed to Pangloss, James concludes that “mankind have a little corrupted nature…God has given them neither cannon of four-and-twenty pounders, nor bayonets; and yet, they have made cannon and bayonets to destroy one another” (pg. 9). The idea that “nature” has descended into “corruption” from its state of innate goodness is one that Candide will come back to as he questions the suffering of those he meets. On the other hand, when Candide encounters goodness, kindness and pure luck, he restores his hope in Pangloss’ ideal, rejecting James’ pessimism.
Martin presents yet another point of view for Candide to consider; when Candide asks Martin if “men have always massacred each other as they do to-day” (pg. 55), Martin merely asks Candide if “hawks have always eaten pigeons when they have found them?” (pg. 55) in order to challenge Candide, asking, “if hawks have always had the same character why should you imagine that men have changed theirs?” (pg. 55). Martin, James, and Pangloss create a spectrum of philosophical ideas, ranging from the most optimistic idealism, represented by Pangloss to the most pessimistic hopelessness, represented by Martin. Voltaire, by exploring Candide’s grapple with each point of view does not calue one over another, but highlights the wastefulness of asking such questions and the human nature of needing answers. Finally, Candide comes to the conclusion that they “must cultivate [their] garden” (pg. 87). Calling to mind the “Garden of Eden” (pg. 87), Pangloss agrees that, “man was not born to be idle” (pg. 87). In putting to rest their “disputes” (pg. 87), the characters are able to recreate the “Edenic” world they wish for. It is not in discovering the nature of the world in which goodness lies, but the creation of good through man’s free will.
I thought that Voltaire’s depiction of Candide was shockingly accurate as a satire because people really do walk through life looking for answers to questions. First of all, the answers may not even exist, but even if they do, what will knowing them really accomplish? What does it matter if the nature of the world is good, bad, or somewhere in between? Lately, I have been looking back at the last three years, marveling at how much I have changed since I entered college. At eighteen, I really did think I had everything figured out; I thought I knew what I wanted to do, what I believed in, my opinions on everything, and who I was. The idea of uncertainty sent me into a panic, but why? Where do we learn that answers are more important than questions? In class each week, we talk about the questions that each work brings up and how much we love facing those tough questions, how much they help us learn about ourselves and how much they motivate us to learn more and respond accordingly. Answers don’t motivate, they even can end a line of thought that might otherwise be continued.
Last night, my sister, brother-in-law and I sat in their living room and watched The History Channel special, “JFK: Three Shots that Changed America”. For hours on end we were not only mesmerized by this television show, but we wikipedia’ed JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, JFK Jr., Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr. AND we watched the Zapruder film of the assassination repeatedly (even in slow motion). We discussed our opinions on the controversy to the point that my sister and I were creeped out to go to bed. We had to watch a couple episodes of “Say Yes to the Dress” on TLC before we could calm down and get to sleep. Why were we so addicted to the truth of JFK’s assassination; what consequence does this have in either of our lives? I was not even born for 25 years after Kennedy died. It was a complete waste of all of our time and energy, but we wanted to know! Who killed Kennedy? Was it a conspiracy or did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone? Who delivered the fatal shot? Where was it fired from: the book depository or the grassy knoll?
On one hand, I wish I did not care about answers that have absolutely no effect whatsoever on my life, but at the same time is it okay to explore curiosities? At what point am I wasting my time?
Saturday, October 17, 2009
How 'Ever the Optimist' Became a Derogatory Phrase
Though I'm the first to comment on this week's reading, I'm going to delve right into the fun, philosophical stuff.
While reading Candide, I was surprised to see how long Candide actually held out in his Optimism. Though he had doubts early on, he never actually gave up on Pangloss's teachings until at least half way through. I couldn't believe the resolve he had! Who in the real world actually puts up with that much crap and still believes that everything is for the greater good?
Here I'm going to use optimism in the general term, because you can essentially interpret it in two ways: optimism in life (small o), and Optimism in God (the philosophical stance). I felt like the question of God was almost on the back burner throughout Candide, especially since he never really doubted that God existed and was good, but just that the world was not "all" good. Optimism in life, on the other hand, investigates more the question of events, and whether or not each one is essentially for the "greater good."
I was at service learning last week, and I had to help the students complete a worksheet. I was working with a particularly troublesome group of boys in the class, about five or six of them, and though extremely bright (seriously, these kids are smart!) they didn't want to do their work. They started talking, and of course this escalated into teasing. I'm not going to say exactly what these children said to each other, but I will basically sum it up for you: one kid taunted another saying he was dumb and was going to end up "like his daddy," in jail.
Even more shocking, was that the kid agreed with him, and stared downcast at his paper for a good ten seconds.
So I, being one of those people who hates showing emotion, just kept pushing on with the assignment. Later on, however, I couldn't forget what I had heard. Even worse, I was remembering things that had escaped my memory (or things I just didn't want to remember hearing)-- a girl in the class had, one day, forgotten her lunch and called her mother to see if she would bring it to school for her. After a few minutes on the phone, the girl said, "She won't come. She can't even get her butt off the couch to get a job." The girl had said this to herself more than I, so naturally I pretended not to hear her.
What do these experiences have to say about optimism in general? The first one with the boys is quite obvious, though the second one is a bit more complex. The boy being taunted clearly wasn't very optimistic about his own future; he let the jabs of the other boy get to him, and actually agreed that his fate was already sealed. The little girl, on the other hand, was so convinced of her mother's ways that there wasn't even a chance it could be differently.
This makes me wonder if the modern era has gotten rid of optimism in all forms: 'prepare for the worst', 'what goes around comes around', 'This would happen to me' are all catch phrases that are heard frequently. Candide would obviously agree that optimism, in this sense as well as in the traditional sense, is ridiculous and should be discarded as a philosophical ideal. However, I think there might be something that could redeem us all from this anti-"best possible world," and Candide reveals it at the end of its story.
Doing in itself, taking action, being productive can lead to differing events in history, which could potentially help the true 'greater good'. In Candide, if Pangloss hadn't held him back, Candide could have probably saved "Honest" James from his watery death in the storm at sea. By going ahead and taking this class, I am getting one step closer to my English degree. By cultivating his garden, Candide is taking action in the events of his own life.
Hopefully that boy, who was once challenged in his optimism, will continue to take action in his studies, and take the wheel in his own life. Our concern, then, should be with those who don't take action, like the mother on the couch. What else, then, could happen to her other than "misfortune"? I think Candide doesn't rule out good things happening by chance (or seemingly by chance), but it does emphasize that the only way to make life "tolerable" is by not being idle.
And that is something I should probably think about the next time I'm sitting in front of the TV.
While reading Candide, I was surprised to see how long Candide actually held out in his Optimism. Though he had doubts early on, he never actually gave up on Pangloss's teachings until at least half way through. I couldn't believe the resolve he had! Who in the real world actually puts up with that much crap and still believes that everything is for the greater good?
Here I'm going to use optimism in the general term, because you can essentially interpret it in two ways: optimism in life (small o), and Optimism in God (the philosophical stance). I felt like the question of God was almost on the back burner throughout Candide, especially since he never really doubted that God existed and was good, but just that the world was not "all" good. Optimism in life, on the other hand, investigates more the question of events, and whether or not each one is essentially for the "greater good."
I was at service learning last week, and I had to help the students complete a worksheet. I was working with a particularly troublesome group of boys in the class, about five or six of them, and though extremely bright (seriously, these kids are smart!) they didn't want to do their work. They started talking, and of course this escalated into teasing. I'm not going to say exactly what these children said to each other, but I will basically sum it up for you: one kid taunted another saying he was dumb and was going to end up "like his daddy," in jail.
Even more shocking, was that the kid agreed with him, and stared downcast at his paper for a good ten seconds.
So I, being one of those people who hates showing emotion, just kept pushing on with the assignment. Later on, however, I couldn't forget what I had heard. Even worse, I was remembering things that had escaped my memory (or things I just didn't want to remember hearing)-- a girl in the class had, one day, forgotten her lunch and called her mother to see if she would bring it to school for her. After a few minutes on the phone, the girl said, "She won't come. She can't even get her butt off the couch to get a job." The girl had said this to herself more than I, so naturally I pretended not to hear her.
What do these experiences have to say about optimism in general? The first one with the boys is quite obvious, though the second one is a bit more complex. The boy being taunted clearly wasn't very optimistic about his own future; he let the jabs of the other boy get to him, and actually agreed that his fate was already sealed. The little girl, on the other hand, was so convinced of her mother's ways that there wasn't even a chance it could be differently.
This makes me wonder if the modern era has gotten rid of optimism in all forms: 'prepare for the worst', 'what goes around comes around', 'This would happen to me' are all catch phrases that are heard frequently. Candide would obviously agree that optimism, in this sense as well as in the traditional sense, is ridiculous and should be discarded as a philosophical ideal. However, I think there might be something that could redeem us all from this anti-"best possible world," and Candide reveals it at the end of its story.
Doing in itself, taking action, being productive can lead to differing events in history, which could potentially help the true 'greater good'. In Candide, if Pangloss hadn't held him back, Candide could have probably saved "Honest" James from his watery death in the storm at sea. By going ahead and taking this class, I am getting one step closer to my English degree. By cultivating his garden, Candide is taking action in the events of his own life.
Hopefully that boy, who was once challenged in his optimism, will continue to take action in his studies, and take the wheel in his own life. Our concern, then, should be with those who don't take action, like the mother on the couch. What else, then, could happen to her other than "misfortune"? I think Candide doesn't rule out good things happening by chance (or seemingly by chance), but it does emphasize that the only way to make life "tolerable" is by not being idle.
And that is something I should probably think about the next time I'm sitting in front of the TV.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Connections
Throughout the semester we have been reading materials which all share a common theme; moral dilemmas and decisions. Every novel or short story consists of characters who are challenged with making choices that will affect the greater good.
In Huck Finn we are introduced to Huck, a young boy with a troubled past who run’s away from his father, leaving him to live on his own and eventually with a runaway slave, Jim. Not only do we see Huck’s morals developing, but we also see him making choices which challenge the norms of society in order to do what he feels is right.
Aristophanes’ Lysistrata is no different. The women of the city must choose to take a stance in order to attempt to put a stop to the war that has consumed their husbands. The women are portrayed as being very sexual creatures who are also very capable and self sufficient. Personally, I think it is not only shocking but important that the women are depicted as being sexual beings considering still today power and sexuality seem to go hand in hand. Taking a stand against the majority of society, the men of the city, and the local polis means that they too are turning against the everyday standards set by society.
Shakespeare is also quite successful in putting into perspective the challenges that individuals face within a community. In Twelfth Night the reader is introduced to Viola, a female character who chooses to disguise herself as a male in order to seek shelter from life, just as Lady Olivia does. When a love triangle arises between the Duke, Cesario (the male Viola), and Lady Olivia, Viola is faced with the decision to set everyone straight or not. We also see the developing of the Duke as the play progresses; while in the beginning of the play his loved was based on aesthetic traits by the end he is able to see the deeper sides of the characters, specifically Viola.
“The Service of Faith and Promotion of Justice in Jesuit Higher Education”, the Kolvenbach essay we read stresses the importance of putting one’s beliefs into action. This is the ultimate concept that ties the books, short stories, plays, we have read thus far together. All of the characters are responsible to themselves and in a sense society to challenge the everyday or typical standards and roles put in place by society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)