Ambitious Temptation

We are ambitious creatures always influenced by victory. The simple fact of winning is probably our biggest accompishment in this society. Although, some people are more ambitious than others and they have no limits when victory is set as their main target.

Prinoner's Dilemma is an excelent potrayal of two types of  people: the ambitious and the altruistic ones. The game consists of two players. There are five rounds where each player decides either to cooperate or to defect. When both players cooperate each other, both win 300 points. When one defects and the other one cooperates, the one that defects ends up winning 500 points and the one that cooperated wins none. Finally, when both defect each other, no one wins points.

At the  end of each round, the ambitious and the altruistic players are evident. In my case, I felt really disappointed because my partner betrayed me. We both agreed to cooperate each other every single time, and I trusted him. After three rounds of cooperating each other, he defected me in the fourth one. This is very interesting because I thought of defecting him that same round, but I changed my mind because I thought he was going to keep his word. Unfortunately, he broke our agreement to benefit himself. At the last round, we both defected each other. He knew I was going to defect him because he noticed I was very mad. It is important to analyze Connor's ambitious temptation. We both felt tempted to defect each other, but Connor's temptation was more intense and he just went for it. I think we were both altruistic at first, but at the last two rounds, neither of us trusted each other. After the game, Connor told me defected me because he thought I was going to defect him. If this is true, this means that Connor didn't defect me in order to gain more points, but because he trusted in his instincts.

"If we translate the colloquial meaning of "nice guy" into Darwinism equivalent, a nice guy is an individual that assists other members of its species, at its own expense, to pass its genes on to the next generation. Nice guys, then, seem bound to decrease in numbers: niceness dies a Darwinism death." (202) In this case, I was the nice guy who lost (died). For me, this model is very coherent because it portrays the different interactions between certain kinds of people, which are actually true. My defeat actually portrays my personality. I obviously didn't want to lose, neither did I want Connor to lose. When I promise something I keep my word. This is exactly what happened in the game until Connor broke the agreement.

Sadly, I am the nice guy, caring of my own species. The bad part is that most people aren't nice people and they only care about themselves. In this world, I am the one who loses.

Understanding Selfish Herds

Throughout chapter ten, Dawkins talks about the selfish-herd model. He states that in this model, there is no place for cooperative interactions. "There is no altruism here, only selfish exploitation by each individual on every other individual. But in real live there are cases where individuals seem to take active steps to preserve fellow members of the groups from the predators." (168) This is very true, every survival machine considers their live before others'. Although, when important members are at risk, this is when the survival machine takes active action in protecting this member. You might be asking yourself what I mean by important. By this I mean that the member might be significant to the herd either by their impressive abilities or because it might be attached to the actual survival machine.

A horse herd portrays the relations between people very easily. I've had the opportunity to be part of a project that involves equine assisted learning with horses. Horses for men have being of great benefit in understanding various psychological aspects. Horses and humans are both really social creatures. They have certain roles in the herd, they are gregarious, which means that they prefer to be in groups than alone. In the other hand, they all have different attitudes and personalities. All of these aspects offer us the opportunity to observe and evaluate the similarities of their behavior with the one of people. There are certain activities performed with large groups of people.

Equine Assisted Learning

Every member in a group has it's role: there is a contributor of ideas, a leader, an opinion-giver, and an energizer. Once, we assisted an activity with the workers of Sony in order to understand the group interaction and situation. The activity consisted of making three horses jump a 30 cm. obstacle without a bridal nor a lead rope. It was quite difficult because the horses were very stubborn. At this moment of difficulty, the different roles of these people were evident. A lady who really feared horses was very nervous and disrupted the whole activity. At this point, the group leader scolded her and the other ones didn't say a word. Here we can interpret the herd model on this group very easily. This woman lacked the qualities to perform the activity actively efficient, which leaded to her exclusion of the group. This happens in animals as well, if one of the members of the herd is not efficient, then it won't matter if a predator eats him because he is not relevant to the herd.

Claus's Loss

There is another really important situation among horse herds. When they are young, they tend to get attached to other horses. This is similar to the attachment children feel for their mothers when they are young. This was the situation between my horse and another one in the herd. When my horse died, he felt very afflicted and we wouldn't interact with other horses nor would he eat. This proved to me that animals actually have a feeling sadness, that when one of their most loved friends or relatives dies, they feel and understand the loss. Up to now, Dawkins hasn't touched the topic about animal feeling, but I guess he would contradict my theory because he thinks survival machines only act with response of their selfish genes. In this case, my horse actually felt the loss of his friend. What I think is that the selfish gene exists, but it is not always present. It is only present in drastic situations, where it is either ones life or the others.'

Another very good example of the selfish-herd model are the insects. "A social insect colony is a huge family, usually all descended from the same mother. The workers, who seldom or never reproduce themselves, are often divided into a number of distinct castes, including small workers, large workers, soldiers, and highly specialized castles like the honey pots." (172) I wish this was our case, but unfortunately we have a different idea of progress. These insects are very altruistic and they cooperate together for the progress of all. In ant societies, there are no leaders. These creatures actually share their learning, which they acquire threw their antenna. As a result, thousands of ants act together with the same idea of surviving together.

Sexual Evolution

Dawkins suggests that all survival machines strive to maximize the number of genes by having sexual intercourse. Isn't it quite odd to mix ones genes with another person's? Every time a couple has a child, their genes are being thrown away, and replaced on their new creation: the child. Isn't it our main purpose in life to reproduce and to form a family? What about homosexuals? Are they some kind of mutation or what?

"What is the good of sex? Sex appears paradoxical because it is an 'inefficient' way for an individual to propagate her genes: each child has only 50 per cent of the individual's genes, the other 50 per cent being provided by the sexual partner. If only, like a greenfly, she would bud-off children who were exact replicas of herself, she would pass 100 per cent of her genes on to the next generation in the body of every child." (43) Our existence is just so perfect, so exact and beautiful. It is amazing to me that our "survival machines" are so perfectly designed to have exactly half of the genes of each parent.

Even though our existence really amuses me, some things seem confusing, such as the existence of homosexuality. It is a very controversial topic with so many theories and assumptions. I personally see it as good thing because it depreciates the amount of over population all over the world. What is worrying to me, are the many homeless mothers with five or six children on the street. This is quite ironic because nowadays the typical middle class family has around two or three children per household. Instead, these poor mothers have over five children living on the street. Why do they decide to have so many children, knowing that they won't have a home and that their dreams and aspirations will just vanish because of their situation.

Our species is probably the most promiscuous on earth, we breed and have sex more than others. Religion is also a very important part of this concept of breeding and eventually forming a family. This idea encourages couples to have more children. Fortunately, this idea is not as present today because we have evolved as a society. My mother has three brothers and two sisters, which was actually not much at the time. Nowadays, that would be a really extensive family. There is a very famous quote that states that "if a man can't look after his family, he is repugnant to the eyes of the lord." This shows that long ago, at the beginning of the 20th century, there was no tolerance with birth control.

If we analyze various historical events that happened during this time, we can see that the ones who suffered the most were the children. The irish famine, the great american depression are just some events that children had to face, due to the fact that no condoms, nor birth control pills existed. This is also seen today. It is actually very present in Bogota with the displaced people who are kicked out from their homeland by Las FARC. They come to the Bogota with their five or six children and start begging on the streets hoping that some day things will be better, but unfortunately they won't. These people also intend to have children even while they live this misery. They probably have them in order to collect more money or to have company as well. This is where altruism takes place. Are these mothers really having their children to offer them a healthy environment or are they having them just to improve their own survival by making them beg for money?

"If sexual, as opposed to non-sexual, reproduction benefits a gene for sexual reproduction, that is a sufficient explanation for the existence of sexual reproduction. Whether or not it benefits all the rest of an individual's genes is comparatively irrelevant. Seen from the selfish gene's point of view, sex is not so bizarre after all." (44) I do not think sex is bizarre, what is strange to me is the concept that has been created about sex. This goes back to my argument about homosexuals. Religion also opposes homosexuality because this means that they are not forming the "traditional family."

I believe sex is simply a feeling of human nature, no matter if it is attraction between men or women or opposite sex. It is simply a feeling of pleasure and satisfaction for every survival machine. The decision of having a baby depends on the couple, no one else should ever make part of this decision.

"To be or not to be"

Polo and Khan start doubting wether their reality is actually true. They start thinking that they are fictitious characters and that the actual reality is what they build up inside of their minds. At this point, I felt like Polo and Khan were referring to my reality. In the other hand, their hypothesis is basically saying that they are Gods who create a world where everything revolves around their imagination and their creations.

Polo starts the dialogue by saying "Perhaps the terraces of this garden overlook only the lake of our mind." (117) Then Khan responds "And however far our troubled enterprises as warriors and merchants may take us, we both harbor within ourselves this silent shade, this conversation of pauses, this everything that is always the same." (117) If they can't even assimilate their reality, this means that they are simply lost in their own existence. Their reality is so plain, but at the same time so ingenious. This ingenuity only happens inside their heads, while their actual life is not more than a misery.

Then Polo talks about another theory. "Unless the opposite hypothesis is correct: that those who strive in camps and ports exist only because we two think of them, here, enclosed among these bamboo hedges, motionless since time began." (117) Here comes the idea of a powerful mind, where they build these idea that they can create a world only by imagining it. How egocentric can they be to consider such a thing? They are basically saying that they are the chiefs of the world and that they decide what to do with the lives of everyone.

Finally, they both reject this hypothesis and conclude that they are the ones who exist. Khan says: "We have proved that if we were here, we would not be." (118) Then Polo concludes: "And here, in fact, we are." (118) This reminds me to Shakespeare's poem "To be or not to be."

The poem says:

" To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
No more; and by sleep, to say we end
the heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
that flesh is heir to?"

When we think further, we start questioning our own existence. What is really the essence of our existence, do we really understand our presence? Are we conscious of it?
In this case, Polo and Khan don't know if they really are or if they are not. Both o these characters seem to have a subconscious mind, making them even more realistic to the reader. In Hamlet, the character questions whether it is better "to be, or not to be, which implicates his own suicide. He is doubting wether to kill himself or not. In this case, Polo and Khan are doubting wether their reality is true or false.

Idealized Venice

Marco Polo has mentioned all the good qualities of the cities he has visited, but Khan insists that there just can't be such perfect cities. Polo insists that it is not worth talking about the negative aspects of these cities, since no city is perfect. At this point, we can see that Polo opposes pessimism. With Polo as a friend, Khan will probably begin to change his mentality and he will start to be more optimistic about his empire. Remember, I'm just foreshadowing about the text, this doesn't mean that this will eventually happen.

Polo says to Khan: "Every time I describe a city I am saying something about Venice." (87) Khan doesn't seem to understand his intentions and responds furiously: "When I ask you about other cities, I want to hear about them. And about Venice, when I ask you about Venice." (87) By Khan's reaction, we can see that he is too literal and he doesn't understand the real meaning of what Polo is trying to say. Marco Polo is doing a compilation of all the good qualities of these imaginary cities. In the other hand, it is very important to take into account what Polo avoids mentioning the negative aspects of each city because it doesn't help at all, it simply makes people more selfish and pessimistic. This situation portrays Khan's empire because he only looks towards the dark side and the negative aspects of an empire. Khan doesn't strive to make his empire a better place for everyone, instead he dreams of finding the ideal city, which is Venice.

There is a point in the book where Polo states that he is being sarcastic when talks about the good qualities of these cities. Khan does not understand his sarcasm, which makes his interpretation of these cities totally opposite to Polo's.

"The empire is being crushed by its own weight," Kublai thinks, and his dream now cities light as kites appear, pierced cities like laces, cities transparent as mosquito netting, cities like leaves veins, cities linked like a hand's palm, filigree cities to be seen through their opaque and fictitious thickness" (78)
At this point, I finally understood the meaning of the title "Invisible Cities." All the cities mentioned by Polo do not exist, they are just dreams and aspirations. They are "transparent as mosquito netting" because they are impossible to reach and to live in.

Polo's sarcasm and the way he portrays this cities proves that our society is a total failure. Khan is a perfect representation of naivety. He thinks that the ideal city is one with and ideal economy and wealth for the whole community, but is this really what life is about? Isn't life about humor, about making fun of our reality like Polo does?  It is difficult to change our reality, but it helps if we make fun of it instead of lamenting it all the time.

Objection: Penates & Lares

This topic goes back to my first blog about Invisible Cities, where I mention the tension between the poor and the rich. There are two interpretations: Either the rich or the poor can be "Penates" or the "Lares." Calvino portrays the tension between these two social classes in the city of Leandra.

"The true essence of Leandra is the subject of endless debate. The Penates believe that they are the city's soul, even if they arrived last year; and they believe they take Leandra with them when they emigrate. The Lares consider the Penates temporary guests, importunate, intrusive; the real Leandra is theirs, which gives form to all it contains, the Leandra that was there before all the upstars arrived and that will remain after all have gone away. (79)  Both the elite and the working class se each other as intruders, which doesen't make sense at all because they both work together for the wealth of the "whole community." But is that wealth distributed fairly? This is where power takes place, giving the elite class the most privileges in society. The elite class sees the lower class as intruders because they have different hair cuts, fashion style and language. This are all material things that separate these two classes. From the point of view of the lower class, they also see the elites as intruders because they are the ones responsible for their misery.

FAIR?

"The two species have this in common: whatever happens in the family and in the city, they will always criticize." (79) This is very true, we are very demanding with certain things that we want in life. As I mentioned in my last blog, we have too high expectations. The rich will always criticize the manners of the poor and the poor of the rich.
"The Penates bring our the old people, the great-grandparents, the great-aunts, the family of the past; the Lares talk about the environment before it was ruined. But this does not mean they live only on memories; they daydream of the careers the children will follow when they grow up (the Penates), or what this house in the neighborhood might become (the Lares) if it were in good hands." (79) The Penates have the status they have because of their past relatives, not because of their accomplishments in life. In the other hand, the Lares critique the system of society they have created in order to benefit themselves. The Penates parents dreams of the future of their sons, of their status and most importantly; their fortune. Instead, the Lares day dreams of what their lives was if these leaders (Penates) would take their future into account when managing the money of the country.

I strongly believe in social equality. I don't think that the ones who have had rich relatives from the past deserve all the power and fortune unless they have done something for the progress of everyone. The Lares deserve so much more, sadly most of them are the ones that really struggle for accomplishing their dreams, not having a penny. If you think about it, it is ironic in a sense because the rich should be the leaders, almost like Gods for the whole community. Unfortunately, this is not true and fortune makes them ambitious and self- conscious. This attitude has made the poor self-conscious as well. As a result, both attitudes make of our society a very competitive one.

Polo's Elemental Cities

It is important to know about the historical background of the characters in the story because it helps us understand Calvino's ideas in a more complex way. In Invisible Cities, Calvino explains Marco Polo's and Kublai Khan's relationship during the Middle Ages.

Marco Polo

Marco Polo was a very important Venetian merchant who worked for the Mongol Prince, Kublai Khan. He received him with all his family. The prince felt really impressed by their knowledge and intelligence of the world, reason by which he kept them for various years. This is just basic information that is important to know when reading the book.                 I remember the first time we read it and no one really understood the first chapter that mentioned these two people. Now that I know what was their relationship was, now everything makes sense.

Polo travels to these "Invisible Cities" and comes back to the Empire to tell the prince about his discoveries and interpretations about each city. Since Polo describes him so many cities, his interpretations vary. "Kublai Khan had noticed that Marco Polo's cities resembled one another, as if the passage from one to another involved not a journey, but a change of elements." (43) There's two really important things about this quote: First, the way Polo describes the cities, and second the similarities all of these cities have in common. With Polo's factual descriptions, Khan feels that he is not hearing a journey of experiences, but of information. With so many descriptions about elements and objects, Khan mixes up all of these descriptions among these cities. 

Kublai Khan

"But what enhanced  for Kublai every event or piece of news reported by his inarticulate informer was the space that remained around it, a void not filled with words. The descriptions of the cities Marco Polo visited had this virtue: you could wonder through them in thought, become lost, stop and enjoy the cool air, or run off." (38) Off course this is not a virtue, the narrator is just making fun of Polo's inarticulate descriptions. Something really important as well is understanding the humor used behind the text. If we as readers, understand this humor, the purpose of the book is even more clear and evident.

"As time went by, words began to replace objects and gestures in Marco's tales: first examinations, isolated nouns, dry verbs, then phrases, ramified and leafy discourses, metaphors and tropes. The foreigner had learned to speak the emperor's language or the emperor to understand the language of the foreigner." (38) Although Polo's descriptions are not as deep, Khan gets used to them. This is a very good example of our culture. We adapt to things that are impossible not to get used to. This is the case of many foreigners that come to Colombia, leaving back their old ideas replacing them by new ones. In most cases, foreigners adapt to the country, but in others they don't. I've seen a lot of foreign students from the school that still haven't adapted to our culture. Instead, in the case of many American teachers from school, I can see that it is easier for them to adapt to the country because they chose to start a new life here.

Polo's and Khan's relationship is still evolving, they are understanding each other better and they are getting used to each other. We know that they both interpret the cities in different ways, but we still have to see what they will finally conclude of all these cities. Do they all share a similar concept? Are they divided among desires and aversion? All of these questions will have their answer as soon as we finish reading this book.

The Cities of Human Decadence

Humanity: The most achieving race, but the most obscure one. We are vicious individuals, who have created a world of our own. Everything revolves around our existence and our benefit. We expect too many things from this world, from this superficial society. These high expectations lead to our defeat when failure comes. In the world of TODAY, we do NOT accept mistakes because we have too many expectations.

"Just Society"

In Invisible Cities, Calvino depicts various cities that are all different. When analyzing the cities, one can contrast certain countries with these cities, where "invisible" societies appear. You might be asking yourself what do I mean by "invisible societies." Our mentality is simply rotten, isolated from all values and moral. We only care about our benefit, not for others' benefit. Our will to help is invisible, we only help if it benefits ourselves, which means that our intentions to help each other are just fallacies. Let's just take a look for the meaning of society in the world dictionary: "A society, or a human society, is a group of people related to each other through persistent relations, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or virtual territory, subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations." It states that society is related through "persistent relations," but how can we interpret these relations? Are they invisible or are they real? They are simply fake, which is worrying because this means we never know how a person might react to our personal difficulties. It is either our benefit our theirs, our life or theirs, this is human nature corrupted by society. The actual meaning also refers to "dominant cultural expectations." This goes back to my idea of humans expecting too much from this world of today. What are our expectations based around? fortune or progress? Here is where the two different thinkers appear, the ambitious ones and the revolutionary ones, who oppose the corruption of power and encourage prosperity for ALL.

In Invisible Cities, each city is known either for a particular emotion, a particular time, memory, or object that makes this city unique. Zaira is known for it's past, "however, it does not tell its past, but contains it like the lines of a hand, written in corners of streets, the gratings of the windows, the banisters of the steps, the antennae of the lighting rods, the poles of the flags, every segment marked in turn with scratches, indentations, scrolls." (11)
In this case, we could relate this city to a country, probably Colombia. In this country, history isn't told, but it is very evident today. In countries like Colombia, where the history is so crude and violent, this past has been tried to be forgotten, but it is just simply impossible because the past is what depicts the huge gap between the elite and the lower class today. The injustices over the lower class create a continuous resentment against the rich. This resentment is endless, it goes from generation to generation. This is the place where everyone would like to live in a more progressive country. The rich continuously critique the country because of it's violence and inactive progress. In the other hand, the poor continuously attack the rich, and as a result they form guerillas, such as Las FARC.

Zora is the vacation city, foreign to all our culture and monotonous life. It is a city where everything seems amazing to the eye of any foreign tourist. In my case, Zora for me is Machu Pichu, an amazing 15th century Inca site located in Peru. "Zora has the quality of remaining in your memory point by point, in its succession of streets, of houses along the streets,and of doors of windows in the houses." (15) This is exactly what I think about Machu Picchu. Although I went about 8 years ago, I still remember various particular scenarios in detail. It is a site of memories, of specific memories that will never be erased from my mind.

By contrasting these two cities with particular sites, we can deduce that Calvino makes a representation of our miserable lives in society. In my case, Colombia for me is the Zaira of a barbarous past where I'm not as happy. Instead, Zora is the city of my dreams, where I wish I lived. We are never completely satisfied by living the place we were born and raised. We have other expectations, we always desire a different life from the one we actually have.

At The End, We Make Life Better

Although life is difficult, we are the ones who make it better, but how do we make it better?  It would be really difficult to give you a true answer to that question, but I'll give you my own opinion. We often worry too much about things that really aren't that important, things that have no impact on our life. We forget about the real meaning of union because we have this concept that we live in a world of competition. When will we realize that it is not about winning alone, but winning together? It really worries me that when people realize this, it will be too late...

In the last chapter of the book, Pangloss responds to Candide "You are quite right, when man was placed in the Garden of Eden, he was put there to distress it and keep it, to work, in fact; which proves that man was not born to an easy life." (143) That's correct Pangloss, now that's what I like to hear... We, as readers can see how Pangloss evolves his ideas throughout the text, at first he said that this is the best of all possible worlds and now he insists that "man was not born to an easy life." Voltaire argues that although life is not easy, we are the ones who solve its difficulties. By solving our own problems, we learn to persevere and to manage reality with more maturity. Martin says that "We must work without arguing; that it is the only way to make life bearable." (144) I believe toleration is a really important quality every one of us should have as a community. Differences often tear us apart into different identities, which is catastrophic because this means we have no future as a community and that we will never win together, but alone.

The final sentence of the book is really inspiring because it evokes change and unity, something a lot of the characters were lacking at the beginning of the book. Candide says "That's true enough, but we must go and work in the garden." (144) When he says "garden" he is referring to the Garden of Eden. He is now a man that has discovered the real meaning of life. With this closing sentence, we can infer that he gave up his love on Condegonde, but that he is a new man that looks forward to working for progress in his own community.

Life is a Misery

Sometimes being optimistic isn't enough to obtain what you want. Throughout the whole book, Voltaire criticizes optimism through Candide's life. When Candide fails to find Cundegonde and Cacambo after several months in Venice, he falls in despair. He begins to agree with Martin's idea that the world is a misery. At this moment, Candide says "How right you are, my dear Martin! There is nothing here but illusion and one calamity after another." (112) Then, Martin responds "You are surely simple fellow, to believe that a mongrel servant, with five or six million in his pocket, will go for your mistress to the ends of the earth and bring her here to Venice with you." (112-113) He begins to agree with Martin's claim that the world is a misery and that optimism is just useless when it comes to reality.

For those who like Maroon 5, you probably noticed that my title "Life is a Misery," is the chorus of the song Misery from that band. Several of the lyrics from this song relate to Candide's situation at this point and explain his lack of optimism and his state of misery. The song says "I am in misery, there ain't nobody who can comfort me." This is exactly the way Candide feels; despaired and lonely. When human beings have to face this reality, they feel like losers and that life isn't worth it anymore. In the other hand, Sartre, a French philosopher states that "men are completely despaired without God." He might be trying to say that atheists are in complete despair, which I don't agree because unless you have a plan on life and you have the unconditional support of your family and friends, there's no way you'll be in despair.

Another line says "Oh yeah why won't you answer me, the silence is slowly killing me. Oh yeah, girl you really got me bad, you really got me bad. Now I'm gonna get you back, I'm gonna get you back." This song fits so well the book, that I even pictured a whole musical of Candide with this song in my head. I know this isn't relevant, but I had to say it... Okay, going back to my topic, with this line of the song we can see how men are almost always the ones who have to sacrifice everything to be with the person they love. Candide has done almost everything to be with Condegonde and now he realizes that there is nothing else to be done and that life is just a misery.

That So-Called Religion...

Before starting, I just want you to know that I have no intentions of insulting your beliefs nor ideas, if you don't agree with my thoughts, you are welcome to stop reading, and if you continue reading I'm glad you think the way I do...

I strongly believe that religion is a form of government that manipulates people's fear to have money in return. It started simple and significant and it has evolved into a way of life where some people spent their lives praying for things that might not even come true. Grandma I hope you never find out how to view my blog, but I just have to say this... I respect your beliefs and I expect the same in return, but my entire life you have encouraged me into having a religious life where I should read the bible, pray, and leave my destiny in the hands of "God." Well, let me tell you that destiny is not in the hands of God, but in our own hands! We build our future from the moment in which we have the use of knowledge. If I want to accomplish something, I strive  myself with dedication and courage to accomplish it, I don't just simply leave it in "the hands of God."

When Candide asks the old man about their religion, he blushes and tells him the way they interpret it. The old man states "We never pray, we have nothing to ask of God, since he has given us everything we need. But we thank him unceasingly." (79) I'm so glad there's people who think like me even from hundreds of years ago... God gave us the life, but is he in charge of building our future? Hell no, we are the ones who build our own future! There wouldn't be so many people lamenting themselves if they thought this way, it is hard to accomplish your dreams in a world like this, but nothing is impossible if you believe in your self, instead of believing in religion. I'm not saying that you shouldn't believe in God, I just believe that is equally important to believe in yourself.

I live in a family of free thought, where I've being told that I'm free to believe what I want. Well, let me tell you that all of my thoughts and beliefs are reflected on the ones of my parents. The greatest influence on our life is the one of our parents, no matter if good or bad. We decide to follow their beliefs or not, however they have a great impact on our lives. For example, my mom had a very religious mother that even belonged to the Opus Dei. Her entire childhood, she was told to follow the beliefs and principles of Catholicism, and you want to know what is the result of that? A very resentful woman that thinks totally the opposite thing. It is important to respect others beliefs and opinion, no matter how radical they are, even though I strongly believe it is important to express your personal opinion, just how I did in these previous paragraphs.

An Optimistic New World

Optimism is the only way out of reality, the only way to avoid our own lifes. We often think that optimism is a quality every one of us should have, but this book tells us totally the opposite thing. Pangloss argues that this is the best of all possible worlds, and the Anabaptist once contractided him by telling him to be realistic and to face reality as it is. When the earthquake takes place in Lisbon, Conegonde, Candide, and the Old Woman search for a better and new life in "The New World." They strongly believe that in the new world, there will be no problems and that their life will be just perfect.

Off course, sooner or later they would have discovered that the New World wasn't any better than the old one. When they reached the Oreillon frontier, Cacambo said to Candide: "The new world, you see, is no better than the old; take my advice, and let's return to Europe as quickly as we can." (73) Then, Candide responds "Where are we to go when we arrive? If I go to my own country, I shall find Bulgars and Abars cutting everybody's throats; if I return to Portugal, I shall be burnt alive; and if in the other hand we stay in this country, we run a constant risk of being skewered." We can see how Voltaire criticizes optimism through the characters. Candide is trying to be optimistic by searching for ways to start a new life in a new world, but he finds out that he won't find a Utopia where everything flows perfectly. This is when he faces reality, that reality which he tries to avoid all the time.

We live in a society where sometimes reality is a living hell for many of us. Why do we have to make of our lives a living hell? I blame it on the system of society, where we are forced to follow certain rules to belong to the unit. My entire life, I've questioned society because I don't agree with it's so-called "principles." Humanity is supposed to evolve right? Then why do we stick to ideals from the past, where humanity was at another level? We think that Darwin started and finished his research of evolution, but the truth is that there is way more to be discovered. Humanity hasn't evolved completely yet, and you know why? Because we've been condemned to be free! It sounds kind of complicated, but it will make sense as soon as you let me finish my thought. We don't know that we are free, but the truth is that we are free to believe what ever we want. Nothing is a hundred percent sure because that truth is built up of various interpretations of humanity. Do you want to follow religion? do so... Do you want to follow the policy of uniforms in you school? do so.. Do you want to follow the whole system of society? Well, do so, but know for sure that you'll never find the real essence of life because if you follow the system, there's no way you will ever find out that you're free to express however you want.

Anabaptist's Death- Evil vs. Good

Why should a sincere, honest, and good man die and not the evil one? Does there have to be evil as well as good in this world to maintain a balance of nature? I personally didn't expect the Anabaptist's death at all because I though his role in the story was going to be crucial for understanding various of Voltaire's theories. Although, I think his death leaves us a really important message, which is Voltaire's criticism of the optimistic belief that evil is always balanced by good.

When the Anabaptist saves the sailor, he ends up sacrificing his life as a result of his hospitality and kind spirit for an individual who is totally the opposite thing; selfish and evil. In this scene of the story we can see how in some cases its not about balance in nature, but of either good or bad surviving, in this case the evil survives. This scene totally critiques Pangloss's theory of optimism because no matter how optimistic an individual is, events such as these are unpredictable. Although the Anabaptist was more of a realistic human being, he had no bad intentions with anyone. We can also see how useless the christian values can be and that faith won't guarantee a safe destiny.

I'm not saying that optimism is a bad quality, I just think that we as human beings shouldn't rely on it because life is just unpredictable. Optimism helps us face certain events in a more positive way, which is great because with this attitude towards life, difficult situations won't be as hard to overcome later on.              

Sorry if I'm being insistent or repetitive, but I'm so glad we're reading this book because it not only narrates a story, but it interprets the reality of our society and our thinking. By our thinking, I mean our beliefs about destiny and progress, which are greatly criticized in this book. According to Voltaire the reality of our society is barbarous and wicked.

A Nature Corrupted By Men

The Anabaptist claims that men have somehow corrupted nature because God never gave them weapons, which means that men created them in order to destroy themselves. Pangloss thinks totally the opposite thing and argues that "this is the best of worlds." With this two different opinions we can take into consideration that the Anabaptist is the realistic man and that Pangloss is the nonsensical and naive man who thinks human kind is completely innocent.

It is important to mention that the Anabaptist is a character who contrasts the usual idea of society, which explains that human beings should govern the world no matter the consequences it might cause to nature. He is a generous human being, realistic about human kind, which is a quality no one else has up to now in the story. With this character, various theories and ideas of Voltaire will show up through the story.

I personally relate myself with  the Anabaptist because I believe human kind has corrupted not only nature, but society in every sense. We have created a world of our own where nothing is real, everything is an allusion; metaphors are great example of this theory implied my Nietzsche, a german philosopher. For me a rock symbolizes a plain life where nothing is relevant to one's understanding; for another person a rock is simply a rock. Jean Paul Sartre says "Humans are condemned to be free," then what kind of freedom is the one where we destroy ourselves, nature, and society?


For me, society is not more than a fake regimen that manipulates vulnerable human beings that have to follow it since they are born in this planet. We have to adapt to a certain culture, religion, community etc. Society has told us that the wealthy ones are the ones who should govern the world because they are the ones who have fortune, that it's NOT natural that two individuals from the same sex are together and that they just can't form a family because it sets a bad example to the community. Then is it a good example to isolate people just because they are different? I mean, what does different even mean?

Listen carefully, if you are one of those people who follows society's belief that these people just shouldn't exist nor set an example on our community, you better change your act together because there's absolutely no way humankind will evolve with this idea. What I believe is that everything born on this planet is natural and if it's not natural it wouldn't even exist...

even the bible accepts it...

Voltaire, "The Wordsmith"

It's hard to find a writer that really inspires imperative readers, like me. I don't like books that talk about random stories I don't even care about, but this one digs further into the real meaning of literature. Before entering Mr. Tangen's class, I had no idea of what a satire was, but now I know it is the only tool that encourages me to finish a book. You might think I'm a geek, but I actually like bringing to light the real meaning of a story, otherwise it's not relevant to my learning or understanding. Candide is exactly the type of literature I enjoy reading because it challenges the reader.

Before starting my analysis, I just want to thank Voltaire for bringing up such a great classic of literature, and off course to Mr. Tangen for assigning us a book that is worth reading.                                  
From what I've read until now, I can say the use of irony in the book is hilarious when you get to understand it because it's definitely not that obvious. When the narrator is describing the Baron's influence in Westphalia, he says "The Baron was one of the most influential noblemen in Westphalia, for his house had a door and several windows and his hall was actually draped with tapestry." (19) How in the world is that influential on a whole community? Off course, what the narrator is trying to say is that he was nothing more than an idle and vague man who had none influence on the people. 

Another tool that Voltaire implies in his work is the hyperbole, which is an exaggeration. He mentions that "Pangloss taught metaphysico-theologo-cosmolo-nigology." (20) Off course such study doesn't even exist, but we as readers assume that he is a brilliant eggheaded man. With exaggerations like this, our interpretations might be different, which makes future class discussions important... 

There's a part in the story that really made me laugh, which is when the narrator describes the intercourse between Pangloss and Lady Conegonde. At first, we think Pangloss is just teaching her a lesson, but at last we find out that all they were doing was having sex. He says "Since Lady Conegonde took a great interest in science, she watched the experiments being repeated with breathless satisfaction." (21) Who would have though that science could be so inspiring...  Now, this type of literature is the one that makes me laugh. I just find it so disappointing that not every reader would understand the use of irony in scenes that are so worth understanding.