Optimism In Voltaire’s Eyes

The positive thought of “everything is for the best”, that Voltaire so deeply criticizes is the fuel to the sixth and seventh chapter. The opening discussion point is the astonishing death of Pangloss, the philosopher. This event completely demoralizes Candide who questions the life statement he has lived to up to this point in the book. “If this is the best of all possible worlds [. . .] what can the rest be like?” (37). This is the game Voltaire is slowly introducing to us, his novel is based on making fun of the possibility of a person truly accepting a life that is cemented on the belief that all is for the best, that horrible moments are simply meant to be. This is becoming clearer through the pages that show how a positive attitude is slowly destroyed by horrible events that are inevitable through the journey.

The effects that Pangloss’ death have on Candide, change the course of his beliefs, the ideas he once stood up for are crumbling into pieces. Candide tells us the following after Pangloss’ death: “but when it comes to my dear Pangloss being hanged [. . .] I must know the reason why” (37). The theory Voltaire criticizes looks perfect on paper, the belief that everything is perfect and meant to be, is shown to be a way to free the individual’s mind from the catastrophes of life. It becomes the obligation of each individual to apply this theory in his personal life but you need to factor in the inevitable negative and sometimes absolutely illogical events that happen in one’s life. When it is our turn to suffer we can’t understand what is happening, why if everything is meant to be for the best do we have to suffer? Is living to the thought that everything is for the best, truly optimism or is it a simplistic, mediocre way to take refuge behind a weak lie, that all we live has to happen, that we are powerless in fate’s hands?

Voltaire quickly changes the suffering events in his novel to keep showing examples of how this life statement crumbles when being obligated to live terrible events by going back to the optimistic Candide. The one that feels that his “past life seemed like a nightmare and the present moment a happy dream” (39). We are back to the show Voltaire is plotting, the show that shows an individual who falls back to the theory his writer hates when confronting the good moments of his life but is thrown back to the lamenting and questioning when confronting the bad moments. This chapter leaves one huge question in my mind, what does Voltaire propose?

In A Moment Of Suffering…

One of the main topics I have recurrently seen in my readings is how bad events can completely transform an individual and their life. I have noticed a pattern in the ideas of Vonnegut, Epictetus and Voltaire pertaining to the concept of predestination, the way by which they understand and accept the horrible event of their lives. An example of this is when Candide concludes “that all is for the best in this world of ours” (27). We can see how Voltaire accepts the events that happen in a human being as meant to be. This takes some guilt off any decisions an individual has made, making it an easier to be in an appreciative and more open state of mind towards life. This is another topic we have been hearing a lot about in class, the way by which our decision opportunities become a burden after we have decided what to do. This looking back into the past is what is described all over Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five, the immortality of events and the way by which you can see your life as a positive whole due to its composition of a substantial quantity of good events compared to the not so good ones.

We are told through the words of Pangloss that “the same causes produce the same effects” (34). We are shown the example of a natural disaster that affects two cities thousands of kilometers apart, Lisbon and Lima. This gives us the possibility to understand that fate is indifferent to language, religion, social status or political tendencies, it is a factor that affects us all. It is this same cause, the necessity of events happening for the better that will always give the result of change, for good or bad. This is an interesting idea Voltaire exposes as the reader can get the whole picture, the idea of having an entity of life factor that determines the course of our life without distinction.

Accepting the path we are destined to take isn’t an easy thing. Voltaire shows another part of this philosophy as he states that “private misfortunes contribute to the general good, so that the more private misfortunes there are the more we find that all is well” (31). This plays with the human tendency to compare the actions and events that happen in each individual with the other. By being able to have other misfortunes worse than ours and by having the possibility of being able to compare our own to theirs, and yet know that it was all fated, we are free of the responsibility of carrying all misfortune on our shoulders. It is a mental liberation that seems to be theoretically effective, but are we truly able to surrender all our thoughts of having the opportunity to be better every day? Can we live without hoping and possibly creating a better destiny for ourselves, others and our planet?

Candide: The Optimistic Fate

Voltaire begins his novel through a description of his main character Candide, who “combined sound judgment with unaffected simplicity” (19). The narrator slowly contextualizes the relationship between young Candide and the wise tutor, Pangloss. We are immediately immersed in the philosophy of optimistic fate where “there is no effect without a cause” (20). It makes it seem like the whole book will be about the pursuit of happiness through the acceptance of the events that gradually make our characters. We are shown how great young Candide is and how his house and family are of vital importance in his life.

Pangloss describes that everything in life “was made for a purpose, it follows that everything is made for the best purpose” (20). The language and sentence composition Voltaire uses for this character is very useful since the reader knows exactly what he is talking about. As I read the first chapter I found it very interesting to compare it to the previous book I read, the Handbook of Epictetus. Epictetus chooses the voice of a narrator to expose his message of predestination and limits his message through the example he gives. On the other hand Voltaire uses one of his characters to expose his message, this shows one of the main differences between both pieces, Voltaire contextualizes messages in a story, Epictetus states his principles.

The optimism we can observe is directed to the absolute necessity of having a positive attitude towards what our destiny has slowly uncovered. Pangloss says “that those who maintain that all is right talk nonsense; they ought to say that all is for the best” (20). Voltaire attacks the effect that sad and horrible events that happen in a human’s life by showing that things may not be all right but that they have to happen for the general best. This is a different approach from Epictetus’ who shows that the good and bad events we can’t control are necessary for the well-being of the human kind, the master play. Will Voltaire continue giving us messages through the teachings of Pangloss and their effects on Candide or will he completely change the objective of his piece?

Identifying Identity

As the reader continues the Handbook of Epictetus, he is immersed in a world of imperative statements. Epictetus has a strong voice, that makes each individual believe that he has a task in each aspect of his life for the good of the group. Epictetus’ universe is perfectly planned so that every action and sacrifice will build up the world’s history perfectly. He states that just “as a target is not set up to be missed, in the same way nothing bad by nature happens in the world” (27). This thought of connecting the daily events and problems with the destiny of the world explains a lot of Epictetus’ theory. He explains to his followers why it isn’t important to be tremendously affected by the bad moments of life, he truly gives hope by exposing that these events have to happen, they don’t depend on our decisions and actions.

This differentiation between the aspects of life that are our responsibility and those that are not, is a crucial concept in order to understand Epictetus’ teachings as I have tried to show in my previous posts (Death Is Destiny and Limiting Death). Epictetus describes that we can learn “the will of nature from the things in which we do not differ from each other” (26). This further explains how to not be moved by the ups and downs of life by maintaining a constant awareness of the importance our life has for the universe. By accepting that life, death, loss and fortune are events each individual has to live, we are assured it is something that characterizes nature, and is not up to us to decide, influence or contradict.

The point of view Epictetus shows through his work, also considers human nature to be different in a unique way for each human being. He talks about how “different people are naturally suited for different things” (29). This shows how human differences are tied with personality characteristics instead of needs and states. These different traits are determining factors in the role each human being will play and their effect on the greater picture, the connection between the actions of all the actors to the main play. Epictetus slowly turns the lights on, this helps the reader get accustomed to the different light that he is giving the world of our minds, the world of our identity and existence.

Dear Robert Frost,

I have been reading part of your work which I found very interesting and extravagant. The poem that most caught my attention was The Road Not Taken, which narrated the story of a person who tries to choose which path to take. I like how you are able to use the language in such an elaborate way, but I think you truly missed the idea of choice-making. In my handbook, the Handbook of Epictetus, you will be able to learn how to live and how decision-making isn’t up to each individual. In the first section you will read that some “things are up to us and some are not up to us. Our opinions are up to us, and our impulses, desires, aversions – in short, our own doing” (1). You will learn what death and fate really are, as you clearly lack this knowledge.

It is of vital importance that you truly learn the importance of not being the creator or playwright of your story as I clearly share in the handbook. You only are “an actor in a play, which is as the playwright wants it to be” (16). If he wants to make you a soldier, he will make you a soldier, if he wants you to be poor or rich, he will be able to play with your fortune and so on. There is an obligation, as we become influential writers to not use our literature to convince people of wrongful ideas, there is a supreme necessity to let people now what they are really supposed to do and guide them through the process.

When you say, “I-- / I took the one less traveled by” do you really mean that he took the decision to send me by the one less traveled by? These are the problems that proofreading picks up, you truly need to practice that some more. I like what I see overall, even though I don’t understand what the final goal of your writing is. Are you trying to trick human beings into believing they have more power than they really do? You should check if your language is appropriate for a substantial portion of people as my handbook is able to do, and if your words carry line by line, the true message you want them to have. I would appreciate your contacting me at your earliest convenience after reading the accompanying information.

Sincerely,
Epictetus

Limiting Death

How can death be an advisor, a force that lets us know what to do? In the Handbook of Epictetus, we are shown a different approach to death, not as the final step to life but as a daily coach that helps us get an exceptional perception about life’s priorities. Epictetus believes that you have to let “death and exile and everything that is terrible appear before your eyes every day, especially death; and you will never have anything contemptible in your thoughts or crave anything excessively” (21). By understanding how fragile and impermanent everything in our universe is, a soul who is truly aware of death will try to make as little earthly attachments as possible. This soul would stop wondering what the future will bring, since it understands and accepts that death is all there finally is. The constant decay and end of all things in order to bring to birth the next fresh cycle. Epictetus connects death with the understanding of what is and what isn’t up to you, in a discrete fashion. By explaining how fate brings and takes characters, plots and scenarios from your specific play, you begin to accept and understand what is really up to you to decide and act upon.

Expectations transform us, they force our minds to be impatient, to be silenced by that which we are waiting for. A similar thing happens with demands, we are so focused on what we want to happen that we will cross every barrier to get it. Epictetus believes that “you cannot demand an equal share if you did not do the same things, with a view of getting things that are not up to us” (25). This statement helps Epictetus show and back up his main idea, how important it is to let things go, to understand how to let life take its natural course, without human intervention. Sometimes the things which we least put our efforts into are the ones that come out better. Our hopes, expectations and demands mold our momentary being and can change our lives and characters into impatient and unhappy souls. Epictetus is showing his brainwork on disappointed souls and the steps by which a human being could stop lamenting any event in his life.

By having knowledge of the inherent death and impermanence in every object and event in life, your expectations and demands diminish immediately. As you don’t demand anything that you haven’t worked for, you are never disappointed. It seems to me that Epictetus is building a Buddhist formula for a perfect, realized human being. A true handbook for life which protects its followers from ever being affected through simple principles that point out the purpose and function of each living being. Is there a true way to never be hurt by life’s events, wouldn’t this lead to being purposeless and without affect or passion?

Acting With Patience

In the second ten sections of the Handbook of Epictetus, we are shown how to confront destiny in a patient fashion, not showing necessity through our actions. According to Epictetus, you should “not stretch your desire toward it, but wait until it comes to you” (15). He compares destiny to your behavior in a banquet, where you wait until they offer you something to eat, you don’t stretch your body to get food. There is an obligation to wait and not to act, a predestination requisite, to understand that the universe’s energy will flow and eventually reach you with its intended and unique might. Through his descriptions on how to act, the reader is assured that there is a partial free will, the decision making of a soul’s opinions and desires. These are the two complementary pieces to the Handbook of Epictetus, as I mentioned in my previous post Death Is Destiny.

The handbook shows that a person depends too much on his/her judgments or beliefs in order to act. It concludes that it is a human necessity to do so as it states that when someone “irritates you be aware that what irritates you is your own belief” (16). We are often told that there is always something positive in everything and everybody. Epictetus has another way to narrate another take on this belief, by pointing out the tendency of most people to find mostly mistakes in others and place more emphasis on these.
This may imply that there needs to be awareness training for humans, to learn to use their minds consciously towards uplifting thoughts than wasting their energy on promoting and empowering the draining negative.

Epictetus continues his narration on predestination, in which you are “an actor in a play, which is as the playwright wants it to be” (16). There is an obligation to concentrate in playing your part the best way you can, changing the human’s mentality from worrying about death and events he can’t change into accepting and confronting the variety of obstacles that will come in his way and making intelligent choices. There is a tendency in Epictetus’ words to guide a lost soul back into what he considers a good path, by showing the things he can’t do in order to change what he can. What seems to be destiny in Epictetus’ writing are the set obstacles that come instead of the specific decisions and paths the living soul may take. This “playwright” isn’t described or given the appropriate importance it should have for the handbook. Will Epictetus include in his piece that religion and the belief in god/the divine playwright are necessary to a more complete understanding this sacred game of life?