martes, 20 de octubre de 2009
lunes, 19 de octubre de 2009
The Safe Side.
I was not in the mood of writing a blog tonight. Still, as I finished chapter 8 I could not help but think how I for the first time I could relate to any topic this book talks about. Have you ever felt that a teacher has favorite students and that he bothers you just for no reason? Or that maybe your parents treat your brother or sister better than you? If you are a typical teenager then you may know what I am talking about.
Every time something like that happened to me I could not help but think why, why do they choose the others over me? This chapter talks more about the relationship between a mother and her off springs still what I was able to understand was that the reason for having preferences all refers back to the selfish gene. “She can do her genes more good by investing a fair proportion of her resources in her children”(127). When a mother chooses one son over the other it is because in the end the choosing of that particular child will benefit her more.
What we must think about this know is that when they choose someone over you it does not mean they are against you. It means that they are being selfish and that before thinking in you they consider what will benefit them and stick to that plan. At the end of the chapter Richard Dawkins states that “if there is a human moral to be drawn, it is that we must teach our children altruism, for we can not except it to be part of their biological nature”(139). We can’t expect it to happen but we can hope for it. There is nothing that says that we can’t be biologically generous. Still, to be on the safe side I do agree with Dawkins that it should to be taught because as we have seen genes and humans are more likely to be selfish in every aspect of life.
Every time something like that happened to me I could not help but think why, why do they choose the others over me? This chapter talks more about the relationship between a mother and her off springs still what I was able to understand was that the reason for having preferences all refers back to the selfish gene. “She can do her genes more good by investing a fair proportion of her resources in her children”(127). When a mother chooses one son over the other it is because in the end the choosing of that particular child will benefit her more.
What we must think about this know is that when they choose someone over you it does not mean they are against you. It means that they are being selfish and that before thinking in you they consider what will benefit them and stick to that plan. At the end of the chapter Richard Dawkins states that “if there is a human moral to be drawn, it is that we must teach our children altruism, for we can not except it to be part of their biological nature”(139). We can’t expect it to happen but we can hope for it. There is nothing that says that we can’t be biologically generous. Still, to be on the safe side I do agree with Dawkins that it should to be taught because as we have seen genes and humans are more likely to be selfish in every aspect of life.
domingo, 18 de octubre de 2009
Totally Selfish.
Aggression can be defined as a behavior expected to cause harm or pain. Richard Dawkins identifies aggression between species as gene machines but he also states that “survival machines of the same species tend to impinge on each others’ lives more directly” (67) so then the most logical thing to do would be to kill our rival from the same specie. As I was thinking through this, the book asked me “why is it that all animals do not go all out to kill rival members of their species at every possible opportunity?” (68) That had never occurred to me before, I had heard of animals killing animals of their same species, but I never considered the fact that maybe we humans could do the same. The only answer I came up with was that we had not done, it was something that in our society was not considered good or normal.
According to Dawkins, we don’t do it because it may be worst for us. He uses a very clear example in the book that goes something like this: suppose that your enemies are C and B but B is also C’s enemy. If I kill B I am also favoring C by killing one of his enemies. This all goes back to selfishness and how in a way we don’t do this because it will jeopardize us. There is really no good point in killing our enemy because your other enemy may be gain from it instead of you. The author does not states this still I see it as way to relate to the title. We could kill other humans but we don’t because we are selfish. If killing one of our enemies benefits not only me but another person then I won’t do it. But what if killing my enemy would only benefit me, in that case we would kill our enemy. Wouldn’t we?
The author then talks about another concept. He shares Maynard Smith evolutionary stable strategy and how if a whole population id following one strategy that one is bets for the individual. Returning to my point stated above, humans are selfish, according to Dawkins we are selfish because of your genes so there has to be ESS for our genes in order for us to stop being selfish. This does not seem an easy task. I don’t know if it is possible at all, all I know is that it seems as the only solution until now.
According to Dawkins, we don’t do it because it may be worst for us. He uses a very clear example in the book that goes something like this: suppose that your enemies are C and B but B is also C’s enemy. If I kill B I am also favoring C by killing one of his enemies. This all goes back to selfishness and how in a way we don’t do this because it will jeopardize us. There is really no good point in killing our enemy because your other enemy may be gain from it instead of you. The author does not states this still I see it as way to relate to the title. We could kill other humans but we don’t because we are selfish. If killing one of our enemies benefits not only me but another person then I won’t do it. But what if killing my enemy would only benefit me, in that case we would kill our enemy. Wouldn’t we?
The author then talks about another concept. He shares Maynard Smith evolutionary stable strategy and how if a whole population id following one strategy that one is bets for the individual. Returning to my point stated above, humans are selfish, according to Dawkins we are selfish because of your genes so there has to be ESS for our genes in order for us to stop being selfish. This does not seem an easy task. I don’t know if it is possible at all, all I know is that it seems as the only solution until now.
viernes, 16 de octubre de 2009
Rendering Understandment.
I am going to be honest with you, I hate science although I find interesting I have never really understand it and it has always been my worst subject. So knowing that I had to read one chapter of The Selfish Gene tonight did not bring me much excitement, I was mentally prepared to concentrate a lot and still get lost in the middle of text. As Dawkins told me about DNA and the number of chromosomes we humans have I dozed of into space, I continue reading but all sudden the DNA talking stops and I am now reading about book and pages. I go back and read again because I was probably day dreaming but no, Dawkins was actually relating DNA to books on a shelf, “it is as though in every room of a gigantic building, there was a book-case containing the architects plans for the entire building.”(22) From the moment when I finished reading that sentence I wanted to continue reading and to see what other comparisons he would use and I would be able to understand.
In chapter 4 he surprised me again by saying “muscles are engines which, like the steam engine and the internal combustion engine, use energy stored in chemical fuel to generate mechanical movement.”(47) He compares our muscles and their function to machine to explain to us how these work. Later on, he compares our genes to computers and how both are programmed to the future plans without actually having to anything. Genes are given the instruction and will always control how are body is made, with this I understood that he wanted to prove the point that genes can control the behavior. I finished chapter 4 but the last thing he mentioned made me realize that this had to do with the title of the book and how we can be selfish not just because that is who we re or how we are raised but because of our genes.
Lastly, I want to thank Richard Dawkins for making me understand something about science with his comparisons, and I can’t wait to see with what will he surprise me next.
miércoles, 14 de octubre de 2009
Memoirs.
- Bright light. Shinning on me?
- Shadows,hiding in the night.
- She,whom he loved: her, who loved:him.
- I have been there, I am there now.
- It goes up the comes down. There was light, it was dark.
- Shadows,hiding in the night.
- She,whom he loved: her, who loved:him.
- I have been there, I am there now.
- It goes up the comes down. There was light, it was dark.
The Selfish Altruist.
I never imagined myself reading a science book. Then, before I knew it I was at my desk ready to read page one of: The Selfish Gene. Before I even started reading the first world I could not help but think of the title, The Selfish Gene, The Selfish Gene I kept repeating those three words in my mind. How can a book about science talk about selfishness? Nothing came up so I decided to start reading.
Richard Dawkins starts off his book by questioning the scientists, asking “have they discovered evolution yet?”(Page 1). Even if Darwin did propose a theory for evolution nothing is completely true and still “”philosophies and the subjects known to humanity are still thought almost as if Darwin had never lived.”(1) There are still doubts unclear that nobody has been able to figure out. Reading this, I still kept thinking what it had to with selfishness when Dawkins answered my question and told me, “my purpose is to examine the biology of selfishness and altruism”(1).
Later on, the book talks about genes, how the body serves as a protection for these, and how the strongest gene is the one that in the end will live longer than the rest. All the genes in our bodies are rivals against each other they are in constant competition to see which one won’t die and in the end which will be the most numerous. This is another way of saying that genes are selfish and that can be one of the reason why “anything that has evolved by natural selection should be selfish”(4) because whatever it may be it will always strive to become the best.
If man was born selfish, how can it become altruistic? There is no way for us to change the genes so that instead of being born selfish we are born altruistic. I wish there was way so that each person would contribute for a common good and not a personal one. Dawkins also believes this but he does state “that we may then at least have the chance to upset their design”(3) What could it be?
Richard Dawkins starts off his book by questioning the scientists, asking “have they discovered evolution yet?”(Page 1). Even if Darwin did propose a theory for evolution nothing is completely true and still “”philosophies and the subjects known to humanity are still thought almost as if Darwin had never lived.”(1) There are still doubts unclear that nobody has been able to figure out. Reading this, I still kept thinking what it had to with selfishness when Dawkins answered my question and told me, “my purpose is to examine the biology of selfishness and altruism”(1).
Later on, the book talks about genes, how the body serves as a protection for these, and how the strongest gene is the one that in the end will live longer than the rest. All the genes in our bodies are rivals against each other they are in constant competition to see which one won’t die and in the end which will be the most numerous. This is another way of saying that genes are selfish and that can be one of the reason why “anything that has evolved by natural selection should be selfish”(4) because whatever it may be it will always strive to become the best.
If man was born selfish, how can it become altruistic? There is no way for us to change the genes so that instead of being born selfish we are born altruistic. I wish there was way so that each person would contribute for a common good and not a personal one. Dawkins also believes this but he does state “that we may then at least have the chance to upset their design”(3) What could it be?
lunes, 12 de octubre de 2009
Man Was Not Born To An Easy Life.
When we walk through our path of life, different current push as in different directions. These currents lead us towards decision making. They can be influences, experiences, anything that happens in our everyday life. For Candide, these currents are two characters: Martin and Pangloss. One embraces pessimism and the other optimism, and he yet remains in the middle, in the duality of these two different philosophies.
In chapter 21 we are introduced to Martin, a man who later on accompanies Candide through his remaining adventures. Like Pangloss, he is also a philosopher but he believes “that man was created by the forces of evil and not by the forces of good” (4) He is a pessimist that firmly believes that nothing good con happen and that work is the only thing “to make life bearable” (144) Pangloss, believes the opposite, “that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds”(back cover) he sees all wrong that happens as if it were not important because in some way, that wrong has to be for the best.
Throughout the novel Candide lives through both of these philosophy as you could say man does throughout life. He mainly believes in Pangloss philosophy but then when he starts traveling with Martin he realizes how Pangloss was not always right and that Martin may have a point. While reading I asked myself what is optimism? And Candide answered that questions for me by saying “it’s the passion for maintaining that all is right when all goes wrong with us.”(86) Then I thought that pessimism should be the passion for maintaining that all goes wrong when it goes right. With this definition it becomes clear that weather you decide if you think negative or positive that all depends on you. Take Candide for example, there were some parts of the story where he questioned Pangloss philosophy and others when he did not agree with Martin. By situations that he lived, and that is what happens to all humans, Candide was able to figure out that you can’t choose one extreme because in life there are going to be good and bad moments.
There comes a point where neither of the two philosophies is strong enough so they contradict each other. We must not go to either of the two extremes but be aware that in life we are encounter to encounter situations where both of these are going to be needed. In the end the only thing that is true is that “when man was placed in the garden of Eden, he was put there to dress it and to keep it, to work, in fact; wich proves that man was not born to an easy life”(144)
In chapter 21 we are introduced to Martin, a man who later on accompanies Candide through his remaining adventures. Like Pangloss, he is also a philosopher but he believes “that man was created by the forces of evil and not by the forces of good” (4) He is a pessimist that firmly believes that nothing good con happen and that work is the only thing “to make life bearable” (144) Pangloss, believes the opposite, “that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds”(back cover) he sees all wrong that happens as if it were not important because in some way, that wrong has to be for the best.
Throughout the novel Candide lives through both of these philosophy as you could say man does throughout life. He mainly believes in Pangloss philosophy but then when he starts traveling with Martin he realizes how Pangloss was not always right and that Martin may have a point. While reading I asked myself what is optimism? And Candide answered that questions for me by saying “it’s the passion for maintaining that all is right when all goes wrong with us.”(86) Then I thought that pessimism should be the passion for maintaining that all goes wrong when it goes right. With this definition it becomes clear that weather you decide if you think negative or positive that all depends on you. Take Candide for example, there were some parts of the story where he questioned Pangloss philosophy and others when he did not agree with Martin. By situations that he lived, and that is what happens to all humans, Candide was able to figure out that you can’t choose one extreme because in life there are going to be good and bad moments.
There comes a point where neither of the two philosophies is strong enough so they contradict each other. We must not go to either of the two extremes but be aware that in life we are encounter to encounter situations where both of these are going to be needed. In the end the only thing that is true is that “when man was placed in the garden of Eden, he was put there to dress it and to keep it, to work, in fact; wich proves that man was not born to an easy life”(144)
jueves, 8 de octubre de 2009
Voltaire’s Utopia
From the first moment we start reading Candide we are introduced to Pangloss philosophy that “all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds”(back cover). As we continue reading we notice that where Candide lives and what he goes through is the complete opposite of what Pangloss states. In chapters 18 and 19, the characters reach a place called ElDorado where “the farmer and the landscape gardener had been equally busy in this countryside, and everything which served the needs of man was pleasing to the sight” (74). With this place is where Pangloss philosophy is reflected. “it is probably the country where all goes well”(77).
This place can also been seen as a utopia that Voltaire has created. A place where poverty does not exists and has “been sheltered from the greed of European nations, who have quite irrational lust” (79). He has created a place where there is no religion and no one is imprisoned. Even though Candide likes it there he still prefers to go back to where he came from. This brings me to say that that really a utopia does not exist, but each individual creates its own. What may be perfect for you may not be perfect to someone else. Candide agreed with the fact that everything in ElDorado was perfect, still he did not want to stay there because “I shall never be happy without Lady Cunegonde”(82) it is as if he’s utopia would be being with Lady Cunegonde.
Today nothing is a utopia but that is just what I think, for example Zhand Wei Wei professor at the Geneva school of Diplomacy and International Relations states in his article Eight Ideas Behind Chinas Success what he thinks makes China “one of the word’s largest economy”(NYT). He shares with us eight reasons that have made China become what it is now. In a way, what he shares is his view of a utopia because he feels that China is on some way perfect. For many people utopias don’t exist and they believe that nothing can be perfect, that there is always going to be suffering. Other people, likeZhang Wei Wei create their own utopia. That is up to us, weather we want to believe something perfect or face the fact that not “all is for the best”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/opinion/01iht-edzhang.html?scp=9&sq=utopia&st=cse
miércoles, 7 de octubre de 2009
Monkey Business
When it comes to cherish love and marriage, the most difficult decision of your life comes to be. You decide who you will love and surrender your love towards that person forever. Love is an inflexible aspect of Candide, evoked mainly through Lady Cunegonde herself. She feels love toward Candide, and Candide towards her, but ends submitting her love to Don Fernando. This clearly shows how, according to Voltaire’s satire, women tend to follow the wrong decisions in love and marriage. They tend to marry the one who's richer, the one who has more quartering’s, the one who's stronger. But never the one who loves them more. In case of Cunegonde, Candide.
Through the use of monkeys, Voltaire clearly mocks this aspect of women's tendency of love. Practically saying, she will even marry monkeys before marrying him who loves her. Candide himself encounters the case: "Why should you find it so strange that in some parts of the world monkeys obtain ladies' favours? they are partly human, just I am partly Spanish" (70). The monkeys are completely absurd in the scene. But that's why, they play the role of boosting the Voltarie's target essence. Through them the satire becomes evident. The worst of all is that it is true: monkeys are partly human. Then, why not marry a monkey? If we marry people who are partly Colombian, partly American, why not marrying someone who is partly human?
Through the use of monkeys, Voltaire clearly mocks this aspect of women's tendency of love. Practically saying, she will even marry monkeys before marrying him who loves her. Candide himself encounters the case: "Why should you find it so strange that in some parts of the world monkeys obtain ladies' favours? they are partly human, just I am partly Spanish" (70). The monkeys are completely absurd in the scene. But that's why, they play the role of boosting the Voltarie's target essence. Through them the satire becomes evident. The worst of all is that it is true: monkeys are partly human. Then, why not marry a monkey? If we marry people who are partly Colombian, partly American, why not marrying someone who is partly human?
martes, 6 de octubre de 2009
Satire In Disguise
Somebody once told me that if while reading the book Candide I found it boring I was not getting the purpose of the book. To tell you truth I got worried because I was finding the book boring and wasn’t laughing like everyone else. All of this changed after I read chapters 13 and 14. “I am the daughter of Pope Urban X” (page 49) with this Voltaire is criticizing the hypocrisy of religion, how the Pope did not follow the churches rule by having a daughter and how he did not protect her from all the misfortunes she lived through.
Voltaire employs satire when he targets the aristocracy, “Governor, Don Fernando d‘Íbaraa y Figueora y Mascarenes y Lampourdos y Souza a noblemen with degree of pride and appropriate to one who bore so many names.” (page 58). He mocks how this people always want to show how important they are and the amount of power and money they have. The hyperbole would be the long list of names. We find irony when the old lady tells Lady Cunegonde “you have only yourselves to blame if you do not become the wife of the greatest nobleman in South America with the most handsome of moustaches.”(59) this is both ironic and absurd, he is not the greatest nobleman man there is “he (…) assuming so imposing an attitude, and affecting such an arrogant bearing”(59) and the part about the mustache is random, is has nothing to do with weather he is a great nobleman or not.
Hence, satire is dominant through the essence of Voltaire's text. He employs it both directly and indirectly to target different aspects of society. In this case aristocracy. He has a target, now he ridiculizes the context in order to perform critique.
Voltaire employs satire when he targets the aristocracy, “Governor, Don Fernando d‘Íbaraa y Figueora y Mascarenes y Lampourdos y Souza a noblemen with degree of pride and appropriate to one who bore so many names.” (page 58). He mocks how this people always want to show how important they are and the amount of power and money they have. The hyperbole would be the long list of names. We find irony when the old lady tells Lady Cunegonde “you have only yourselves to blame if you do not become the wife of the greatest nobleman in South America with the most handsome of moustaches.”(59) this is both ironic and absurd, he is not the greatest nobleman man there is “he (…) assuming so imposing an attitude, and affecting such an arrogant bearing”(59) and the part about the mustache is random, is has nothing to do with weather he is a great nobleman or not.
Hence, satire is dominant through the essence of Voltaire's text. He employs it both directly and indirectly to target different aspects of society. In this case aristocracy. He has a target, now he ridiculizes the context in order to perform critique.
lunes, 5 de octubre de 2009
Living The Worst Or The Best.
Reading Candide chapter 12 twelve may me again think about in Pangloss philosophy. How “all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds”. Candide believes on this philosophy and so does Lady Cunegonde, even though they question it sometimes because of bad things that happen to them. It’s interesting to see how still after the philosophy had been proved wrong they still believe it. Even the same Pangloss being hanged proves that that way of thinking does not work. “”If this is the best of all possible worlds, he said to himself, what can the rest be like?”(37) it is hard for them to imagine what can actually be good, if what is supposed to be good really seems bad?
The old woman’s story is a perfect example for this. She has gone through rape, slavery, and poverty. Has been able to experience human evil and that contradicts Pangloss philosophy and his way of viewing life in such an optimistic way. What can be optimistic of all that happened to her? Telling her story she mentions how many people wanted to kill themselves including her, “a hundred times I wanted to kill myself, but always I loved life more.”(57). This may be a way of Voltaire saying that really it is up to you what you want to do with your life. After all the suffering she gone through, the normal thing to desire is to stop living in that miserable world but for some reason she still wanted to live. We are the ones who choose if in life we see things for the best or for the best worst.
I see it as if Voltaire was teaching us that lesson, when really he is making fun of those who actually think “that all is for the best”(20). Those optimistic people who at some point are pathetic. In life there are situation where no matter how optimistic you are you have to accept that a negative outcome will come, and that there is no way that the outcome may be for the best, it is bad but it happened because that’s life.
The old woman’s story is a perfect example for this. She has gone through rape, slavery, and poverty. Has been able to experience human evil and that contradicts Pangloss philosophy and his way of viewing life in such an optimistic way. What can be optimistic of all that happened to her? Telling her story she mentions how many people wanted to kill themselves including her, “a hundred times I wanted to kill myself, but always I loved life more.”(57). This may be a way of Voltaire saying that really it is up to you what you want to do with your life. After all the suffering she gone through, the normal thing to desire is to stop living in that miserable world but for some reason she still wanted to live. We are the ones who choose if in life we see things for the best or for the best worst.
I see it as if Voltaire was teaching us that lesson, when really he is making fun of those who actually think “that all is for the best”(20). Those optimistic people who at some point are pathetic. In life there are situation where no matter how optimistic you are you have to accept that a negative outcome will come, and that there is no way that the outcome may be for the best, it is bad but it happened because that’s life.
domingo, 4 de octubre de 2009
Two Different Ways Of Telling A Story.
Two stories. Two different people: Lady Cunegonde and the old woman. One purpose: to criticize. From the beginning of the story we are introduced to Lady Cunegonde. There was love present between her and Candide from the beginning of the story. The old lady appears afterward helping Candide in his time of need when Pangloss dies.
This two characters are complete opposites. Lady Cunegonde is the daughter of the baron and a beautiful woman. The old lady is the daughter of the pope and ha had a hard life. In chapters eight through eleven this two woman narrates their different stories. All throughout hers Lady Cunegonde is complaining on how terrible her life has been. “but I have been so terribly unfortunate in my affairs, that I have lost almost all hope.”(page 48) knowing her life has been much worse the Old Lady states how unbelievable it is the way she complains. “You haven’t had misfortunes like mine to bear. I assure you.”(page 48)
Voltaire uses the Old Lady story to criticize the high class people and to show how they are always complaining about insignificant details when really there are other people that’s suffer much more. Sure want Lady Cunegonde went through was hard but compared to the Old Lady story it was nothing. Many times we don’t realize this because the only bad things that happen to us and to the people around us are these insignificant details, so we make a big deal about. When really people that aren’t in our society suffer much more complicated things. Voltaire could have tried to teach us lesson by this or at least make us come to reason and realize that we should not complain about what happens to us but instead be grateful.
This two characters are complete opposites. Lady Cunegonde is the daughter of the baron and a beautiful woman. The old lady is the daughter of the pope and ha had a hard life. In chapters eight through eleven this two woman narrates their different stories. All throughout hers Lady Cunegonde is complaining on how terrible her life has been. “but I have been so terribly unfortunate in my affairs, that I have lost almost all hope.”(page 48) knowing her life has been much worse the Old Lady states how unbelievable it is the way she complains. “You haven’t had misfortunes like mine to bear. I assure you.”(page 48)
Voltaire uses the Old Lady story to criticize the high class people and to show how they are always complaining about insignificant details when really there are other people that’s suffer much more. Sure want Lady Cunegonde went through was hard but compared to the Old Lady story it was nothing. Many times we don’t realize this because the only bad things that happen to us and to the people around us are these insignificant details, so we make a big deal about. When really people that aren’t in our society suffer much more complicated things. Voltaire could have tried to teach us lesson by this or at least make us come to reason and realize that we should not complain about what happens to us but instead be grateful.
jueves, 1 de octubre de 2009
Was All Really Desingned For The Best?
How can we live the best of all possible worlds when disasters happen to us? I admire those people who still after they have experience the worst have a smile on their faces and say that we have to appreciate life and be thankful. It would really help if people thought like that instead of never detaching the bad things and staying in the past. In the book Slaughter House-Five, this is what Billy learns to do. At the beginning it seemed weird that Billy addressed war in such an indifferent way, as if it was not a big deal. Towards the end I learned that Billy does this in order to detach from the horror he lived. The bombing of Dresden clearly impacted Billy’s life, but if Billy was not able to try and leave that behind in the end it would be worst for him, because he would be the only one that would be affected. By remembering that and focusing on how that ruined his life, he will forever continue to ruin it. Referring to war as if it were not important allows Billy detach from trauma in order to continue his life.
Pangloss is always saying how “all was designed for the best.” Since Candide admires him so much, he believes this philosophy. At one point an earthquake occurs in the book, and then comes another earthquake. It is at this point where Candide questions this philosophy. “If this is the best of all possible worlds, he said to himself, what can the rest be like?” (page 37). Candide saw how not everything was perfect and that bad things occur that harm people, but if this is the best then you would not want to imagine the worst.
Voltaire uses this to show how absurd it is to believe this. “But when it comes to my dear Pangloss being hanged-the greatest philosopher (…)”(Page 37) By living life based on this way of thinking Pangloss ends up dead. Ironic isn’t it? How the person that most encourages us to follow this ends up dead. We have to learn to be realistic, and that in order to live a fine life we must find a balance in what we believe. We have seen how thinking that everything is perfect may not always lead to the best. The again thinking about the worst and allowing memories to ruin our future also does not work, we must find a way to think positive in order to achieve what we want, knowing that not everything is perfect and that we actually have to overcome certain obstacles.
Now I tell you, we must continue reading Candide to see if he will still follow this philosophy or if he will find the balance between both.
Pangloss is always saying how “all was designed for the best.” Since Candide admires him so much, he believes this philosophy. At one point an earthquake occurs in the book, and then comes another earthquake. It is at this point where Candide questions this philosophy. “If this is the best of all possible worlds, he said to himself, what can the rest be like?” (page 37). Candide saw how not everything was perfect and that bad things occur that harm people, but if this is the best then you would not want to imagine the worst.
Voltaire uses this to show how absurd it is to believe this. “But when it comes to my dear Pangloss being hanged-the greatest philosopher (…)”(Page 37) By living life based on this way of thinking Pangloss ends up dead. Ironic isn’t it? How the person that most encourages us to follow this ends up dead. We have to learn to be realistic, and that in order to live a fine life we must find a balance in what we believe. We have seen how thinking that everything is perfect may not always lead to the best. The again thinking about the worst and allowing memories to ruin our future also does not work, we must find a way to think positive in order to achieve what we want, knowing that not everything is perfect and that we actually have to overcome certain obstacles.
Now I tell you, we must continue reading Candide to see if he will still follow this philosophy or if he will find the balance between both.
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)
