Blog 4 -

“And where shall we find truth? Deceit and fraud go not out of our streets. Who is it that speaks the truth from his heart? Whose words are the picture of his thought? Where is he that has “put away all lying,” that never speaks what he does not mean? Who is ashamed of this?”

How profound I found this to be the first time I read over it. He was brutally honest to his audience. “Where shall we find truth?” I often hear the honors students talking about going into the dark cave and coming out of it, they are referencing it to finding truth. How many of us are willing to let down our guard and find that truth? “Deceit and fraud go not out of our streets.” Are we willing to dig through the deceit and fraud and find what is genuine? Are we willing to be men and women who “[speak] the truth from [our] heart?” I am not going to say searching for truth is easy… because it is not. But I will tell you this, the truth is worth finding. Truth is a characteristic/attribute of Truth. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). Jesus is the truth which we need to search for. I know I hear people talk about how He is not real, but He is. There are many things which give account to Truth. “Whose words are the picture of his thoughts?” I am confident when saying, Jesus’ words were pictures of His thoughts. He said, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done”(Luke 22:42). Jesus clearly expressed His thoughts, He sweated drops of blood when praying this prayer. Jesus Christ puts away all lying; He never lied. He never spoke things He did not mean. Jesus Christ was not ashamed to tell us who He was. Neither should we be ashamed of Jesus Christ and His word.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16a).

Joy Vigneulle

Ps - Posted on Rachel K. "Start Spangled Banner"

I know it's late, but the coffee fools me in to thinking it's a lot earlier.

I realize it's after 1 am, but I thought I'd go ahead and post... I'm not sure on the technicalities of this stuff yet. So if it counts, sweet, but if not I guess I'll just use my pass? Whatever.

It was difficult for me to come up with something to write about. I thought Candide was hilarious. Perhaps I just need to be more enlightened... Like Olsen, I'd have to say that Martin is my favorite character.

'But what was this world created for?' said Candide.

'To drive us mad,' replied Martin.

Martin is such a pessimist. It cracks me up. For some reason, I find his views more tolerable than those of Pangloss or Candide--their beliefs are so frustratingly dumb it makes me cringe.

I love at the end when Pangloss and Candide ask the dervish why man was made, why there was evil, and what there was to be done about it.

'Keep your mouth shut!' said the dervish.

Once again, I am reminded of Job. Basically, God's answer is 'who do you think you are to correct me?' Which, in a way, resembles what the dervish told Pangloss and Candide in his responses. Yet still Pangloss acts a fool and thinks that he is entitled to a discussion. He's so dumb! In reality, though, I think everyone is like this. We want an answer from God, but the answer we get often isn't good enough for us and we want more. What do we get then? A door slammed in our face.

--Danielle

Commented on Lucy Beth's.

Human Nature

In Western Civilization, we discussed the Peloponnesian War and this guy from that time (forgive me, I forgot his name) said that human nature is always the same. Voltaire kind of brings this idea about when Candid travels to Eldorado and also when he and his little group of friends settle down in their garden. Human nature craves varying degrees of the unknown and we in our sinful nature like passion and danger. Humans, because we are sinners, rise and fall in power and wealth. Nobody really wants to sit around and be lazy all day every day.

PS commented on Tyler Guest's

Nichomachean Ethics Warped My Mind; There Must Be a Mean

"I wish," said Martin, "she may one day make you very happy; but I doubt it very much."
"You are very hard of belief," said Candide.
"I have lived," said Martin.

What powerful words from such a truly jaded individual. To have lived! But at what degree has Martin lived? He has set his expectations to bare minimum in utter pessimism, while on the other hand, Candide manipulates reality to find right in wrong. Neither approach is correct, yet both have potential to move into the light. After I commented on Brittany's blog, I took into consideration how although Martin has a very active role in Candide's life, serving and protecting his innocent little charge in spite of all else. While certainly a redeemable quality in society, it does not change the jadedness of Martin's heart. "It is evident that one must travel" (Candide in XVIII). Yes, Candide, one must travel. But one must also be open to new possibilities and opportunities for learning rather than forcing down yesterday's meal time and time again. Candide travels, but he does not allow it to change him. Plato might say Candide enjoys the coolness of the cave far too much. Martin, by contrast, has travelled indeed, but allowed the sunlight outside of the cave to burn him. He forgot there are trees and reflecting pools (ahem, Mashburn) to soak in what has happened and process it. Martin continues to travel but hardens himself to hope. Somehow, we must find the proper mean of Candide and Martin...

COMMENTED ON BRITTANY'S

#1 Pet Peeve: Characters Without Names

I realize this a very minute detail of Candide, and there are plenty of other topics to cover regarding this book, but once this thought hit me I couldn't get it out of my mind. I came across this question right after reading the part where the old woman is telling Candide and Cunegonde her story.
Here's the question:
Why doesn't Voltaire give the old woman a name? She's a major character and rather important to the story, doesn't that entitle her to something better than "the old woman"?

Solution:
Undecided... I do, however, have a few reasons as to why characters have been denied a namesake in the past and why I think those reasons do not apply to her.

Reason #1: Sometimes authors leave out character's names to make the character seem more relatable to the reader. Like in Sonny's Blues, Sonny's brother is referred to as "Sonny's brother" the entire story, even though he's the narrator. However, I still find it hard to relate to a princess with half a buttocks who watched her mother slaughtered to pieces firsthand.

Reason #2: I've only come across one example for this explanation, but it's one of the most interesting in my opinion. In my church's small group, we did a study on good and bad women in the Bible and we discussed why Potipher's wife's name is never mentioned. We decided that God was so disgusted with her selfish motives that she didn't deserve to have her name mentioned in the Bible. This still doesn't apply to the old woman, though.

Reason #3: You could also say that she is not given a name because she's not a major main character. But, there are lesser characters than she that are given names, such as Vanderdendur and Don Issachor.

I realize there are other unnamed characters in the book, but for some reason I couldn't stop questioning why she wasn't given one. Anyway, thank you for reading my ramble and I hope if that if you learned nothing else from this book, learn to be thankful for a whole buttocks! Goodnight everyone :)

Tori Burger

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?"

I Want to Live In Eldorado

Who wouldn’t want to live in Eldorado? The ground was made of gold nuggets! To some it might even parallel to heaven (Streets of Gold)! Everything seems so comfortable and happy. Like a fairy tale really. The people are of one opinion and get along fine. Everything is good and fine.

As Candide moves from innocence to experience he sees that the “Castle Thunder-ten-tronckh” would certainly never compare to even the simple houses in Eldorado. Their first meal was quite peculiar and quite massive. They were not lacking. Cooked Parakeets, vulture, three hundred doves, six hundred humming birds, and roasted monkeys! (76). What?!

Though they seemed very happy and prosperous, one can clearly see that the people of Eldorado lived a secluded and ignorant lifestyle. Candide and Cacambo were sent to find out more about Eldorado because the locals they came upon first had no idea. Clearly history was not important to them. After finding the old man, who was one hundred and seventy two, they learned a little history he was only privileged to know. In their conversation, Candide and his servant find out that no one is allowed to leave Eldorado (78). This was a big red flag for me. Yes, it was a very dangerous journey, but the king quickly found a safe way for Candide to get out didn’t he? (83).

Why did they live a life of seclusion? They couldn’t understand why, but they knew that Europeans were greedy for even the most worthless thing, the dirt in the ground. Therefore they made a law to prohibit anybody from crossing the borders of the kingdom. This way no one would risk getting killed on the way out; and they could keep Eldorado their safe secret. They also wouldn’t have to wear themselves out keeping away threats to the kingdom, because nobody would know about it.

Their seclusion prevented them from knowledge that they perhaps would have enjoyed. The old man thought Candide was crazy when he asked him what religion the people were. He believed that, of course, there was only one religion (79). They needed no courts and there was no prison. The king said to Candide on page eighty, “We are all of the same opinion here.” Eldorado was Candide’s dream world, and he didn’t seem to find a thing wrong with it.

Eldorado seemed so rosy at first, but as the book progressed, It just became more and more eerie to me. It reminds me of the feeling I had when I read The Giver in high school. It’s so perfect, that’s it’s too good to be true. And the saddest part is that Candide does not seem to see the peculiarities at all. It seems he is put under the spell of happiness that everyone else is under. On page eighty he contradicts himself in his thought of praise toward Eldorado, “If our friend Pangloss had seen Eldorado he would have not kept saying that Castle Thunder-ten-tronckh was the lovliest house on earth: it shows that people ought to travel.” Here he was praising Eldorado for its excellence when the whole society had never stepped out of the bounds of their kingdom. `

I think my mind is made up. I would not want to be stuck in any place, even as comfortable as Eldorado, on earth if I could never travel out and be made bound to a lifetime of ignorance. I do not want to go to Eldorado despite its charm. Even if this world is painful and hard, and I don’t have a plate full of three hundred doves in front of me- I’d rather know what’s going on.

that was all it took?

I find it interesting that after all the misfortune and terrible hardship that happens throughout the story that everyone ends up finding happiness and contentment in doing something as simple as working hard to maintain a garden. However it does make some degree of sense for all of the characters to have reached this point. We have evidence in our own society that money does not necessarily bring happiness. In Candide, it is not only money that causes everyone to loath where they are in life, but also their preconceived notions of happiness that they still hold on to. It's only after they let go of these ideas and commit to doing something, albeit something that many of them would have considered menial and unimportant before, that truly makes them happy do they let go of these ideas and accept life as what it is.

I find this interesting because it is something that we see happening more and more in today's society. We hear about people who truly have it all, money, fame, influence, people who have been all over the world and have seen things that normal people will only ever see in a national geographic. Yet, many of these people are simply not happy with where they are in life. However, we also hear about people who simply live where they are and are content with it. This is the point I believe Candide reached when they all finally settled down, to simply live where they are, and not worry about where they were going.

In contrasting styles...

Since I have fully immersed myself into an abundance of literature classes, I cannot seem to escape comparing books between classes. While reading Candide I couldn't help noticing the difference in styles used by the authors of Candide and Brothers Karamazov to describe suffering. As we discussed in class, Voltaire uses a very sarcastic, cynical tone to describe events in an almost fairytale-like story. He also seems to flit from story to story without much thought. However, Dostoyevsky, in The Brothers Karamazov, portrays the story in a very honest and at times dramatic tone. He relays every part of the story in a very detailed, concise manner. I cannot decide which style I appreciate more. Voltaire uses satire to soften the effects of the suffering (just like Jeremy Crews always tries to make me laugh in the worst situations). He attempts to answer some very important questions about suffering in a light-hearted way. He approaches it with optimism. Dostoyevsky, however, creates scenes which get at the heart of the reader. I would challenge one to read the Brothers K all the way through and not be emotionally affected by at least one sentence. Anyone who could do so must have a great talent. But maybe that talent is simply a heart of stone.

But enough of talking about a book that we don't read in this class. We'll get to Dostoyevsky later ;)

One thing that really stood out to me was Candide's perspective of sin or wrongdoings. He seems to be a little skewed in his ideas. There are several places that hinted towards this but the best example is in Book Sixteen: "If I have committed a sin in killing an Inquisitor and a Jesuit, I have made ample amends by saving the lives of these girls". There are other references to his purity, however he has taken lives. He wants to justify himself, however he killed out of instinct. So this causes me to question the depth of his purity.

Comment on Nick Hampton's:

I understand what you mean about always being optimistic. I think that it's important to find a balance between not allowing suffering to completely ruin your life and still being realistic about its effects. The greatest example I can think of in this is Job. He admitted that his situations were terrible, but never once cursed God.

Seek Justice

Every person I talk about Honors lately (former students or no) I cannot get off the subject of humanity and what we have made it. Martin's words: "Well, that's how men treat one another" stuck to me, reinforcing all that has been engulphing my mind the last few weeks. My word we must love the people. The PEOPLE. They are not tools. They are not means to pleasure. They are not just your assistants. They are not your source of money. They are not your source of fame. They are real people, with real eyes, real hearts, and real minds (well- most). It is not acceptable for us to operate in hate for one another. It is not acceptable to become numb to the hurting. We should be restless considering the state of humanity and our perseption thereof. Let our discontent with the world and "the way things are" increase as our love for each other increases. Seek justice.


The beginning of Candide really stuck these emotions in me. However, towards the end... as Voltaire is basically slandering people who have annoyed him I, in turn, got annoyed. I felt like I was reading his middle school Facebook posts. However, I can't deny the brilliance in which he does so. Much better than the kids from Lucedale.


commented on Rachel's

Yahoos and a Candid Camera

After reading Gulliver’s Travels, what stood out to me the most was the interaction between Gulliver and the Houyhnhnm concerning Gulliver’s likeness to the Yahoos. What I find also interesting, is how Gulliver reacts to this.

At the first appearance of the Yahoos, Gulliver states that he had “never beheld in all of [his] travels so disagreeable an animal, or one against which [he] naturally conceived so strong an antipathy.” So blatant was his initial aversion and habitual dislike to the “ugly monster” that Gulliver did not recognize resemblance to his own kind in the Yahoos. It wasn’t until later, when they were placed closer together that Gulliver saw “to [his] horror and astonishment …in this abominable animal, a perfect human figure…” This is where Gulliver first sees the physical similarities between himself and the Yahoos and becomes ashamed. He has seen the enemy and it is him. What strikes me though is that Gulliver knows he is intellectually and morally more sound than the Yahoos. The Houyhnhnm recognize this too, that Gullivers “ teachableness, civility, and cleanliness astonished him; which were qualities so opposite to those animals.” However, it was still convinced of Gulliver being a Yahoo despite these things. I can’t help but wonder why, if Gulliver shows “some glimmerings of reason” that he is still considered a Yahoo? If the Houyhnhnm think that he is capable of having some reason and being a Yahoo, then why don’t they think the real Yahoos are capable of it? Even Gulliver himself, after a while, found it hard to seperate himself from The Houyhnhnm’s perception of him as a Yahoo, even after he “concealed the secret of [his] dress, in order to distinguish [himself] as much as possible, from that cursed race of Yahoos; but now [he] found it in vain to do so.” If he knows he is not a Yahoo, and can show so through his intellect and ability to reason, then why be afraid to look like them?

Comment On Samuel Olivers:

I completely agree with this! I first read Candide when I was in Highschool, and my first afterthought was wow, Pangloss is an idiot. However like you, I do think that he was right when he said that the earth was the best possible earth that could have been made by God. Yet, it is the people that screw it all up…we do, mankind is where the problem lies. Yes, if it wasn’t for us, everything would run smoothly. That’s why I get confused with Pangloss’ character and more often then none turn to criticizing him. If he can recognize that the earth is the best it can possibly be, then why cant he recognize that the problem lies within mankind?

In the State of Alabama...

Here's everyone's odd fact for the night. In the state of Alabama it is illegal to impersonate clergy. That thought came to mind when I was reading about Candide killing Reverend Father Commandant then putting on his clothes. I find it mildly comical that Candide would steal a priest's robes to sneak out of a building, not necessarily because they were priest robes but because he just killed the man. Shouldn't this robe have blood on it and a hole in it? Did he just nonchalantly walk by the guards and say, "Tis but a flesh wound?" I don't see how he got away with that one but I guess that's where creative license comes in.

So after his escape he goes on to kill again? What kind of clergy is this guy? The second one was rhetorical. I know I'm from the old school and all but it seems like you should be able to tell the difference between when someone is being attacked and when someone is their lover. I know he has a keen eye for the gun but maybe he should get them checked out....

P.S. I commented on Jamie's

Can the Glass Always Be Half-Full?

Would I consider myself a pessimist? No, however I would have to say that a total optimistic worldview that Pangloss shows is almost madness. I can’t see how anyone who had so many horrible things happen to him can look at them all with a positive outlook. Yes, we do need to trust God to provide for us and work all things out for our good (Rom. 8:28), but most people will admit that there are just some things in life that suck.

If we cannot see the good outcome of God’s plan, then why should we choose not to attempt to do something that has good intentions? Prime example, Pangloss would not even let Candide try to save James the Anabaptist from drowning because “Lisbon harbour was made on purpose for this Anabaptist to drown there.” (Ch. V) Whether or not God was going to save James was not Candide’s job to worry about. What if God’s plan was to use Candide for something else that may have happened as an effect from his attempt to save James? How could Candide have known beforehand? How could Pangloss have known what needed to happen without God telling him? Just a couple thoughts.

Anyway, we should do anything that glorifies God because we cannot be sure what He will use.

P.S. I commented on Cameron White's post.

Candide Faints and Faints Again

So I’ve read a good part of Candide and I must say that it’s actually an interesting book. I laughed a lot and it’s probably a good thing that my roommate was not in the room with me because I do believe that she would have killed me. I think what really makes this book so intriguing is the fact that it feels so exaggerated. I especially liked the part on page 29 when Pangloss is telling Candide of Cunegonde’s death. It says in the top paragraph, “At these words Candide fainted,” then a few paragraphs down it says, “At this tale Candide fainted once more.” I was laughing so hard that I completely forgot that Pangloss was telling Candide that Cunegonde had been raped and murdered. Voltaire has such a cynical, sarcastic way of writing that it actually is more interesting to me then other books that I have read. My mind is not exactly forming complete thoughts on Candide yet because I haven’t read the whole book yet, but I feel that the exaggerations are really good at hiding the actual somber tones of some of the story.

This book reminds me of the Mel Brooks parody film, Robin Hood: Men in Tights. There is a scene in the movie when Robin of Loxley comes home and he finds that his home has been taken and the only person there is his “loyal, blind servant, Blinkin’.” Blinkin tells Robin that his family has been killed and he goes on to tell Robin that his dog was run over by a carriage, his goldfish was eaten by the cat, and his cat choked on the goldfish. This scene came to my mind when Pangloss tells Candide about Cunegonde’s death. There was so much humor implied in it that it actually covered up the sadness of both Cunegonde’s death and the death of Robin’s whole family, including his pets. Maybe I’m looking at all of this the wrong way, but this is what I have so far.

P.S. Commented on Katelyn’s post.

The Light... it burns!

Throughout this text, Pangloss insists time and time again that he is living in the 'best of all possible worlds'. While Voltaire takes Pangloss' beliefs to the extreme in saying things like: this lake was created for Jacques to drown in, I feel that the optimistic view of our existence isn't that far-fetched. Saying that we live in the best of all possible worlds is incorrect, because it's possible for a world to be more perfect than ours (i.e. Heaven). However, I think that the earth was more perfect at it's creation than it is currently. As Candide suggests in chapter four, humans are corrupting nature, making the world less perfect.  I'm not entirely certain if we're corrupting 'nature' as much as we are corrupting ourselves, but one thing is for sure: there's corruption going on.

Now, going back to the best of all possible worlds thing, if we change 'possible' to 'known' (omitting heaven of course), we do live in the best of all known worlds. To our knowledge, whether scientifically or biblically speaking, we're living in the only world that can sustain life. The only world in which humans exist. Therefore, we must be living in the best of all 'known' worlds. While it would be possible to have a better world without sickness, pain or corruption, there isn't one that we know of.

I apologize for not being as funny as I usually am. I've been in bed all day with a splitting headache, and I'm trying to look at the screen as little as possible. (sensitivity to light is not fun.)

Tune in next week when I will hopefully have something funny AND meaningful to say.
P.S. I commented on Jamie's

Candide

After all of Candide's misfortunes he shows what should matter most in life. "You see, my friend, how perishable are the riches of this world. There is nothing solid but virtue and the prospect of seeing Lady Cunegonde again" When he loses his treasures and sheep, he stays optimistic. Sometimes I get so wrapped up in materials things, like the season premiere of The Vampire Diaries that I lose focus on what really matters. And if something doesn't go my way it seems as if the world will end. But I should take lessens from Candide. Instead of focusing on material things that won't last, I should focus on developing relationships with people.

ps. jamie kilpatrick

Perfection by perception

As we read things in Candide like "everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds" it is easy to think that the meaning is that this world is perfect and everything that happens is perfect, but really I think it's a little different than that. Candide says something like "yes, but we must cultivate our garden" which leads me to believe not that they believe this world is perfect, but it can be percieved as perfect if we do our best to tend to it and live the life we given. As in playing the hand you're dealt in poker. In texas hold 'em you don't recieve a "perfect" hand every time, but by playing right you can still win (even with the worst hand). So if the end which you are striving for is perfect (winning the hand), then whatever means you use to attain that end (playing the hand you're dealt) is also perfect? Not that I'm advocating using your end to justify your means, but if you reach your goal (which in essence every goal we set for ourselves is perfect because it is an end that we are striving for) than by whatever means you reach it must be perfect means (because they accomplished your objective and reached your goal). So not that this world is perfect, but the fact that we are striving to create a perfect world and live the life we've been given (ie; cultivating our gardens) would make our lives perfect. I read a quote that went something like this: "This time is a great time, if we but know what to do with it." So maybe this world isn't perfect, but if we strive to make it perfect and live out our purpose, we make it "perfect." A perfect world through the eyes of someone with imperfect perception ;) So maybe Voltaire is really just wanting people to live their lives and be optimistic in all their ends.

Bitter-Sweet

Candide is incredibly hilarious and yet truly upsetting at the same time. At first, when I read through half of the book, I was overwhelmed with all of the horrible things that happen to Candide and his friend throughout his journey. However, after taking a closer look I see that this story by Voltaire is actually very funny. I feel sort of bad for being able to find so much humor at someone’s hardships, and began to justify my laughter by saying that “this is only a book,” and “I would never laugh at something like this in real life.” However, how many times do people, including myself watch shows like America’s Funniest Home Videos or even just videos on YouTube and laugh at other people’s pain or disabilities. Even Sunday night as I watch documentaries about the events of 9/11/2001, I found myself laughing just slightly at the reactions of some of the people. Just like the story of the old woman, what happened on 9/11 were not comical in the slightest, but isolated people, reactions, and comments I found humor in. I believe it is the same as laughing at the fact that the old lady has half a butt! Of course I could be wrong and everyone might think I’m an awful person now . . .

Anyway, I love the way that Voltaire writes in Candide. I think it’s his style that allows the novel to come across as so serious and yet funny at the same time. For example, I love in chapter 11 in the very first couple sentences, a joke Voltaire sneaks in to his story about the old woman. The second sentence of the chapter states “I am the daughter of Pope Urban X and the Princess of Palestrina.” This is not funny, but a footnote I have at the bottom of the page of my book, written by Voltaire says; “Notice how exceedingly discreet our author is. There has so far been no Pope called Urban X. He hesitates to ascribe a bastard to an actual Pope. What discretion! What a tender conscience he shows!” It is sarcasm and cheeky comments like this one throughout the book that make Candide so much fun to read and enjoyable, even though it’s actually really sad and disturbing.

Reading Candide has made me think a lot about war and the way people of different religions treat each other. In chapter 3 after Candide has escaped from the Bulgars, he visits a country he heard was “rich and all were Christians,” and believes he can find help here from a kind soul. No one helps him, so he asks a minister to give him some aid. Unfortunately because Candide does not renounce the Pope, he is turned down by the minister as well. It is only an Anabaptist, a religion everyone hates, who helps Candide and later Pangloss. This story reminds me a lot of The Good Samaritan! Voltaire makes all of the Christians sound like horrible people, except for the ones that everyone hates! It really gives a person a lot to think about.

Until next time . . .

-Susan

P.S. I posted on katina!

dummy

I think that Pangloss was right when he said that the earth was the best possible of earths that could have been made by god. In the beginning everything was perfect, but we are not. If it wasn't for humanity everything would happen for the best and everything would be the best. I think that Pangloss is ignorant to the real world or that he's pretending to be ignorant because he doesn't want to deal with reality. If he's not pretending then what the heck? How can he stick to his philosophy after everything that happened? If I was Pangloss and all that happened to me and the people around me I would probably become an atheist. Pangloss is an idiot.

P.S. I commented on Jamie's

Another One Bites the Dust

Here we are, at the end of another story, and another satire no less. I haven't read through everyone's posts yet and I'm pretty sure someone else wrote on this, but if they have, it deserves being said again.

We as humans have become desensitized to war, death, destruction, mayhem, and everything else related to violence. I used to watch NCIS a lot, and often times I would find myself saying at the beginning of the show "...and queue the dead body," whenever some random person would find the dead body of some victim on the show. I never realized that I was totally insensitive to the fact that someone had died. (I know NCIS is fiction but the effect is essentially the same: someone was brutally murdered, it happens in real life) I began to realize this when we talked the other day in class about Voltaire's emotionally unattached desription of the battle:

"Never was anything so gallant, so well accoutred, so brilliant, and so finely disposed as the two armies. The trumpets, fifes, hautboys, drums, and cannon made such harmony as never was heard in Hell itself. The entertainment began by a discharge of cannon, which, in the twinkling of an eye, laid flat about 6,000 men on each side. The musket bullets swept away, out of the best of all possible worlds, nine or ten thousand scoundrels that infested its surface. The bayonet was next the sufficient reason of the deaths of several thousands. The whole might amount to thirty thousand souls. Candide trembled like a philosopher, and concealed himself as well as he could during this heroic butchery."

At first, I was appalled by the fact that Voltaire could write so cynically about a battle where thirty thousand people died, but the other day, I caught myself laughing at the kills I made while playing a war game online. It made me sick. Here was I. the guy who cried for 3 hours when he accidentally broke his brother's nose, (I don't have the time to explain it, if you want to know, ask me after class or some other time) laughing about jumping out of a building and emptying a magazine in some other guy. Needless to say, I began to cry again, at what I had become. What's it going to take for the rest of America to realize this?

~Cody Martin

Commented on Amanda Gaster's Post

God must have read my last post, I found a magazine today that's all cars, no models.

P.S. Having Posting Errors

What I love about Voltaire is his ability to effectively satirize multiple aspects of society at the same time. Through Pangloss's optimistic ideology, Voltaire is poking fun at the idea of society over-thinking simple concepts and ignoring common sense in favor of "enlightenment." The concept of war is simultaneously mocked alongside of fairy tale writing styles during the passage where Candide is with the Bulgar Army in the midst of the battle. Everything, especially the temporary "deaths" of these soldiers is a tool Voltaire uses to satirize these concepts which can be seen in this quote from the battle scene, "Finally, the bayonet provided 'sufficient reason' for the death of several thousand more." I love how he is not only questioning the methods of war in this passage but also the futility of attempting to put reason into something as perversely chaotic as war. Also funny to me is the questioning of Pangloss's view of everything working out for the best even after he has gone through so much suffering. So far this is my favorite reading.

P.S. I commented on Cameron White's post

O no he didn't!

            Many of you may have thought of this already. I haven’t been through the blogs very in depth yet, but I think it’s interesting to put The Rape of the Lock from last week and Voltaire from this week. We have had two satires centered on beauty. I would love to hear your thoughts on having these two. Was this just a big deal in this time period, or is it just our professors’ strange sense of humor?

Just a side note, I think my favorite quote from this week was “"My Lady Baroness weighed three hundred and fifty pounds, and consequently was a person of no small consideration…" I still can’t believe that it actually says that.

Kelsey Moore

p.s. I commented on His Beloved

This is the best?

“The best of all possible worlds.” Just the idea seems strange to me, but I guess even I’m not that much of an optimist. Of course the world isn’t perfect. In the novel, Pangloss was accused of heresy because someone who was that optimistic couldn’t believe in original sin. An ideal world is one in which sin never entered. How could sin possibly be part of the best possible world? Our world, however, is full of sin. We are not perfect people, and that is why we need forgiveness for our sins. While we as people can be made new through Jesus, our world is not even close to being the best possible.

P.S. Commented on His Beloved

The Morbid Subject of Death...And Coffee on NCIS

Okay, so once again, I haven’t quite finished reading what we’re supposed to read. But what Pangloss says over and over, “that everything in the world is for the best,” has been making me think, and my thinking has turned into a semi-coherent blog post.

I started reading Candide on Friday afternoon, and I didn’t really know what I was going to write about. On Sunday morning though, my family got news that a very old friend of ours had passed away. She has two children and a grandchild, her son is a very good friend of mine. This meant, that Monday, Tuesday, and even today, have been spent reeling from the fact she’s gone. Earlier today, I realized that Pangloss’ statement was really bugging me in regards to this event; of course, I knew that Pangloss’ logic was skewed before anything happened.

It made me wonder, if everything in this world is really for the best, then why did she die so young? Why did her 18 year old son have to lose his mother? Why did she have to die on 9/11? Why did 9/11 have to happen? And, why did my mother have to find out, on her birthday, that ten years ago terrorists attacked this country, and that this year a very good friend had died? Now Romans 8:28 says, “And we know God causes all things to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to His purpose for them.” Was this Voltaire’s point behind Pangloss’ statement? In class Dr. Olsen said that Voltaire was a Deist, so where did he get his inspiration? I don’t know that I’ll be able to figure that out, but I do know that this verse will bring me great comfort in the days to come. Especially since I know she was a Christian and that she is, right now, joining the angels in Heaven as they worship the Lord!

I know that, while this is going to be a very difficult time for her family and anyone who knew her, God will work through this event to make us stronger and more on fire for him. I don’t know if this is okay or not, but I’m going to ask anyway. Please pray for the family and friends for the next few days. Tonight is the memorial service and I know that tonight will be particularly hard for everyone.

Now, on a lighter note: I’ve recently been watching NCIS and Agent Gibbs always seems to have a cup of coffee in hand. After Tuesdays lecture, his cup of coffee makes me think of Voltaire’s habits of drinking 30 cups a day. Makes me wonder if Gibbs would be able to do his job so well without his coffee… I’ll have to think on that.

Thanks for reading my ramblings, and again, I hope they make sense.

Until next time,

Meghan

P.S. I commented on Amanda’s post.

A Series of Unfortunate Events

"It seems our problems solve themsleves when we look beyond us to those truly in Hell.
It seems our problems solve themselves when we look beyond our suffering."
-As I Lay Dying, Beyond Our Suffering

Sometimes life just really freakin' sucks. What seems just is instead unjust, what is truthful made dishonest, and what is lovely is made more hideous than we can possibly imagine. The question of why this is so or how we, as humankind, can overcome our suffering is a question that thinking men have pondered for centuries. The religious try to explain it with big words like "theodicy" and "natural order" and the irreligious either think that we will can solve all our problems by changing our society and coming together as one big happy human family or that problems are unsolvable and we should just accept it. Voltaire had his turn, now its my turn. Shall we?

Naturally, many of the events in the book are insane and blown out of proportion. How many people do you know of that have lost a buttock at the hands of a villainous pirate? That being said, life can be every bit as random and depressing as the events of Candide so surely its not all just multi-tiered madness, right? It's so easy to see our world as nothing more than a series of unfortunate events where everything goes wrong and nothing is right. We try to succeed, occasionally do, mostly don't, and don't know what exactly we're living for. It's as if the world is its own living, breathing entity whose purpose is to maintain order through suffering and punish those who actually earn success. Like the book suggests, politicians and such get theirs in the end, but how often is that really true? Does the world just punish them for being successful and getting their own way, or would the really unfortunate event for mankind be if they died happy? Of course, that would suggest a sort of moral code that this world is following, and we must also suppose that God wrote it and is therefore in contr-oh, shut up, Epicurus! Get your own blog!

This brings me to another point: what is suffering? Is suffering simply not getting what we want out of life when we want it or is something truly more sinister than simply not getting the best, right now? It's rather strange when we look at our lives here in America and then look at the rest of the world, where are poorest person is wealthy compared to an impoverished nation's poor. Are they suffering because they are poor, or are they suffering because there is a unfulfilled desire in their hearts for something truly meaningful. As is the case with the six poor kings and the unglorious glorious kingdom of Eldorado, there are untold numbers of unhappy rich people and content peasants, so the brokenness of man is not restrained to personal success. This should come as no shock, but in a culture so focused on personal success and glory, where Wall Street bankers commit suicide when the banks crash and people sing songs glorifying money while never giving it away, it seems pertinent to remind people of this. God gives all necessary glory to those who fear H-I told you to beat it Epicurus, get away from me!

Anyway, I actually side with the pessimist, Martin, in his view that suffering is everywhere and comes to all people. Jesus clearly told the people that tribulations will come as result of the Fall of Man (also aluded to in the first chapter) but stressed that He has overcome the world. See, Jesus agrees with me, the world is something to be overcome, it's not right, and unfortunately its all our fault. GOD WOULD GLADLY DESTROY THE SIN IN THIS WORLD AND ERASE SUFFERING, BUT TO DO THAT WOULD DESTROY SO MANY PEOPLE CAPABLE OF BEING SAVED, WHICH IS WHY JESUS DIED IN THE FIRST PLACE, OKAY EPICURUS?!?!?! Okay, I think I just hurt his feelings, which brings me to my final point, that I should comfort him anyway because even Epicurus suffered and went through pain. Pain is not because our dreams get crushed and our happiness dimished, that's just life. True suffering is not having a hope in something better than this world. This is not "the best of all worlds" or else there would be no need for a heaven and we would not have an inner desire for a better one. So no, Pangloss is wrong, but so is Martin, because he would just sit back and let the world stew in misery because he feels like there's nothing he can do. The best I've found of combatting suffering is simply to shut my mouth and be there for a person. That's what Job wanted, that's what Cunegonde wanted, and that's really what we all want-the knowledge that there is someone out there who feels how I feel and cares about me, and I am not alone in my sadness. In that respect I suppose the Turk is right. Sometimes, the best thing we can do is to just "cultivate our garden".
When mankind can come together in love and truth, life becomes more than just a series of unfortuante events-it becomes something truly beautiful.

So, yeah, that's my blog. Feel free to comment with any praise or criticism that you please, and have a wonderful day! BTW, below is my comment on Jamie Kilpatrick's post: This is the best? Come on, Epicurus, let's get some ice cream...

Yeah, I find it really hard to believe that this can really be the best world imaginable. The fashion of this world is to try and change the world through our own actions and create a better society. You've heard John Lennon's song "Imagine", right? The idea is that we can create our own peaceful, happy utopia and make things right ourselves. However, what most people don't consider is the condition of an unchanged man with a faulty heart and that a utopia is basically impossible because all men are greedy, selfish, and ultimately will just create more wars and end any sort of man-made utopia. I tend to be a pessimistic optimist, however, because I know that God's people have the key to utopia already, and that day is coming. You're on the money about sin, though, this world will always self-perpetuate sin and sadness, we as people must be made new in truth and in love.

Not so perfect world

Candide comes to a town that he believes is the perfect world that Pangloss always spoke of where everything was for the best. "It is probably the country where all goes well; for there must obviously be some such place." p. 77 Pangloss put into his mind that the world is a good place where nothing goes wrong, but we cannot escape the fall of man. Heaven is the only perfect place.

Eldorado was perfect. Almost too perfect. It was so set apart and closed off from the rest of the world that it is protraying escaping from the sad reality of the real world. This is what Candide thinks he wants, but it will only cause him more problems.

The King explains," Go when you wish, but you will find it difficult to get out." p. 83 I think this relates to wealth and the things of this world. We are free to do what we want, but once we are caught up in the world, we become a slave to it and have a hard time getting away from it and letting go. If we instead focus on spiritual things and refuse to be pulled into it, we can avoid becoming the world's slave.

A sad thought

I know some have already touched on Candide's idea of desensitization. I would just like to say that it hit me again as thought-provoking. Im beginning to realize more and more of how we have grown "numb" to certain issues and things. In my science class yesterday we were talking about how some scientists have tried to make known that there could be other "life species" or "life forms" on other planets. What the scientists consider "life forms" is a simple virus of some kind picked up when the Hubble telescope is sent to another planet. However, another student brought up the fact that we could sit and listen to scientests make assumptions that there are life forms on another planet when on earth we go as far as to say that what is growing inside of a women is not a life, a baby. The issue of abortion can be looked at when talking about being desensitized. The Bible says do not murder, yet we kill unborn children because we say they are not a life. Its really sad how we have become numb to the things that are normally supposed to make us upset and angry. The world we live in today is ever changing, and the fact that it has brought us this far can be a scary thought when we look towards the future.
I dont know if this was totally off the wall or what, i just thought about it and it really did make me think twice about it.

P.s i commented on Kaylie's post.

Created to work

You mean we’re supposed to work? We’re supposed to get our hands dirty and do manual labor? Surely not! Surely this is the best of all possible worlds, and working is only for those “lower” classes. But according to the Turk, “We find that the work banishes those three great evils, boredom, vice, and poverty.” Candide, Pangloss, Martin, and the whole group soon find this to be true, “The entire household agreed to this admirable plan, and each began to exercise his talents. Small as the estate was, it bore heavy crops.” This reminds me of 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, “There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.” Then, 1 Peter 4:10 sums it up: “Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God’s grace in its various forms.”
When they stopped bickering and began to exercise their personal gifts- that’s when they finally found happiness. After traveling all over the world and enduring countless horrors, they finally realized that riches were not necessary. After all, Pococurante had everything a man could want, yet he was dissatisfied with everything and consumed with boredom. Riches are much sought after, but it’s a destructive cycle. Once you start, it’s an endless process of acquiring… then growing bored… then acquiring… it leads to endless avarice.
Candide spent the whole book chasing Cunegonde, only to realize in the end that he didn’t really want to marry her after all. This made me think… how often do we, as the body of Christ, spend our time chasing things that will just end up letting us down? We have all been given specific gifts, and we will not be happy until we use these gifts in some capacity, primarily for the glory of God. As Pangloss reiterated, “When man was placed in the Garden of Eden, he was put there ‘to dress it and keep it’, to work, in fact; which proves that man was not born into an easy life.” No, having to work in life is not easy, but it does give us purpose and bring contentment when we use our gifts to make the body of Christ stronger as a whole.
P.S. Commented on Chloe Rush's

A New Way of Thinking

One of the topics that I would like to dwell on for a moment is how Voltaire shows the means by which the idea of reason has evolved during the Enlightenment. The text I intend to use comes from page twenty: " Observe: our noses were made to carry spectacles, so we have spectacles. Legs were clearly intended for breeches, and we wear them." I believe this piece of text illustrates a new way of thinking to the human mind. Before people were "enlightened", -living in the dark, they thought that their noses were made to smell and that their legs were made for walking. We can see that when the people of the day stepped into light, their way of thinking became more sophisticated. I would say that Voltaire incorporates this into his sattire by showing how this over-intellectual way of thinking can blind you of common sense.


p.s i commented on Rachel's blog...

Funny, yet super sad.

Reading Candide was both funny and sad at the same time.

“I waxed old in misery and disgrace, having only one – half of my posteriors, upon the point of killing myself, but still I loved life.”

I’m going to be very honest. I laughed. Then, of course, I read the rest of the sentence and I’m pretty sure my face made a very somber looking frown. Still though, she had half a butt! Once you realize, the circumstances surrounding her “posterior” are very upsetting and really pretty horrifying. It does make you think, this woman has been to Satan’s home and back and still loves life. How? You hear of people today who lost a girlfriend, or go bankrupt, and you hear them say, “I hate life, I just want to die.”

People today act like the horrors of the world are nothing, yet when something that others deal with every day, we just can’t go on. The tone Candide is set in makes me unsettled. I've watched commercials about starving children in Africa, animals beaten and left to die, people not having homes, and because I’ve seen them so much, I’m unmoved. Bored, to tell the truth. I don’t care; I just want the commercial to end because I want to watch the rest of the TV episode. Reading about something this terrible in such a tone actually makes you stop and go, wow, man, do you have any sympathy?

I liked Candide because of just that. He tells us about this old woman’s torture in life with the same tone someone would ask for coffee in.

“With all my heart….let us recommend ourselves to Providence.”

It amazes me how Candide has been through all this yet STILL believes they should rely on God, or divine providence. Wouldn’t we have given up on Providence by now? Wouldn’t we be mad at God for letting us down so much?

"Optimism – madness of maintaining that everything is right when it is wrong."

Another thing, when Candide finally realized that Pangloss was wrong, he’s just like, whoa! Pangloss told him that the best of the world was right at his fingertips there at the castle, and that everything was done for a reason and that it all would turn out good, which obviously is not the case. How Pangloss could have taught that with a straight face I do not know, unless he truly believed it. And if he truly believed it then that means he obviously did not get out enough. The world is an ugly place and not everything is done for the greater good. Yet another thing Voltaire tells with a unmoved and stony tone.

>.>

The topic of desensitization was hit on some in Candide. I find it very interesting and prevalent to our society today. I feel like as people, in general, we’re so used to violence and profanity and hatred that it becomes the normal. This is kind of a lame example, but I used to watch Law & Order: SVU all the time, and literally without fail I would cry every episode. Blubbering would be a good way to describe it. I would feel so awful about these storylines, I knew it wasn’t necessarily a reality but the idea of these awful things happening would make me so sad. After a while it stopped bothering me. Not that I became heartless or anything, but it became just fiction. I guess the idea of desensitization is just so interesting to me, because it’s so real. Once you’re exposed to something over and over again it’s easy to view it as normal, or like in the book view it almost humorously. It’s a weird concept, that after a while things lose its meaning, but they does. Violence is so ordinary it’s now the initial reaction instead of a last result. It’s almost a scary thought. How far will it go? Will we become so immune to evil that it sincerely doesn’t matter anymore?

still tryin to figure out how to comment

This was on Wills rehashing.


I hate that they’re so opposite. Legitimately it’s irritating, and to be asked which group I’d rather be a part of is just incredibly ridiculous. No one is that black and white. For me I’d choose passion over logic, but then again if there’s no order passion becomes chaos. I like the idea of being so passionate nothing else matters, but that’s so impractical for anyone to be like that. This leads to the conclusion that people are too complex to be categorized into either of these beings.

Sorry If I'm Rehashing . . .

I've been thinking about the Houyhnhnms and the Yahoos, and about which group I would be a part of if I had to choose. In a way, the Houyhnhnms are the obvious choice, right? Order, honesty, productivity . . . however, this choice would still be painful. As we discussed in class, and as Swift explains, these logical beings are void of passion. This is just as far from the human soul as the Yahoos are, if not further. All humans, no matter how cold they have become, can know the feeling of emotion. These two groups are polar opposites. Unfortunately, the negative attributes of each group outweigh the positive characteristics. Humans, though, are somewhat of a fulcrum between the two sides. The qualities of humans encompass both Houyhnhnms and Yahoos, although some people may sway more to one side.

-Will

Posted on Chloe's

A Philosophical Novel

Pangloss got part of it right, “He works all things together for the good of those who love Him.” but he missed the parts that say, “He works...for those who love him.”  The characters lack the ability to see people for who and what they are; to see evil for evil. Candide is so caught up in searching for good, it’s almost like he doesn’t want to believe that there could be bad. When he gets to the cannibals and they decide to spare him, he forgets that they are cannibals. He forgets the fact that those people were going to eat him, and because they didn’t, they are now the best people he’s ever met. The only reason that they didn’t eat him is because he killed someone else, so now he’s thankful that he killed someone else. He needs to see the realization of his sins, and the wrongs that he does. 

Though all things work together for a greater good, it is not done by us, it is done by a Greater Good. We have no power to work anything together for our good. Still, all things are worked together for the good, but the good we get isn’t always the good we thought it to be. However, it is better to pursue the good we think we want than not to pursue anything.

 “‘ You are quite right,’ said Pangloss. ‘When man was placed in the Garden of Eden, he was put there to dress it and to keep it, to work, in fact; which proves that man was not born to an easy life.’” chp. 30 pg. 143.

 It is better to see the need of labor, regardless of how laborious the labor is - God’s gifted you with a certain labor.

 “‘Only twenty acres,’ replied the Turk, ‘my children help me to farm it, and we find that the work banishes those three great evils; boredom, vice, and poverty.’” chp. 30 pg. 143.

 So do this labor to the best of your ability, be satisfied with the good you’ve been given. 

“‘That’s true enough,’ said Candide; ‘but we must go and work in the garden.’” chp 30 pg. 144

I am very much intrigued by the pursuit by Canidide and Martin to see if happiness really exists. to see if there is anyone in the world where everything has worked out for the good of them, and they are truly happy.

“‘There is to say that there is a pleasure in not being pleased.’” chp 25 pg. 124

“”You must admit that there is the happiest man alive, because he is superior to all he possesses.’”chp 25, pg. 123

So happiness lies in that man that doesn’t get caught up in all he possesses. It lies in the man that can learn to be content in whatever circumstances. It lies in the man who isn’t held back by the world’s opinions of wealth and value, but by the simple pleasures given to men by God. 

I also found throughout Candide that the men were either believing in all good or all bad. They failed to see that there are both, and that they work together.

“‘Do you think, ‘ said Candide, ‘ that men have always massacred each other, as they do to-day, that they have always been false, cozening, faithless, ungrateful, thieving, weak, inconsistant, mean-spirited, envious, debauched, fanatic, hypocritical, and stupid?’ 

‘Do you think,’ replied Matrin, ‘that hawks have always eaten pigeons when they could find them?’

‘Of course I do,’ replied Candide.

‘Well,’ said Martin, ‘if hawks have always had the same character, why should you suppose that men have changed theirs?’” chp 21 pg 96

I find the spirit of honors in all we do. Here’s a quote from Candide with the spirit of honors, “Their discussions lasted for a fortnight, and at the end of that time they had got no father than when they had started; but they had the pleasure of talking and exchanging ideas and consoling each other.”  chp 20 pg. 94

“‘What is optimism?’ asked Cacambo.

“‘It’s the passion for maintaining that all is right when all goes wrong with us,’ replied Candide, weeping as the looked at the negro.” chp 18. pg. 86

Strive to see the bigger picture.

commented on Joy's

Post 3 - Some things never change

Candide is an “interesting” book. The part that has really stuck with me though is when the old woman shares her story and then tells Cunegonde and Candide to go talk to everyone else and they will find out that everyone believes they have been through more than others. I am sure you have figured it out by now, but I usually tie everything into a biblical principle if possible (which I believe it is always possible!). How often do we hear stories told that apply to “the grass is greener on the other side”? Cunegonde did not think the old woman could know anything of what she had been through, that the old woman’s life had to be easy in comparison. Man was she mistaken. Just like her, we always think we have been through worse, more torturous stuff, than those around us. Sometimes we do not even realize that things we are saying align with this fact, and so we think to ourselves, that person is not me… But think about the last thing you complained about. Do you remember it? I know I do. Do not get me wrong, we all go through really hard things, but our suffering and pain can never compare to that of our Lord Jesus Christ. He suffered rejection, abuse, and death(just to name a few). The people He came for were the very ones who rejected Him. How would you feel if your children rejected you? They mocked him, beat him, and spat upon him when he was in the “courts”. Then they led our Savior up to a hill and nailed Him to a cross. Death on a cross was painful not to mention one of the most degrading ways one could be killed. However, Christ more than made it through His pain, He conquered it. You do not see Him going around complaining about what He did for us. You see Him reaching out His hand saying, look what I did for you, please come to me for I desire to save you. That is what this story has made me think about. I just wanted to share it. I could write on and on, but I do not think you would want to read it. However, I do want to leave you with this question, when was the last time you thanked God for everything He has done and is doing in your life?
Joy Vigneulle

PS - Rachel Kotlan