A Tender Gender To Surrender A Gender Defender

A lifetime of tender genders that dwell to maintain the cycle of recycled gender-defender generations. These, fail to surrender and prefer to mêlée in serious contention of constant competition. Remain drab throughout the passing generations as nemesis in an eternal clash of tender genders.

Mankind Constitutes One Great Brotherhood

I would often ask my mother, “Mom, whom do you prefer, my brother or me?” As a mother, she should be neutral about the fact of having favorites. But as a person, she would tend to feel more identified or bonded toward either my brother or me. When I think about it, I find it difficult to arrive to a conclusion. If you don’t know, I am the big brother, leaving Antonio (my brother) as the small kid. Being brothers automatically connotes fight or disagreement. For example, I often hear the quotation, “juego de manos, juego de villanos”. But isn’t it better, “juego de manos, juego de hermanos”? We fight for every simple aspect presented in a daily basis. At a first glance, I could say I have the advantage since I’m older, and hence wiser, bigger, and off course, stronger. Unfortunately, I dwell with one notable disadvantage: “If I am competing with my brother for a morsel of food, and if he is much younger than me so that he could benefit from the food more than I could, it might pay my genes to let him have it” (128). As the big brother I have the pressure of being the example, the role model, and hence tend to behave altruistically towards such situations of competition.

Maybe I’m not as altruistic as my parents. Indeed, last week they scolded me for being selfish, egotistical, and only worrying about myself. Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not true, but you know, they are my parents. Therefore, I accepted the scold and as I write this blog, I am trying to find a way to improve that aspect of selfishness I am embracing. I am constantly competing with my brother and parents. But this competition is not measured by strength, wisdom, or experience. It is measured with genes. I inherit my parents’ genetic information, and probably my brother’s genes are very much alike as mines. By having this share of genes, I have the tendency to act the way my parents want me to act. Referring to the example of my scold, I wasn’t acting the way they wanted me to act, but now I am striving to do so. When my little brother misbehaves there’s also impact in this sphere of influence. Parents always win. And without parents, the little brothers always win. I am in the middle. I am damned to continue losing forever. If I could have the opportunity to win anytime, I wouldn’t have to wait until I am eighteen to leave the house.

It's Cain's Fault

You might have already listened to this question before: is war ever justified? But before you argue with me about myself being monotonous, let words be presented to you, candid reader. Since the beginning, I shall say, the noble species that bears our name was condemned to be part of even the deepest circles of hell. I can say that way up in my family tree, one of my ancestors killed his brother. If I am not mistaken, his name was Cain and he killed his brother Abel. Since that moment, the entire species of Homo sapiens has inherited that mark: a sense of aggression against our own brothers. As humans we’ve developed the sense of killing, involving ourselves in an eternal cycle of recycled rivalry. It’s quite simple to regard that “the moral of this simple hypothetical example is that there is no obvious merit in indiscriminately trying to kill rivals” (68). We could argue that we are now condemned to kill our kin due to Cain: we inherit his genes. And in accordance to the point of view of this text, genes are immortal. Hence, this civil war of Homo sapiens is not expecting a peace treaty a couple of years from now.

In a war, we sought to kill the rival in order to win. But what if killing the rival is not the final solution? Tell me this: have you heard the saying that says, ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend?’ We can simply apply that to World War II. Throughout history, the United States and Russia haven’t been the friendliest of all nations, still they sought to unite in order to crush the Axis powers. Yes, this was a great notion of union, but years later it would boost the Cold War. Tough choice isn’t it? So the solution is not to kill rivals. But I am getting off track here. Is war ever justified? According to basic logic, a war is between two belligerents, two rivals. It starts because these two belligerents clash over an ideology, territory, power, etc. We as descendants from Cain believe that killing our rival will end the war. But “in a large and complex system of rivalries, removing one rival from the scene does not necessarily do any good: other rivals may be more likely to benefit from his death than oneself” (68). In case of World War II, Russia benefited from the fall of the Axis powers because it would later become the power of the East. With the United States, Russia was friends at war, and enemies a couple of years later. Then, is war ever justified? We strive for a solution for the problem, but we end up finding a problem for our solution. We are damned with Cain’s genes. And genes last forever. That’s the only justification I have about the wars I’m experiencing today. It’s Cain’s fault.

Being Forever

“Do you want to be immortal?” asked Dr. Nathaniel Adams.
“No sir, absolutely not,” responded Gabriel Edmund Nero Eduard.
“Are you sure?”
“Yes sir, I’ve seen examples of people who’ve tried to become immortal, and I don’t want to be one of them!”
“People like who?”
“Well, you see, there’s Gilgamesh, sir, who tried to become immortal by building the city of Uruk.”
“Any other examples?”
“Yes, sir: John Wilkes Booth, with the assassination of President Lincoln. William Shakespeare, with the composition of plays like MacBeth, Hamlet, and Othello, and also Charles Darwin through his famous theory of evolution and natural selection.”
“Interesting, G.E.N.E. What can you say about Darwin?”
“Well, I know he was this famous guy who presented evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors through a process called natural selection.”
“Then is it adequate to say that ‘We are all survival machines for the same kind of replicator (21)?”
“Well, that’s a bit non-sequitur with our conversation, sir.”
“Not at all. If we are ‘survival machines’, that means that we are striving for survival in evolution. We are avoiding to be forgotten in this process.”
“Oh, that explains the question about immortality,” said Gabriel Edmund Nero Eduard.
“Indeed,” and by saying that, their conversation started to refer to immortality, and how we’ve tried to achieve it as human beings during evolution…

I couldn’t avoid hearing these two characters talk while waiting in line for the premier of The Selfish Gene, an awaited text that had created much excitement amongst biologists. Even though their conversation was rather interesting, they were being too superficial about the topic of immortality and evolution. I believe that genes are in constant competition with each other, since “they are called alleles. For our purposes, the word allele is synonymous to rival” (26). Since the moment we are born, genes evoke competition for our eye color, blood type, hair color, etc. They are selfish, according to this man who wrote the book. Why selfish? I don’t know, that’s why I’m in line to buy that book…

“You forgot to mention one example of immortality,” said Dr. Nathaniel Adams arriving at the counter where the author of the book, Richard Dawkins, was signing autographs.
“Well, I know, there are many examples I missed: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire, etc. I could make an entire list of the Founding Fathers, the Presidents of the United States, the French Philosophes, if you wish,” said Gabriel Edmund Nero Eduard.
“Not quite, G.E.N.E, but I am still looking for another example.”
“Come on, can you please tell me what could it be?”
“Think about it,” and by saying this, Dr. N.A and his companion arrived to the counter where Mr. Dawkins was.
“Good evening, gentlemen. I couldn’t avoid overhearing your conversation, but you are quite true there is another example of what’s immortal,” said Mr. Dawkins.
“Can you help him out?” asked Dr. N.A glancing at Mr. Dawkins’ hand flourishing its autograph on the cover page of The Selfish Gene.
“Well, it’s quite simple, ‘when we have served our purpose we are cast aside. But genes are denizens of geological time: genes are forever” (35).
“Thank you, Mr. Dawkins,” and with these words they left the line, and I was next with Mr. Dawkins.

I didn’t establish a conversation with him. After listening to those two characters talk, I remained quiet, thinking about immortality and how to achieve it. Man’s great ambition is immortality. We hear myths about the Philosopher’s Stone and the Elixir Of Life, about alchemists who yearn to live eternally. After Richard Dawkins signed my new copy of The Selfish Gene, I left the premier. As I was leaving, I heard a man shout in the background: “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” I kept walking away through the darkness of the night. Wait a second. Genes are selfish, but still they are immortal? I thought that the altruists were those who remained immortal. It’s relative. George Washington was altruist. John Wilkes Booth was selfish. Still, both remained immortal.

Selfishness Through Temper Desire

When talking about the good in the world, we refer to the evil. There is not good without the evil, we can agree with that. We refer to the opposite in order to emphasize on the meaning we are trying to cherish. When referring to The Selfish Gene, Dawkins is not quite referring to selfishness. Instead, he constantly refers to altruism, and the altruistic traits that recur in the process of evolution. He describes altruism at the individual level in nature: “The commonest and most conspicuous acts of animal altruism are done by parents, especially mothers, towards their children” (6). The bond between a mother and his child is not only the gene they share. It’s a whole structure where sacrifice becomes self evident. Nowadays it’s a common cliché to refer at the mother who did everything she could to save her child. We see it in the Exodus, where Jochebed hides Moses from the Pharaoh in order to avoid her son from being killed. Such things can’t be explained. Such things are “behavioral, not subjective”, therefore the motives of taking such decision are irrelevant.

Since the beginning of the world, either through Big Bang or the Creation, everything was simple enough to have the endeavor to become more complex. From an atom we create a molecule, from molecules we create cells, organs, tissues, bodies, men. Men. Man was created from simplicity, and that led to instant selfishness. The Fall of Man is a clear example of how we are condemned to egotism. Why would Adam disobey God’s orders concerning the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? As the Tao Te Ching explains: “It is more important /To see the simplicity/To realize one's true nature /To cast off selfishness/And temper desire” (Tao Te Ching 19). Here we confront with four different variables: simplicity, nature, selfishness, and desire. Adam was tempted to eat from the tree, it was not his “true nature” to do so. From temptation came desire, but it doesn’t refer to only desire: to temper desire. It refers to a desire that annoys, and indeed man’s desire led to God’s rage, which later led to humanity’s expulsion from the Garden of Eden. And man’s nature is determined from this episode. We are separated from the rest of the species due to the fact we know good and evil. We decided to cast off our selfishness instead of embracing simplicity, and that led to what we today know as our nature.

And for the same reason atoms create molecules and cells create tissues, we ought to derive from somewhere, don’t we? According to Darwin, Homo sapiens is the last stage of a constant process of evolution that started millions of years ago as a simple prokaryotic species. But if we look it the other way around, what is our other possible origin? It is quite obvious, according to Dawkins we are “all descended from the same ancestor” (17) , hence just as traits are transferred through the beautiful process of inheritance, we are also being gifted with Adam’s selfishness and temper desire. Since the moment we are born we are selfish, our mothers are not, though. In the Chronicles of Narnia, people from Narnia used to call human beings “sons of Adam and daughters of Eve”. We are the sons of Adam, we inherited selfishness. Our mothers embrace altruism, which nowadays is quite helpful for the survival of young children in this world of self destructive selfishness.

Embracing Life’s Sequence From The Garden

Three characters stood in no place. They kept talking to each other about their philosophies and perceptions about life and the world. The first one, Billy Pilgrim, had actually been a Prisoner Of War during World War II and had survived the controversial bombing of Dresden of 1945, and he now stood there, in no place. He talked about free will. How we are “trapped in the amber of this moment. There is no why” (Vonnegut 77). According to him, we just live the events, and hence we cannot affect the course of our life. By being trapped in the “amber of this moment” we are living unknowingly, we experience, but are unable to explain what happens to us. Without a why, we are unable of questioning our existence. He argued that we cannot affect our past, present, or future. We have predetermined fates, such as John Calvin argued. Therefore our free will is absent, or minimal. We don’t have control of our lives. We are trapped in the “amber of this moment”.

The second character, a bit old and worn out by the age, agreed with Billy’s point of view. He had lived centuries, even millenniums before. Epictetus thought that we are like “an actor in a play, which is as the playwright wants it to be: short if he wants it short, long if he wants it long (…) what is yours is to play the assigned part well. But to choose it belongs to someone else” (Epictetus 17). To him, all events that occur in life are determined by fate. Hence, they are beyond our control but we can accept whatever happens calmly and dispassionately. Individuals, however, are responsible for their own actions which they can examine and control through strict self-discipline. Suffering arises when trying to control what is uncontrollable, or when neglecting what is within our power. I believe that you must “detach your aversion from everything not up to us, and transfer it to what is against nature among the things that are up to us” (Epictetus 2). He believed that free will is beyond our control.

According to the third character, “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 (…) you would not be here eating candied fruit and pistachio nuts” (Voltaire 144). Everything happens for a cause. For every cause there is an effect, hence we are living under a constant stream of cause-effect sequence. According to him, we cannot affect this sequence. As I may interpret it, if I hadn’t applied to Pre AP English 10, maybe I wouldn’t have read Candide, and hence wouldn’t have considered writing this blog entry. Therefore, I am condemned to be part of this sequence of events, and I cannot affect it. To him, Pangloss, all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. God created the world, God is perfect, therefore the world must be perfect, too. Pangloss is ravaged by syphilis, nearly hanged, nearly dissected, and imprisoned, yet he continues to embrace his optimism. He maintains his optimistic philosophy even at the end of the novel, when he himself admits that he has trouble believing in it. He maintains his philosophy, and advocates a passive view towards evil in the world. Something quite admirable.

As the three characters continued talking about their philosophies, a fourth character appeared out of the blue. He seemed to be interrupting, but his point was relevant to their conversation: “Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.” Pangloss agreed with him. He thought that “when man was placed in the Garden of Eden, he was put there “to dress it and to keep it” (…) which proves that man was not born to an easy life” (Voltaire 143). Since the very beginning we were assigned a huge responsibility. In our hands was the garden, therefore we are condemned to eternal suffering: the suffering that implies dressing the garden. We were given freedom, but this freedom required a responsibility. Then, are we still ready to be free? Remember, every power requires great responsibility. The fourth man had kept saying: “Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.” After he went, I realized that he was Freud. Meanwhile, the three men continued talking, discussing, and I kept writing…

Man’s Insatiable Quest For Mud’s Perfection

For the first time in the novel we are able to depict a world that suits Pangloss’ philosophy of Optimism. Eldorado achieves all the standards of what could be considered Voltaire’s utopia. In a place where there’s no religious persecution, were all men are equal, and poverty is nonexistent, human kind renders under absolute perfection and tranquility. Throughout history, civilizations have tried to achieve this. As an example we can see the United States of America, who has enhanced a nation of oppressed subjects to the most accurate system of democracy in the world. “From Lincoln through Wilson to Reagan and Bush, the lexicon of American-inspired redemption has been recurrent. American exceptionalism has involved a messianic streak, the belief in a country with a global calling to uplift” (America’s Limits, NYT). Humanity is under the constant pursuit of perfection. But in Voltaire’s ambit, perfection isn’t achieved, it’s nonexistent.

The shine of Eldorado’s perfection is contrasted by Voltaire’s deep pessimism about human nature. While Candide evokes optimism through this utopian society, Voltaire uses it to uses it to explain that perfection is impossible to achieve and that even Eldorado might not exist. In this society, riches would end the world’s poverty, and the people are afraid to interact with the outside world’s imperfection. They hence lose the sense of value: “I don’t understand your European taste for our yellow mud, but take all you want, and much good may it do you” (83). Gold, man’s taste of ambition is only mud for them. Therefore the society itself is a complete opposite of the world we live in. We look to achieve perfection. But perfection is quite ambiguous itself: the ultimate desire for those who lack of it, impossible for those who understand it, and mud for those who have it. Then, do we really want perfection. In the United States of America, when a president occupies the Oval Office they are automatically in “the pursuit of the perfect” (America’s Limits, NYT) in every aspect being. In the long run we are longing for mud, nothing else.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/opinion/08iht-edcohen.html?_r=1&scp=7&sq=perfect%20world&st=cse

The Corruption of A Candid Soul

Being the protagonist of the novel, Candide is insipid, naïve, and highly susceptible to the influence of stronger characters. We might as well depict him as being too innocent for the events that occur to him in the novel. If we take the name, we know that Candide roots from the Latin word candidus which means “white” and hence connotes innocence, objectivity, and lack of corruption. Indeed, Candide begins the novel in a status quo of perfect innocence: following the strongly optimistic philosophy of Pangloss and being completely blind about the ways of the world. As the novel progresses, Candide acquires knowledge and understanding of the world he lives in and begins to question his faith in optimism. In this world, the duality of good and evil is evoked through the deaths of innocent people and the corruption of an innocent man.

Candide himself becomes victim of this duality: “I am the best-tempered man there ever was, yet I have already killed three men, and two of them were priests” (67)! The innocence that Candide relied on at the beginning of the book is now gone, or at least less notorious. He is now a murderer, which demonstrates clearly that he is victim of the evil present in a world of good people. Still, he remains faithful to Pangloss’ optimistic philosophy. But his faith will relinquish to this world full of evil, sooner or later. This acts of murderer, or presence of evil in a good soul leave a mark. Candide will probably be submitted to change thereafter. He is no longer believer of the perfect world he lives in, but instead sees his life as miserable. He questions his fate, is confused between what he knows is wrong, and what is considered right: “What is the use of prolonging my miserable existence, if I must drag out my days in remorse and despair at being banished from her presence” (68)? Love is added to the comedy here. Sometimes we have to choose between our duty and our desire. But what if our duty is desire?

His love towards Lady Cunegonde is one of the sole aspects that remain constant in Candide’s personality thus far. He lives for it and cherishes it above many things. With her love gone Candide feels despicable, worthless. His nature is no longer the one that described him at the beginning of the novel. We agree that it started saying: There lived in Wesphalia (…) a young lad blessed by nature with the most agreeable manners” (19). Later it will say that’s why he was called Candide. But personally I believe that the only thing Candide has left is his name. He is no longer innocent or objective, but remains naïve though. He is confused in this world where nature is inconclusive. But it is clear that there is a duality of good and evil (and love), fighting over Candides white soul, just as these players fight for scoring a goal:

Fool's Satire

Satire becomes self evident through the use of Don Fernando. By evoking the figure of a governor by the name of “Don Fernando d’Ibaraa y Figueroa y Mascarenes y Lampourdos y Souza, a nobleman with a degree of pride appropriate to one who bore so many names” (58), Voltaire targets the aristocracy itself. Previously in the book, aristocracy had already been brought upon through the fact that Candide’s mother (the Baron’s sister) didn’t marry his father due to the fact his family had one quartering less than hers. In this case, Voltaire once again attacks the nobility’s thought that superior assets enable them to wealth and power. With the use of the extensive name, hyperbole becomes adamant. The exaggeration of the name’s length makes the reader feel a sensation of eternity by reading the name. In my case, as I read the name I wondered how many “y” would there be. This effect proves the effectiveness of the satire employed by Voltaire.

The target is clearly the aristocracy, or nobility. Tough the Governor rather than being a wise or just governor, Don Fernando is a cheat and arrogant leader. Voltaire will constantly impose irony during his statement concerning him: “he spoke to his people with lordly contempt and with his nose in the air” (58). Don Fernando enhances a double faced figure: to the people he is the “greatest nobleman in South America” (59) while for the reader and Voltaire he is just a supercilious leader. Therefore it makes the statement as a complete irony as, even though seen as a caring figure, he shows hatred to the people. This hatred is the one Voltaire withstands from all the leaders who believe that superior virtues enhance them to power and wealth. On the other hand, absurdity comes present through the mentioning of his moustache: “you have only yourself to blame if you do not become the wife of the greatest nobleman in South America with the most handsome of moustaches” (59). The moustache is completely random here, but it has its satiric role. In common society, a man with a moustache is typical of the rich. The target is clear, and when that happens, it is difficult not to hide satire between the lines. Fool's satire.

Embracing Life Through Passion And Strong Will

The Church has been a constant target of Voltaire’s satiric nouvelle Candide. As religion becomes an important aspect, we can automatically refer as the Church being one of the novel’s targets. Voltaire refers to the Church by being corrupt and hypocritical, especially its leaders. Through the story of the old woman, being Pope Urban’s X daughter, the reader depicts this religious leader as highly unethical member of an organized religion. First of all, by being a priest, it is his duty to be celibate. By having a daughter, it is more than obvious that he violated this code of ethic and morale of the Catholic Church. On the other hand, the Inquisition is also used as a way to target the Church itself. By hanging Pangloss for expressing his ideas, and by persecuting Candide for simply listening to them, we see how an institute like the Catholic Church pledges against the Natural Rights of humanity.

The Church is also criticized purely through the old woman’s story through the way she talks about life and death. Suicide, in particular, becomes a highlighted possibility for people in the world who’ve found their lives miserable: “I have worked I have met a vast number of people who detested their existence, but I have met only twelve put an end to their misery” (57). Personally, I questioned why more unfortunate people didn’t put an end to their miserable lives. But if we come into context here, in Voltaire’s epoch, the only sin that God wouldn’t pardon was suicidal. Since God’s more precious gift to humanity was life, by taking it away we are insulting God’s grace. Therefore, those who commit suicide are condemned to spend eternity in hell. Nevertheless, the old woman (being an illegitimate child of the Pope), never even considers the option of suicidal in her life full of dejection and anguish. According to her, “I have wanted to kill myself a hundred times, but somehow I am still in love with life” (57).

Through her perception of life, Voltaire targets the Church once again. She might believe that hell cannot possibly be worse than life, which in fact contradicts the religion’s doctrine of eternal punishment. As depicted in Dante’s Inferno, Hell is the realm of afterlife where humanity is punished for their sins. By believing the contrary, the old woman depicts Hell as a absolutely normal epilogue of life’s miseries. We will continue suffering, so what’s the difference between dying and remaining alive? Also, we can infer that she doesn’t believe in God or afterlife, and hence doesn’t consider suicide as being an ultimate sin or a straight journey to Hell. Even though the pessimism of the old woman is notorious through her story, “I assure you we were all at death’s door” (56), a slight hint of hope is found by referring she is still “in love with life”. They love it neither because they resign to it nor because they fear eternal punishment. Human beings embrace life, even if it is a stupid move. But it divulges zeal, strong will, and an almost heroic endurance.

Evoking The World’s Critiques Through Metafiction

Basically, there was this man writing a blog about metafiction the evening of October 4th, 2009. As he sat in his milieu, ideas about optimism, love, the stories of the Old Woman and Lady Cunegonde, the notable satiric elements employed by Voltaire, etc. Feeling attracted towards these two stories and their liaison with metafictional technique, he started writing: “Basically, there was this man writing a blog about metafiction the evening of October 4th, 2009.” He thought that metafiction was present in Candide through the inclusion of Lady Cunegonde’s and the Old Woman’s stories. Stories within the story. On the other hand, I though it should be better to write about the importance of optimism in the story. This virtue is present through the characters present, and how they keep this merit alive throughout the harsh events this nouvelle presents. But he kept writing about metafiction, and his desire to develop it was present as he concluded this first paragraph and moved into the second.

As the story of Lady Cunegonde starts, the narrator shifts from being a third person omniscient to the lady herself. We could surmise that the narrator evokes the figure of Voltaire himself, who uses the story to serve as a satire. We can find examples of satire throughout the text, but my focus right now is metafiction not satire, unfortunately. He kept writing about the stories within the story, but now satire seemed to interrupt his aspiration of this entry. To continue, I must tell you that he found a crucial quotation that helped him concentrate on this topic of metafiction: “I am afraid Pangloss cruelly deceived me when he told me that all is for the best in this world” (43). He told you before that about the change of narrator. Before, the successions of events were told in relevance of the third person narrator. But now, the narrator of this story within the story is Lady Cunegonde. By being her in first person, we as readers can dive through her emotions more directly and understand her point of view towards life. In effect, we see how she shares her deception towards Pangloss’ philosophy of the “best of all worlds”. After all the grievances she suffers, she questions that philosophy, just as Candide once did.

He kept writing about metafiction. I believe his ideas were regrouping finally after that shaky embryonic stage of this actual entry. What he wrote next was: Another narrator shift occurs when the Old Lady tells us her story. Similarly to that of Lady Cunegonde, being told in a first person perspective allows the reader to understand the different perspectives people have of this perfect word God created. Hence, by employing metafiction Voltaire not only self consciously addresses to the story itself, but also boosts his critique of the world with different points of view. In this case we already have four different perceptions: the narrator’s, Candide’s, Lady Cunegonde’s, and the Old Woman’s. They all have in common the same thing: their stories are satires of this “best of all possible worlds”. In terms of the Old Lady, we “haven’t had misfortunes like mine to bear, I assure you” (48). She is another victim of this perfect world. She is another critique of the puppeteer who moves us puppets trough the scenario. In the end we are all actors within a play, and our stories are within fate’s story. He finished writing. Quite satisfied with the result of his entry he concluded: “Oh what a misfortune to be without balls!”

God Grant Me The Courage To Remain Optimistic In This World Of Yours

There is no good without evil. The book leaves us with the death of Jacques, who vanishes from this world trying to save the sailor. These two are completely different: the sailor being a completely egotistical and malevolent person, while Jacques is altruistic and benevolent. There has to be enough evil in order to balance out the good. But when these two variables balance out, which wins? The evil. In this case, the result is not balanced, but instead the survival of the evil in behalf of the good’s grace. Even though he is completely altruist, Jacques is victim of his own altruism. Being constantly referred as the “Anabaptist”, he is used as a target from Voltaire in order to criticize the uselessness of being a good person in a world full of evil. Then, is this really the best of all possible worlds?

They often say that the good die young. Paying dividends of a world created by a perfect being. Still, they look at it with optimism. A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity while an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. Candide becomes a target of his own optimism, and yet remains optimistic, barely: “If this is the best of all possible worlds, what can the rest be like” (37)? He suffers the deaths of Jacques, the Anabaptist, Pangloss, and Lady Cunegonde, and yet remains optimistic. Remaining optimistic is quite crucial in life. We constantly ask ourselves: “Why me?” But we should better say: “Why anybody?” Surviving in this world depends on how you look at it. We all live the same course of events. We all endure. Imagine you see a donut. Optimists look at the donut. Pessimists look at the hole.

As I write this blog I am looking at the hole, quite honestly. We die by making good in a world of evil. Maybe death waits when I finish this blog, but as I write this woman is telling me: “Pull yourself together, young man, and follow me” (37). We look for a good that we don’t believe it exists. With misery surrounding us, I can’t imagine a God that lets this things happen. While I write this blog, people are dying hanged, drowned, killed. But at the same time I remember of one man who questioned God’s existence:

A man went to the barber’s shop for a haircut, and established a conversation with the person who attended him. Suddenly, they started talking about God:
The barber said: “I don’t think that God exists, as you say.”
“Why do you say that?” asked the client.
“Well, it’s very easy; every day in the streets you notice that God doesn’t exist. Tell me then, if God existed, would there be all those sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there wouldn’t be all that suffering, nor all that pain in humanity. I cannot believe there is a God that lets all these things happen”
When he heard that response, the client stood in silence, and decided not to respond, only to avoid a serious discussion. When his haircut was finished, he exited the barber’s shop and outside saw a man with a long beard, and bushy hair. When seeing this, he entered back to the barber’s shop and said to the barber: “You know what? Barbers don’t exist”.
“What? But look, here I am”, responded the barber.
“No!” said the client, “If they existed, there wouldn’t be people with such long beards and bushy hair as that of the man over there.”
“Barbers do exist”, responded the barber, “what happens is that those people don’t come to me”
“Exactly!” said the client, “That’s the point. God as well exists, but what happens is that people in the world don’t go towards him, and don’t look for him. That’s why there is all that misery and woe”.

The existence of God remains ambiguous. Whose fault is it then? Do we have to stop blaming God and blame ourselves? Then we have to stop it both ways. Stop blaming God, but as well stop preaching. But for Voltaire, religion is hypocrisy. We ask God for miracles. But at the same time we blame him for our miseries. Therefore we shall remain optimistic, to depend on ourselves and not on Him who created this perfect world. Yes it’s perfect, let’s take it for granted. Let’s look at the donut and not the hole.