Oh, Suffering....

Oh, the Epicurean question… It seems that any explanation we come up with to explain human suffering falls short in some way or another. And the one given by Pangloss is certainly no exception, as Voltaire satirically pointed out. The last sentence of Candide sums up the futileness of any attempt to explain human suffering:

“There is a chain of events in this best of all possible worlds; for if you had not been turned out of a beautiful mansion at the point of a jackboot for the love of lady Condegonde, and if you had not been involved in the inquisition, and had not wandered over America on foot, and had not struck the Baron with your sword, and lost all those sheep you brought from Eldorado, you would not be here eating candied fruit and pistachio nuts.”

“ “That’s true enough.” Said Candide; “but we must go and work in the garden.” “

Or, paraphrasing Candide a bit, “Yeah, whatever, let’s get back to work.”

As I finished Candide I found myself first laughing at the witty, satirical way in which Voltaire wrote. But I soon found myself questioning even the point of the book, or even the point of trying to describe human suffering at all. And I do believe this is what Voltaire was getting at. Possibly, the problem of suffering is a dynamic problem that must be handled very carefully, the answers will not be summed up in some quick and easy philosophy, as that of Mr. Pangloss.

I commented on Samuel's Post "that was all it took?"