The concept of memes that Dawkins gives his readers in Chapter 11, Memes: the new replicators, is one I truly enjoyed and closely related with the adventures of Macbeth. The definition Dawkins gives for memes, as being parts of culture which “propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation” (192). The idea of having a new evolutionary process in the concepts that surround us, even in our beliefs (as Dawkins so passionately explains his conclusions on believing in a God due to the immense psychological appeal) is something I find very interesting due to its modernistic approach to evolution.
Dawkins sticks to the needed characteristics he talked about in Chapter 2 in order for an entity to become a replicator, which are: “longevity, fecundity and copying-fidelity” (194). The author goes through each one of these characteristics explaining how thoughts are truly a form of replicators. Dawkins is able to maintain a Formal-Informal register even as he talks of how it was troublesome to conclude how memes could have copying-fidelity. “Here I must admit that I am on shaky ground. At first sight it looks as if memes are not high-fidelity replicators at all” (194). He writes as if he is truly trying to think, in a conversational mode to the reader in order to decipher the concept. This makes the piece flowing, entertaining and engaging, giving us a moment to rest our racing, about-to-explode mind. At the same time unfolding how Dawkins comes up with the interesting conclusions we have enjoyed throughout the book. This break is short however, for we are immediately driven to continue moving our eyes and minds at higher velocities through explanations that bring Dawkins to conclude that memes are high-fidelity replicators. Our highly creative author states that you have to break thoughts into specific pieces and understand that a thought ends up being an interpretation of a previous idea which carries the essence but not the identical, specific details.
This immortality of ideas and concepts that the author explains is vastly more influential than the gene immortality for reproducing individuals. Dawkins states that if “a scientist hears, or reads about, a good idea, he passes it on [. . .] if the idea catches on, it can be said to propagate itself, spreading from brain to brain” (192). This rapid movement of ideas is obviously more stable than genes which suffer a 50% loss in each generation. I began thinking of the meme immortality entity in the story of Macbeth where we see that the witches prediction influences not only Macbeth’s doings but those of his wife and his followers. The whole plot revolves along the communication of Macbeth’s future. The decisions that are made due to this predestination build up the tragedy which ultimately serves as an example of this same kind of immortality. The immortality of thought, the amazing power of all spoken and written means, the ultimate replicators of life.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Individuals Add Up
In Chapter Ten of Richard Dawkins’, The Selfish Gene, the reader is exposed to new understandings of the relationship between an individual and his community. Dawkins begins by explaining the selfish need of individual animals to get in the middle of their herd in order to reduce the “domain of danger by trying to position himself in a gap between other individuals” (168). I find it interesting how the thought of “its not going to be me” completely summarizes this selfish behavior. The scientific explanation Dawkins gives the reader to understand an animal’s behavior may seem too harsh, too scientific, but it makes complete sense. The effect Dawkins’ words have on a reader may be difficult due to the innate need of our hearts and minds to find feeling and morality behind these theories, but they are cold yet logical explanation of the events. It is our tendency to look for a softer explanation of things, the animals may be accompanying each other, they may be looking for food together, or maybe they simply like each other. The author repeatedly shows how this mentality is erroneous and misleading. It is our selfish genes which make us have selfish actions.
After going through a numerous quantity of examples Dawkins shows that “members of different species often have much to offer each other because they can bring different ‘skills’ to the partnership” (181). Within a species or between different species of animals, there is a constant necessity to lie on each other’s shoulders in order to survive. This interdependence can also be seen in our human, modern world as we can observe in the article, Nobel Prize For Chemistry Of Life, by Victoria Gill. The BBC News article talks about the recent award to Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Thomas Steitz and Ada Yonath from the Laboratories in Cambridge (UK), Yale University (US) and Weizmann Institute (Rehovot, Israel). The article shows how this year’s Nobel prize in Chemistry “is to be shared equally between the three scientists, who all contributed to revealing the ribosome's huge and complex molecular structure in detail.” (BBC News) International research in different fields is absolutely necessary for our scientific, medical, economic, social and political development. It is special to see how three different individuals from different backgrounds can work together and share such an important award as are the Nobels in the science field. This works as a perfect example of how, the “mighty, developed” humans can also share that animal tendency of working with each other selfishly in order to survive or in this case win a prize.
After going through a numerous quantity of examples Dawkins shows that “members of different species often have much to offer each other because they can bring different ‘skills’ to the partnership” (181). Within a species or between different species of animals, there is a constant necessity to lie on each other’s shoulders in order to survive. This interdependence can also be seen in our human, modern world as we can observe in the article, Nobel Prize For Chemistry Of Life, by Victoria Gill. The BBC News article talks about the recent award to Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Thomas Steitz and Ada Yonath from the Laboratories in Cambridge (UK), Yale University (US) and Weizmann Institute (Rehovot, Israel). The article shows how this year’s Nobel prize in Chemistry “is to be shared equally between the three scientists, who all contributed to revealing the ribosome's huge and complex molecular structure in detail.” (BBC News) International research in different fields is absolutely necessary for our scientific, medical, economic, social and political development. It is special to see how three different individuals from different backgrounds can work together and share such an important award as are the Nobels in the science field. This works as a perfect example of how, the “mighty, developed” humans can also share that animal tendency of working with each other selfishly in order to survive or in this case win a prize.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Lying For Immortality
Chapter 8 of Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene uncovers new thoughts and conclusions on the subject of child to parent lying, the war of generations. The game Dawkins plays with the idea of competition within brothers is extremely alarming and grotesque, even though it all genetically makes sense. The gained survival probability when killing one of the brothers, will make the selfish gene carrier survive over his altruistic brother. It becomes a matter of time before the only gene in the gene pool is the selfish gene, the message that makes the individual kill and survive. As the author describes how the mother bird will feed the hungriest child by the volume of chirping, he states that all children would be fed equally, until they are full, “in the best of all possible worlds, if individuals did not cheat” (130). The higher survival probability when the bird chirps louder to get more food than its siblings, will eventually kill off the birds who do not lie by chirping louder, or who do not have any energy to chirp from being underfed, making the gene which makes the bird chirp louder survive in the gene pool. It is the simple logic which attracts the reader to keep reading the book, not for didactic means but for the sense of observing otherwise complex situations.
As Dawkins concludes his chapter, after making the reader reflect on many approaches to the idea of the “winner” in the battle of generations, we can see how he gradually used his chapter in order to bring his final conclusion into existence. He states that “what will finally emerge is a compromise between the ideal situation desired by the child and that desired by the parent” (139). This is due to the needed balance between the two in order for the gene to survive both as a young individual and as a parent. If the gene works to be a prosperous baby but not as a successful parent the gene looses. It then becomes the obligation of the gene to work as a successful liar in order to survive. If he is able to cheat on his parent as a child sometimes and also catch the child lying as a parent, the survival machine survives giving immortality through lies, the tools for that extra survival probability.
As a final comment, Dawkins tells us that if there “is a human moral to be drawn, it is that we must teach our children altruism, for we cannot expect it to be part of their biological nature” (139). This perfectly fits with his idea of showing the reader a way of looking at people as the battleground of gene trial and error by following the survival of the fittest and show that we must be more aware of our effects on other individuals because our survival nature is truly despicable. What survives (and in this case we are the best example) is what lies and lacks morality, the end (survival) justifies whatever means (lying). I believe that humanity’s evolution depends on our efforts to diminish differences amongst race, sex, financial power, abilities and social classes and stimulate unity not only among humans but of humans with nature and our planet earth. The narcissistic tendencies of the survival of the most egoistic falls flat when the only solution is to unite efforts against years of unfettered financial and ecological abuse. Today anything that happens anywhere is likely to affect life millions of miles away. For example the raising of world wide petroleum prices by the largest petroleum producing nations (the selfish gene theory) affected the price of transportation for basic articles such as wheat that caused strikes in India, Mexico and African nations because of the rising costs of wheat staples such as bread. Many countries stopped industrial production to slow down fuel costs decreasing the profits of petroleum rich nations, so the selfish gene did themselves in. Another personal life example is when I bred canaries, the weaker baby canaries were sometimes “adopted” by the stronger female canaries and survived, while what looked like the stronger babies died because of inadequate mothering from their otherwise healthy mothers. In history the biggest changes come from great bravery from certain individuals (altruistic gene pools) that cost them their lives but changed the lives and dreams of all who witnessed their amazing lives.
As Dawkins concludes his chapter, after making the reader reflect on many approaches to the idea of the “winner” in the battle of generations, we can see how he gradually used his chapter in order to bring his final conclusion into existence. He states that “what will finally emerge is a compromise between the ideal situation desired by the child and that desired by the parent” (139). This is due to the needed balance between the two in order for the gene to survive both as a young individual and as a parent. If the gene works to be a prosperous baby but not as a successful parent the gene looses. It then becomes the obligation of the gene to work as a successful liar in order to survive. If he is able to cheat on his parent as a child sometimes and also catch the child lying as a parent, the survival machine survives giving immortality through lies, the tools for that extra survival probability.
As a final comment, Dawkins tells us that if there “is a human moral to be drawn, it is that we must teach our children altruism, for we cannot expect it to be part of their biological nature” (139). This perfectly fits with his idea of showing the reader a way of looking at people as the battleground of gene trial and error by following the survival of the fittest and show that we must be more aware of our effects on other individuals because our survival nature is truly despicable. What survives (and in this case we are the best example) is what lies and lacks morality, the end (survival) justifies whatever means (lying). I believe that humanity’s evolution depends on our efforts to diminish differences amongst race, sex, financial power, abilities and social classes and stimulate unity not only among humans but of humans with nature and our planet earth. The narcissistic tendencies of the survival of the most egoistic falls flat when the only solution is to unite efforts against years of unfettered financial and ecological abuse. Today anything that happens anywhere is likely to affect life millions of miles away. For example the raising of world wide petroleum prices by the largest petroleum producing nations (the selfish gene theory) affected the price of transportation for basic articles such as wheat that caused strikes in India, Mexico and African nations because of the rising costs of wheat staples such as bread. Many countries stopped industrial production to slow down fuel costs decreasing the profits of petroleum rich nations, so the selfish gene did themselves in. Another personal life example is when I bred canaries, the weaker baby canaries were sometimes “adopted” by the stronger female canaries and survived, while what looked like the stronger babies died because of inadequate mothering from their otherwise healthy mothers. In history the biggest changes come from great bravery from certain individuals (altruistic gene pools) that cost them their lives but changed the lives and dreams of all who witnessed their amazing lives.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Programming Selfish Survival
Self-interest seems to be the engine for development in Richard Dawkins’, The Selfish Gene. In Chapters 5 and 6 Dawkins exposes his beliefs on the programming genes make for the development of their survival machine. He states that all genes can do “is set it up beforehand; then the survival machine is on its own, and the genes can only sit passively inside” (52). He makes it obvious why genes can’t control the body they are in, due to the extremely slow communication he compares to that our planet would have with a planet in Andromeda, 200 light years from Earth. The genes are left with no other option than to try to use likes and dislikes to guide us through our lives for their survival. As I read this section, I felt as if inside every particle of my body was an individualistic piece that is searching for survival in my well-being and reproduction. It is as if I was programmed to make a message survive, something not to be taken in the philosophical definition of a life statement or something of that nature, but truly a message to survive.
The purpose of genes, as I can see from Dawkins’ perception is to program another body that serves as a protective capsule to surpass the barriers of life and survive in the existence and reproduction of copies. This road to immortality genes pick, by creating copies of their message in future generations of the body that guarded the original gene in the body of his carrier, is similar to Gilgamesh’s way to perpetuate himself in the actions, the history of his decisions. The history the genes have to leave behind in order to become immortal is by definition a message that works for the survival of the body that has to reproduce in order to carry its descendant. If it is for the benefit of the gene’s survival he could make “a body more likely to save somebody from drowning than its allele would” (62). It will probably be more beneficial for the gene to drown the other individual unless it is one of his descendants. Through emotional appeals to certain events, genes are able to program the carrier’s life to make it the most beneficial for them.
Another idea that I found interesting in these chapters was Dawkins’ description of human interests in pacts that are beneficial for all. He states that even in “human pacts there is a constant danger that individuals will stand to gain so much in the short term by breaking the pact that the pressure will be overwhelming” (73). The author uses different subjects (specially genes and humans) to generalize interesting conclusions of selfish behavior. Through the chapter we see how Dawkins changes the subject of his conclusions from the genes to the human individuals in order for us to see examples and make us reflect on our daily life encounters with human dilemmas. Readers are guided to think that the self-interested motives for our actions are due to our nature, our genes, sharp promoters of selfish survival. It is interesting to meditate on the possibility that we are each one of us, the victorious end result of thousands of years of the most fascinating microscopic warfare. Yet, when one looks at the difficult state of affairs for the majority of human masses who suffer dire poverty, lack of basic necessities, and are vulnerable and suffer daily, one truly wonders who are these “winners”.
The purpose of genes, as I can see from Dawkins’ perception is to program another body that serves as a protective capsule to surpass the barriers of life and survive in the existence and reproduction of copies. This road to immortality genes pick, by creating copies of their message in future generations of the body that guarded the original gene in the body of his carrier, is similar to Gilgamesh’s way to perpetuate himself in the actions, the history of his decisions. The history the genes have to leave behind in order to become immortal is by definition a message that works for the survival of the body that has to reproduce in order to carry its descendant. If it is for the benefit of the gene’s survival he could make “a body more likely to save somebody from drowning than its allele would” (62). It will probably be more beneficial for the gene to drown the other individual unless it is one of his descendants. Through emotional appeals to certain events, genes are able to program the carrier’s life to make it the most beneficial for them.
Another idea that I found interesting in these chapters was Dawkins’ description of human interests in pacts that are beneficial for all. He states that even in “human pacts there is a constant danger that individuals will stand to gain so much in the short term by breaking the pact that the pressure will be overwhelming” (73). The author uses different subjects (specially genes and humans) to generalize interesting conclusions of selfish behavior. Through the chapter we see how Dawkins changes the subject of his conclusions from the genes to the human individuals in order for us to see examples and make us reflect on our daily life encounters with human dilemmas. Readers are guided to think that the self-interested motives for our actions are due to our nature, our genes, sharp promoters of selfish survival. It is interesting to meditate on the possibility that we are each one of us, the victorious end result of thousands of years of the most fascinating microscopic warfare. Yet, when one looks at the difficult state of affairs for the majority of human masses who suffer dire poverty, lack of basic necessities, and are vulnerable and suffer daily, one truly wonders who are these “winners”.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Created By Selfishness
As I continued my ventures through Richard Dawkins’, The Selfish Gene, I acquired new insight into the perception of ancestry and the true, individual units of evolutionary life. An idea that caught my attention exposed the concept that the individually acquired knowledge and characteristics are individually lived up to, they are not genetically transferred. The final idea being that “each new generation starts from scratch” (23). This shows how each individual is independent to what his ancestors and genes have to say about it. The way in which Dawkins is able to limit the boundaries of genes affecting our individual traits is showing the path for his altruist and selfish genes theory to take place. The way he has characterized an individual as a composition of trials which can easily be disposed of, in order to support the “survival of the fittest” is similar to The Handbook of Epictetus, in the idea that in the end everything is crucial to the development of a master play. The Selfish Gene may not be a predestination based book but it surely shows that everything that makes us up, will eventually lead to the evolution of the gene, always applying the “survival of the fittest”.
Another interesting part of the chapter is when Dawkins develops the idea of a selfish and altruist gene. He states that “at the gene level, altruism must be bad and selfishness good” (36). The difference between the altruist and selfish gene comes down to the difference in survival rate it will have. We can see it at the individual level with the example of the bird that sings to tell the others that a predator is close. He will tend to be killed off by the predator due to the lower survival rate. Due to the competition to be the dominant gene in order to survive, you must do everything it takes to have that extra edge, in order to be part of the next generation’s sequence. There is no room for altruism if you want to survive.
We see this recurrent message once again at the DNA level. The author states that the “true ‘purpose’ of DNA is to survive, no more and no less” (45). We are thus assured that what is best ideologically (help the poor, weak and incapable) will not survive at the genetic level. There is an obligation in evolution, in natural selection, to do what is needed in order to be valuable for the DNA sequence to take you in. This competition that happens in the genetic level can also be seen in the human, social group level. I often see people who are entirely devoted to finding something that will make them more likely to be accepted in social groups or clubs that require certain characteristics. Is the struggle to fit in valuable if it isn’t for survival? Where will Dawkins take us with this new provoking point of view?
Another interesting part of the chapter is when Dawkins develops the idea of a selfish and altruist gene. He states that “at the gene level, altruism must be bad and selfishness good” (36). The difference between the altruist and selfish gene comes down to the difference in survival rate it will have. We can see it at the individual level with the example of the bird that sings to tell the others that a predator is close. He will tend to be killed off by the predator due to the lower survival rate. Due to the competition to be the dominant gene in order to survive, you must do everything it takes to have that extra edge, in order to be part of the next generation’s sequence. There is no room for altruism if you want to survive.
We see this recurrent message once again at the DNA level. The author states that the “true ‘purpose’ of DNA is to survive, no more and no less” (45). We are thus assured that what is best ideologically (help the poor, weak and incapable) will not survive at the genetic level. There is an obligation in evolution, in natural selection, to do what is needed in order to be valuable for the DNA sequence to take you in. This competition that happens in the genetic level can also be seen in the human, social group level. I often see people who are entirely devoted to finding something that will make them more likely to be accepted in social groups or clubs that require certain characteristics. Is the struggle to fit in valuable if it isn’t for survival? Where will Dawkins take us with this new provoking point of view?
Taught Vs. Predestined
As I began reading Richard Dawkins’, The Selfish Gene, I found it interesting how he is gradually able to state his conclusions with scientific support in a formal-informal register that lets the readers open to his ideas. In the first chapter he invites us to “try to teach generosity because we are born selfish” (3). Even though the reader may believe that human nature is sacred and perfect, even altruistic, it is hard to not notice the authority in his writing. I was immediately transformed into an open-minded reader, trying not to judge his ideas, it is an interesting strategy for the purpose of persuading his readers. This predetermined selfish beings, as we are classified, should become aware, as Dawkins states, that teaching is needed in order to try to become generous. It is an interesting approach to our human deficiencies, our needy self-centered egos that can only be shut down through teachings of generosity.
Due to the higher survival rate of a selfish individual or gene compared to an altruistic one there is a higher chance that through mutations the selfish one will survive we are left to confront the idea that we are natural selfish genes. Even though what Dawkins is concluding might sound a little extremist he immediately limits his thoughts to the concept that it might “just be more difficult to learn altruism than it would be if we were genetically programmed to be altruistic” (3). This kind of writing is absolutely appropriate to the final goal his writing is trying to achieve by limiting his thoughts in order for the reader to not be carried away into extracting the wrong conclusions. As a reader, I’m still waiting for Dawkins to uncover his main plot but from the first two chapters I was able to observe a different kind of writing which is gradually making the reader more engaged with it’s teachings.
Even though it is a different approach to what we have witnessed in other pieces such as Candide, Epictetus’ Handbook, and Slaughterhouse-Five there is some overlapping, as the difference between the idealistic and the confronting human being. Dawkins states that “we may frequently behave selfishly as individuals, but in our more idealistic moments we honor and admire those who put the welfare of others first” (9). This reminds me of Candide who lived supporting Pangloss’ thinking that “all is for the better”. The disappointment he confronts as he realizes how unfair our world is, is completely against what he believes in when not having to suffer life’s complex situations. The mediocre idealist in my opinion should no be heard, only the one that can stand up and act accordingly to what he believes in should be looked up to. It is then the obligation of the idealist to accept certain crude realities of our nature, as Dawkins is doing a the beginning of his book, to create a theory that can be supported and lived up to.
Due to the higher survival rate of a selfish individual or gene compared to an altruistic one there is a higher chance that through mutations the selfish one will survive we are left to confront the idea that we are natural selfish genes. Even though what Dawkins is concluding might sound a little extremist he immediately limits his thoughts to the concept that it might “just be more difficult to learn altruism than it would be if we were genetically programmed to be altruistic” (3). This kind of writing is absolutely appropriate to the final goal his writing is trying to achieve by limiting his thoughts in order for the reader to not be carried away into extracting the wrong conclusions. As a reader, I’m still waiting for Dawkins to uncover his main plot but from the first two chapters I was able to observe a different kind of writing which is gradually making the reader more engaged with it’s teachings.
Even though it is a different approach to what we have witnessed in other pieces such as Candide, Epictetus’ Handbook, and Slaughterhouse-Five there is some overlapping, as the difference between the idealistic and the confronting human being. Dawkins states that “we may frequently behave selfishly as individuals, but in our more idealistic moments we honor and admire those who put the welfare of others first” (9). This reminds me of Candide who lived supporting Pangloss’ thinking that “all is for the better”. The disappointment he confronts as he realizes how unfair our world is, is completely against what he believes in when not having to suffer life’s complex situations. The mediocre idealist in my opinion should no be heard, only the one that can stand up and act accordingly to what he believes in should be looked up to. It is then the obligation of the idealist to accept certain crude realities of our nature, as Dawkins is doing a the beginning of his book, to create a theory that can be supported and lived up to.
Monday, October 12, 2009
The Final Solution
As I read the final section of Candide I was glad to find a message, a life statement contrary to what Voltaire had made fun of through the novel. Even though teaching is not the main objective in Voltaire’s piece, he is able to leave the idea that working things out is the true objective in life. As the Turk farmer said, “we find that the work banishes those three great evils, boredom, vice and poverty” (143). As I wrote in my previous post, Changing For The Best, what we make of life’s blessings and unfortunate events is what differentiates a Gandhi or Dalai Lama from a regular person who is overwhelmed by life’s rapid shifts. This different approach to life, a look at the bigger picture, society and one’s possible role in aiding its evolution through productive work is what is necessary to overcome boredom, vice and poverty. One must find deep meaning for the journey. Voltaire shows this change in the mentality of his characters as a community change. The final message that we are not alone in the quest to overcome our inability to accept is necessary to include a fitting ending to his novel, which captured the mentality of many types of human beings: from the completely disappointed and depressed Martin to the extremely positive and light Pangloss.
Something that caught my attention as I read the last chapter of the book was the drastic change between the predetermined Pangloss (“all is for the better”) to the one that accepts the challenge to work in order to overcome life’s difficulties. As he discussed with Candide about why man was put in the garden of Eden he concludes that the final purpose was for him “to work, in fact; which proves that man was not born to an easy life” (143). Pangloss gives a new understanding to his life statement, he now accepts that man was indeed supposed to accept the unfortunate events of life but that it was up to the individual to make the best he could out of it.
Martin also undergoes a drastic transformation at the end of the book. As he discussed with Candide their adventures with Count Pococurante, I noticed a change in his negative, disappointed attitude that characterized him throughout the novel. Martin informs us that Plato once stated “that the best stomachs are not those that reject all food” (124). Martin is now an individual who believes that not liking anything in life is disastrous, he has realized how disappointing it is to be disappointed about everything in life and shows how nature embraces all. Are we supposed to live without any appreciation for what life has brought us? Voltaire is finally showing a way out of the limits of dry, bitter, cynical criticism and granting everyone a path towards a more fertile, warmer look at human life and society.
Something that caught my attention as I read the last chapter of the book was the drastic change between the predetermined Pangloss (“all is for the better”) to the one that accepts the challenge to work in order to overcome life’s difficulties. As he discussed with Candide about why man was put in the garden of Eden he concludes that the final purpose was for him “to work, in fact; which proves that man was not born to an easy life” (143). Pangloss gives a new understanding to his life statement, he now accepts that man was indeed supposed to accept the unfortunate events of life but that it was up to the individual to make the best he could out of it.
Martin also undergoes a drastic transformation at the end of the book. As he discussed with Candide their adventures with Count Pococurante, I noticed a change in his negative, disappointed attitude that characterized him throughout the novel. Martin informs us that Plato once stated “that the best stomachs are not those that reject all food” (124). Martin is now an individual who believes that not liking anything in life is disastrous, he has realized how disappointing it is to be disappointed about everything in life and shows how nature embraces all. Are we supposed to live without any appreciation for what life has brought us? Voltaire is finally showing a way out of the limits of dry, bitter, cynical criticism and granting everyone a path towards a more fertile, warmer look at human life and society.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Changing For The Best
An interesting gradual change we see in Candide is how his perception about the idea that “all is for the better” is completely transformed. As I have talked about in previous posts, Candide had been supportive and obstinate about Pangloss’ teachings even when living hard moments. In Chapters 18 and 19, we see clear examples of Candide’s disappointments about these teachings. As Candide encounters the slave who is missing a hand and a leg in Surinam, he says as if speaking to Pangloss: “A scandal like this never occurred to you! But it’s the truth, and I shall have to renounce that optimism of yours in the end” (86). This answers one of the big questions I have had in my mind. Voltaire is definitely showing a big change in Candide’s belief system, due to all the suffering he has lived and witnessed, in order to convince the reader how illogical it is to live thinking that “all is for the better”. Voltaire is belittling the idea of not having free will, he is trying to show that due to the atrocities we see it is impossible that they are happening in a predetermined fashion. His descriptions describe the idea of fate as gruesome and cruel.
Candide is also able to reach new conclusions about his daily adventures, as how he reacts to the loss of the majority of sheep that were carrying his new treasures back to Europe. He reflects on “how perishable are the riches of this world. There is nothing solid but virtue” (85). This is an interesting reaction to the great loss he has just experienced. This is a technique used by Voltaire in order to make the reader confident that Candide’s process of transformation is beginning. We now see Candide as an individual who is gradually realizing that maybe it isn’t true that “all is for the better”, but that our actions, which are chosen by us produce the ability to open new paths and options for us. Our actions determine our lives and not fate.
In the New York Times article Best of All Possible Worlds, Updated for the Paris Stage, I read some of the history Candide has as a world musical, and the way directors work out Voltaire’s satire. I find it interesting how the modern musical takes place in 1950’s America, and how it makes fun of the modern ideas and situations instead of recurring to the specific story Voltaire once wrote. Changing the Auto-da-fé in Portugal into an appearance with the Ku Klux Klan torch carriers and sailing from France to New York instead than from Spain to Argentina there are differences that change the setting but don’t alter the general objective of comparing fate to free will. One could argue, for the sake of being provocative that the fated part of life is the array of choices offered to an individual via genetics, family, historical moment, race, sex, social standing, physical abilities or ailments, etc. and that free will would be what you do with the specific set of limitations or favorable circumstances that each one of us is born into. Our real power would be in exercising our free will to transform that which was unfavorable into amazing, such as Helen Keller, Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama, Gandhi or Abraham Lincoln did with their fated circumstances.
Candide is also able to reach new conclusions about his daily adventures, as how he reacts to the loss of the majority of sheep that were carrying his new treasures back to Europe. He reflects on “how perishable are the riches of this world. There is nothing solid but virtue” (85). This is an interesting reaction to the great loss he has just experienced. This is a technique used by Voltaire in order to make the reader confident that Candide’s process of transformation is beginning. We now see Candide as an individual who is gradually realizing that maybe it isn’t true that “all is for the better”, but that our actions, which are chosen by us produce the ability to open new paths and options for us. Our actions determine our lives and not fate.
In the New York Times article Best of All Possible Worlds, Updated for the Paris Stage, I read some of the history Candide has as a world musical, and the way directors work out Voltaire’s satire. I find it interesting how the modern musical takes place in 1950’s America, and how it makes fun of the modern ideas and situations instead of recurring to the specific story Voltaire once wrote. Changing the Auto-da-fé in Portugal into an appearance with the Ku Klux Klan torch carriers and sailing from France to New York instead than from Spain to Argentina there are differences that change the setting but don’t alter the general objective of comparing fate to free will. One could argue, for the sake of being provocative that the fated part of life is the array of choices offered to an individual via genetics, family, historical moment, race, sex, social standing, physical abilities or ailments, etc. and that free will would be what you do with the specific set of limitations or favorable circumstances that each one of us is born into. Our real power would be in exercising our free will to transform that which was unfavorable into amazing, such as Helen Keller, Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama, Gandhi or Abraham Lincoln did with their fated circumstances.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
For The Best…
The determination of Candide to continue devoting his life to the idea that all is for the best is amazing. In previous posts I have talked about Cunégonde’s disappointment towards the teachings Pangloss had once so devoutly expressed and the beginnings of Candide’s realization that those teachings could not be true due to the great suffering he had lived. In Chapters 16-17 we see the obstinate Candide, Voltaire is now prepared to show his great disappointment and rejection of people that agree that all is for the best. Being kidnapped by the Oreillons, Candide states that no “doubt all is for the best, but I must say it is very cruel to have lost Lady Cunégonde and to be skewered by the Oreillons” (71). Voltaire is making fun of Candide, showing how even Candide thinks that this is not the best that could be happening. It is interesting how the author is able to make fun of him in his speech, the essence of Candide is shown to be simplistic and illogical in his words. How can all be for the best if you just lost the love of your life, your true single purpose and you are just to be eaten by a crazy group of people?
Candide also shows an appreciation for nature when problems are finally resolved. He says that when “all is said and done, there is a sterling goodness in unsophisticated Nature” (72). According to Candide, things may not work out exactly as you expect them to come out but they will be eventually be resolved and all will be good. In the link below you can find a short clip of the musical production of Candide. Between 0:29 and 0:54 there is a representation of the teachings of Pangloss and his brainwashed students which I found very comical. You can see how this part of the musical shows the four students to be absolutely absorbed in the words they are saying, it seems that what they’re telling is the most obvious truth they have ever had the opportunity to say. The representation is very credible since it shows the general image seen in Candide’s words about Pangloss’ teachings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPClzIsYxvA
Voltaire has great timing, he tells us only what we need to know in order to understand that he will continue his master joke. As Candide expresses his feelings towards Eldorado he states that it is “probably the country where all goes well [. . .] I often noticed that all went badly in Westphalia” (77). The comparison Candide makes between his old and new settings, is important for the reader to understand that the main character is still living based on the same old framework, even though he still criticizes what he lived in the past. We can observe a double-sided perception Candide has about this idea that all is for the better: he accepts it, and lives with it in his mind but his heart forces him to reject the horrible moment he has been through. It is as if you try to believe something that deep down you know not to be true, when in fact you have suffered immensely and it has become impossible to wrap this horrendous, stark reality into that light context.
Candide also shows an appreciation for nature when problems are finally resolved. He says that when “all is said and done, there is a sterling goodness in unsophisticated Nature” (72). According to Candide, things may not work out exactly as you expect them to come out but they will be eventually be resolved and all will be good. In the link below you can find a short clip of the musical production of Candide. Between 0:29 and 0:54 there is a representation of the teachings of Pangloss and his brainwashed students which I found very comical. You can see how this part of the musical shows the four students to be absolutely absorbed in the words they are saying, it seems that what they’re telling is the most obvious truth they have ever had the opportunity to say. The representation is very credible since it shows the general image seen in Candide’s words about Pangloss’ teachings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPClzIsYxvA
Voltaire has great timing, he tells us only what we need to know in order to understand that he will continue his master joke. As Candide expresses his feelings towards Eldorado he states that it is “probably the country where all goes well [. . .] I often noticed that all went badly in Westphalia” (77). The comparison Candide makes between his old and new settings, is important for the reader to understand that the main character is still living based on the same old framework, even though he still criticizes what he lived in the past. We can observe a double-sided perception Candide has about this idea that all is for the better: he accepts it, and lives with it in his mind but his heart forces him to reject the horrible moment he has been through. It is as if you try to believe something that deep down you know not to be true, when in fact you have suffered immensely and it has become impossible to wrap this horrendous, stark reality into that light context.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Wealth: The Difference Shifter
Sometimes, when we stop getting so obsessed and intense about reaching our goals, the energy starts to naturally flow and we receive more than what we ever expected. There are other situations that we have to be flexible, we have to learn how to use different strategies to reach our goals. In Candide, Voltaire is able to use Cacambo, Candide’s slave, in order to make fun of voltiarepas, people who use both opposite views to be rewarded to the maximum level from all sides have no morality. Cacambo states that when “you don’t get what you expect on one side, you find it on the other. Fresh sights and fresh adventures are always welcome” (62). This describes an individual who doesn’t stand up for what he is and believes in but uses everyone and everything for his benefit. Someone who does stand for what he thinks will be living a life full of meaning and character. It is interesting how this character brings a new workspace for Voltaire in the book. The character is passionate and tries to advise the easiest way to get out of situations. Will he remain loyal to Candide, or is he going to follow his advice and use the circumstances?
One of the satire targets in Chapters 14-15 is the military behavior. Our society sometimes forgets the human side of each soldier that fights for a country, the limitations and terror of war life as well as the distancing from their loved ones. As Candide and the Baron, brother of Cunégonde, meet we are shown the human side of this priest-soldier life. The natural side to family encounters as they “fell back in amazement, and then embraced each other and burst into tears” (64). Voltaire is both showing a reality of everyday life (the necessity of family even when at war) and making fun of how serious a military institution becomes, protecting a country’s ability to express its power through enlisted people who are forced to follow very difficult orders. This is only one of the examples of satire targeting in these chapters. We can also see how Voltaire continues making fun of people who live thinking that all is for the best and the idea that the power is carried by family.
Through the example of Candide killing the brother of Cunégonde the reader is assured that Voltaire is making fun of family disunity when power comes available. As the Baron makes fun of Candide thinking that he could marry the Baron’s sister we are shown how family unity is in danger when an integrant wants to marry a person from a different social class. We also see how Candide is still compromised with Pangloss’ teachings even after the suffering he has gone through. As Candide responds to the Barons insults he mentions that his “master Pangloss used to tell me that men are equal; and I shall marry her without hesitation” (67). We are confronted by a situation where differences in wealth change the perception that all men are created equal. This is something that we could also see in Slaughterhouse-Five, where Vonnegut’s equality among men is shared in the idea that life is destined to happen a certain way for specific events to happen, but there is a determining difference between the role each person is assigned to take. The relationship between Billy and Valencia shows this through the win-win situation that is shown. Valencia gains a relationship with a man who accepts her physical problems due to the substantial change in social class he will have if he marries her. In a way, Voltaire is showing how ridiculous life becomes if we believe that suffering is inevitable and meant to happen. There is an obligation to analyze as a reader how this equality is seen through Voltaire’s eye, a topic to be watched carefully in the following chapters.
One of the satire targets in Chapters 14-15 is the military behavior. Our society sometimes forgets the human side of each soldier that fights for a country, the limitations and terror of war life as well as the distancing from their loved ones. As Candide and the Baron, brother of Cunégonde, meet we are shown the human side of this priest-soldier life. The natural side to family encounters as they “fell back in amazement, and then embraced each other and burst into tears” (64). Voltaire is both showing a reality of everyday life (the necessity of family even when at war) and making fun of how serious a military institution becomes, protecting a country’s ability to express its power through enlisted people who are forced to follow very difficult orders. This is only one of the examples of satire targeting in these chapters. We can also see how Voltaire continues making fun of people who live thinking that all is for the best and the idea that the power is carried by family.
Through the example of Candide killing the brother of Cunégonde the reader is assured that Voltaire is making fun of family disunity when power comes available. As the Baron makes fun of Candide thinking that he could marry the Baron’s sister we are shown how family unity is in danger when an integrant wants to marry a person from a different social class. We also see how Candide is still compromised with Pangloss’ teachings even after the suffering he has gone through. As Candide responds to the Barons insults he mentions that his “master Pangloss used to tell me that men are equal; and I shall marry her without hesitation” (67). We are confronted by a situation where differences in wealth change the perception that all men are created equal. This is something that we could also see in Slaughterhouse-Five, where Vonnegut’s equality among men is shared in the idea that life is destined to happen a certain way for specific events to happen, but there is a determining difference between the role each person is assigned to take. The relationship between Billy and Valencia shows this through the win-win situation that is shown. Valencia gains a relationship with a man who accepts her physical problems due to the substantial change in social class he will have if he marries her. In a way, Voltaire is showing how ridiculous life becomes if we believe that suffering is inevitable and meant to happen. There is an obligation to analyze as a reader how this equality is seen through Voltaire’s eye, a topic to be watched carefully in the following chapters.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Conclusion Of The Thousand Miseries
In the character of the old woman in Candide, we find an individual who has developed an understanding of life, and gained a certain moral authority on other people’s lives, through her misery. The hardships the old woman lived became the reason for Candide and Cunégonde to trust and follow her advice. The old woman is also an interesting character for the way she feels about life. Even though she vividly describes the horrible tortures and events that have happened in her life, she is still fond of life. She states that she has wanted “to kill myself a hundred times, but somehow I am still in love with life” (57). The strong pull life has on our souls, our desire to live makes it easier for one to continue fighting, to not surrender under the burden of misery. Can we truly give up the only thing we were all generously gifted and that we will all have to eventually surrender any moment, like it or not? There is still this necessity to grip life harder and strive for our goals, for a better present that is yet to come.
The old woman gives the author a voice by which he criticizes people who live thinking that all is for the better in a rather different way as he has done so far in the book. Through the events that happen in Cunégonde’s and Candide’s life we are clearly shown the horrible and unjust events that can happen in any individual’s life, but through the voice of the old woman, we are shown the direct message Voltaire has wanted to carry throughout the whole novel. She says to Cunégonde and Candide as they are in the boat going to Buenos Aires that if you “persuade each passenger to tell you his story, and if you find even one who has not often cursed his life and told himself that he is the most miserable man alive, you can throw me into the sea head first” (57). It isn’t how horrible life has been for us, what unites us is the way we react to all the horrible moments of life. Finally what unites us is the thought that we are the unluckiest, the most miserable. What hope is there then in the boat of humanity, the boat of the “most miserable”? We are shown an ugly truth of our behavior as a community, the thought that we are all obsessed with our own little fate with absolutely no conscious awareness of the need to help our fellow inmates on the planet, instead we constantly compare and measure our drama with theirs. This division, this distance between me and you, and us and them, is the beginning of all our problems, all our wars. It is no longer a question of whether all is for the better, it’s more like if we continue to be so self absorbed and unconscious, it all inevitably will become the worse for all of us.
Another interesting approach the old woman gives us, relates to the way we, as individuals, work out how to keep on living after the complex situations we have had to overcome. She asks us why “be eager to grow on carrying a burden which one would gladly throw away, to loathe one’s very being and yet to hold it fast, to fondle the snake that devours us until it has eaten our hearts away” (57). This gives us the needed insight to conclude that Voltaire uses this character to make us open up to the possibility that what we all truly need as individuals is a way to share ourselves, to let our spirits say whatever they need, to continue living, to unload and share our burdens to start a true healing process. I noticed that in this question, the old woman poses how our hearts are the victims of the repressed sentiments we have always wanted to say, the yelling that has been kept someplace in our hearts ready to be freed. The heart of a suffering individual is waiting for the serpent of secrets to be killed, before it eats the heart, the true life force, completely.
The old woman gives the author a voice by which he criticizes people who live thinking that all is for the better in a rather different way as he has done so far in the book. Through the events that happen in Cunégonde’s and Candide’s life we are clearly shown the horrible and unjust events that can happen in any individual’s life, but through the voice of the old woman, we are shown the direct message Voltaire has wanted to carry throughout the whole novel. She says to Cunégonde and Candide as they are in the boat going to Buenos Aires that if you “persuade each passenger to tell you his story, and if you find even one who has not often cursed his life and told himself that he is the most miserable man alive, you can throw me into the sea head first” (57). It isn’t how horrible life has been for us, what unites us is the way we react to all the horrible moments of life. Finally what unites us is the thought that we are the unluckiest, the most miserable. What hope is there then in the boat of humanity, the boat of the “most miserable”? We are shown an ugly truth of our behavior as a community, the thought that we are all obsessed with our own little fate with absolutely no conscious awareness of the need to help our fellow inmates on the planet, instead we constantly compare and measure our drama with theirs. This division, this distance between me and you, and us and them, is the beginning of all our problems, all our wars. It is no longer a question of whether all is for the better, it’s more like if we continue to be so self absorbed and unconscious, it all inevitably will become the worse for all of us.
Another interesting approach the old woman gives us, relates to the way we, as individuals, work out how to keep on living after the complex situations we have had to overcome. She asks us why “be eager to grow on carrying a burden which one would gladly throw away, to loathe one’s very being and yet to hold it fast, to fondle the snake that devours us until it has eaten our hearts away” (57). This gives us the needed insight to conclude that Voltaire uses this character to make us open up to the possibility that what we all truly need as individuals is a way to share ourselves, to let our spirits say whatever they need, to continue living, to unload and share our burdens to start a true healing process. I noticed that in this question, the old woman poses how our hearts are the victims of the repressed sentiments we have always wanted to say, the yelling that has been kept someplace in our hearts ready to be freed. The heart of a suffering individual is waiting for the serpent of secrets to be killed, before it eats the heart, the true life force, completely.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
The Even Worse
As I read Chapters 8-11 of Candide, I was interested in how Voltaire is able to re-introduce the character of Cunégonde through Candide’s journey. This portrays the “bobbing up-and-down, up-and-down” we saw in Slaughterhouse Five, the concept of good and bad moments our society is so used to. Voltaire once again shows his disgust for the idea that all is for the best when Cunégonde says, “Pangloss cruelly deceived me when he told me that all is for the best in this world” (43). Voltaire repeatedly shows that the much hated life concept will lose all its followers as they confront the worst events in their lives. We are to weak and our acceptance is partial when affronting a bad moment. We accept ideals when we are enjoying good times and believe we will be able to continue on a soft road, but when our feelings and rational minds are forced to live these horrible moments, we immediately crumble under the burden of these challenges. These are the true test of our souls, our beliefs, our mental truths.
When in trouble, I often dream of another kind of relationship between individuals and their environment. A bit of an utopia fantasy to soften the brutal reality to believe that there are other possibilities and realities where horrible events and complicated situations don’t happen. Voltaire also considers these thoughts unworthy as Candide states that he expects the new world to be “the one where all goes well; for I must admit that regrettable things happen in this world of ours, moral and physical acts that one cannot approve of” (48). This is exactly what I feel when trying to confront a situation with a positive attitude believing that all is for the best. My rational and emotional parts are forced to believe that maybe the higher order/intelligence that decides what is for the best got confused or is creating situations and circumstances we don’t quite understand because we don’t know the whole larger picture, we only have our small, short sized view. Knowing everything may somehow make sense of all the insanity.
We are accustomed to comparing our lives, both the good and bad moments with that of the person beside us, be it friend or foe. It is a natural tendency that makes it harder for us to build a simple relationship between the events of our lives and our reactions towards them. We are forced to see how other people are doing in their dramas, making us be constantly disappointed or impressed by our own lives. Voltaire shows how a person who lives by the idea that all is for the better is motivated to continue living by this ideal, when seeing others that have lived even worse moments, as Cunégonde relates that she has been “so terribly unfortunate in my affairs, that I have lost almost all hope” (48). As Cunégonde states this, Voltaire gives her the opportunity to see how another person, the old woman, has lived more horrid moments, confirming the idea that by seeing another’s misfortune we are fueled to continue living, finally appreciating our own lot in life and accepting, at least partially, that all is for the better. That concept may completely change and become distorted when the tables are turned and one is forced to live the short, horrendous end of the stick. I believe that the only way to really understand the complete mystery of life, its majesty and its horror, we must learn to contemplate life from a non judgmental present, creating thus a constant state of reverence and awe, that is the realm of the enlightened: the Buddhas and Christs among us and forever latent within each one of us.
When in trouble, I often dream of another kind of relationship between individuals and their environment. A bit of an utopia fantasy to soften the brutal reality to believe that there are other possibilities and realities where horrible events and complicated situations don’t happen. Voltaire also considers these thoughts unworthy as Candide states that he expects the new world to be “the one where all goes well; for I must admit that regrettable things happen in this world of ours, moral and physical acts that one cannot approve of” (48). This is exactly what I feel when trying to confront a situation with a positive attitude believing that all is for the best. My rational and emotional parts are forced to believe that maybe the higher order/intelligence that decides what is for the best got confused or is creating situations and circumstances we don’t quite understand because we don’t know the whole larger picture, we only have our small, short sized view. Knowing everything may somehow make sense of all the insanity.
We are accustomed to comparing our lives, both the good and bad moments with that of the person beside us, be it friend or foe. It is a natural tendency that makes it harder for us to build a simple relationship between the events of our lives and our reactions towards them. We are forced to see how other people are doing in their dramas, making us be constantly disappointed or impressed by our own lives. Voltaire shows how a person who lives by the idea that all is for the better is motivated to continue living by this ideal, when seeing others that have lived even worse moments, as Cunégonde relates that she has been “so terribly unfortunate in my affairs, that I have lost almost all hope” (48). As Cunégonde states this, Voltaire gives her the opportunity to see how another person, the old woman, has lived more horrid moments, confirming the idea that by seeing another’s misfortune we are fueled to continue living, finally appreciating our own lot in life and accepting, at least partially, that all is for the better. That concept may completely change and become distorted when the tables are turned and one is forced to live the short, horrendous end of the stick. I believe that the only way to really understand the complete mystery of life, its majesty and its horror, we must learn to contemplate life from a non judgmental present, creating thus a constant state of reverence and awe, that is the realm of the enlightened: the Buddhas and Christs among us and forever latent within each one of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)