The So Called Altruism

When I started reading chapter 10 I thought: "Finally, Dawkins has talked about that so called altruism that was underestimated by the selfishness of genes!" I was actually beginning to like it, he was talking about something else besides selfishness, until he wrote: "There is no altruism here, only self exploitation by each individual of every other individual"(168). The example of the 'model' he created was apparently not altruistic at all. Then, my hopes got up again when he came to the alarming bird example it was altruistic but it ended up selfish again. Dawkins wrote:"The best policy is indeed to fly up into a tree, but to make sure everybody else does too. That way, he[the bird] will not become an odd man out and he will not forfeit the advantages of being part of a crowd,but he will gain advantage of flying out into cover. Once again, uttering warning call is seen to have a purely selfish advantage"(170).  So, once again no matter how hard we try we end up putting our benefits first than the others.

 It is actually quite true. Living in a third world country has made it more possible to believe. Every christmas my mom and I recollect clothing and give it to the poor, we are helping people, but then my "selfish gene" of personal satisfaction comes to the game. I end up happy because I helped, even if the help was not for myself.

If you are still not convinced I checked on the New York Times an article called "Schools to Start Offering Swine Flu Shots" it said: "Swine flu vaccinations will begin in the city’s public elementary schools next week, officials said Tuesday as they encouraged parents to sign consent forms being sent home with students now"(NYT oct 20). This may seem altruistic because schools are concerned with the children's health and want to do everything to protect them. But then again it comes to selfishness when the school offers the vaccination for its own protection so the children in the institution don't infect or harm the sake of the educational curriculum.

So it seems that we were just "survival machines" that were meant to be selfish.

The ESS Of Sexes

Moral In The Selfish Gene

Today in class some people said that The Selfish Gene was a didactic book, at first I thought: "sure why not? it has examples,"but obviously I was forgetting what didactic meant.  Once I remembered the meaning I thought: "what was I thinking?" and that is the clear response you should have towards The selfish gene being didactic, there is nothing moral about this book. As Dawkins himself said: "I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved"(2).

To make my point clearer I will make you see chapter 8 as if it had any moral, to see if it makes sense. We will omit what Dawkins said in chapter one.

Lets start with a complete scenery of the situation:

Sammy is in Mr. Tangen's Pre-Ap English class. He is a very influential kid who likes to learn new things from books. He  got home, tired of school. And started preparing your mind for the everlasting 8th chapter of The Selfish Gene. He wanted to understand how evolution has contributed to human behavior, and tried to find some useful ideas for life (once again, he has omitted the first pages of chapter 1). Sammy read the following: "Using our metaphor of the individual as a survival machine behaving as if it had a purpose of preserving its genes, we can talk about a conflict between parents and the young, a battle of the generations"(131).  As soon as Sammy read this his mother came in. Sammy wanted a new cellphone and he knew that it was his time to start begging for one. Suddenly his mind recalled something from The Selfish Gene: "The battle is a subtle one, and no holds are barred on either side. The child is too small and week to bully its parents physically, but it uses every phycological weapon at its disposal: lying,cheating,deceiving, exploiting [...](131)." As soon as his mind came to this quote, he started bribing his mom on doing more chores and on lying about how his grades have been better so he could obtain his "purpose of preserving his genes" which in Sammy's case they will help him preserve the social genes.

As you can see dear old Sammy ended up quite influenced with the selfish gene, that is why what Dawkins meant was just for evolutionary reasons. If the book were moral and influenced people as much as it did for Sammy it would make the human behavior even worse than it is now. If we did not question our existence as we have done for the past few decades, what Dawnkins said would be completely normal, we would have an animal mentality that would just go on with life. But we have tried to avoid this seeing the world in a different perspective, and clearly this way of life, proposed in the book (if it were moral) is not the right path, at least for the hope of making humans ethical creatures. 

So I just thank Dawnkins for writing: "This Book is mainly intended to be interesting, but if you would extract a moral from it, read it as a warning"(3). There are a lot of Sammys in the world, imagine if this was nit written.

Chapter 5: A Typical Day In A Typical High School

I was completely wrong, Candide was not boring at all it was fun an entertaining compared to the Selfish Gene. I know we have to learn of evolution but isn't that the point of science class? I practically felt in it while reading. That is why, to make it more entertaining, I decided to try to find a relation with all of this to our daily lives.

Lets turn our minds to a typical day in a typical high school. As you know there are certain social groups within the same grade. The only relation in which we see that each group bears with another group is when they, "may be predators or prey, parasites or hosts,competitors for some scarce resource. They may be exploited in special ways"(67). You might think this doesn't make sense but it really does. For example, there is the  the popular group, they compete against the nerd's group for some kind of grade or an achievement in class( it's not very likely but it happens),or something much probable when the popular group exploits the nerds to copy their homework in exchange of something.  When I quoted "predators or prey" I referred to it as when a group is the prey, in the sense of social humiliation or rejection of one of the other groups. We can see it when the not so social rejects("lions") mock the nerds ("antelopes"),when people laugh at someone or discriminate him because of what their wearing, etc. To survive to these types of behaviors  each social group has to use "An evolutionary stable strategy or ESS"(69), to make it safely to graduation, or just to at least have a livable day in high school, after all you spend half of you adolescent life in it. Take this as an example: "Lions and antelopes have reached a kind of stability by evolutionary divergence. They have become highly proficient in the art of chasing and running away"(84). Don't take it literal, that is not the point. Think of it as any group of whatever grade that starts humiliating someone from another group, the "ESS" of that someone is to ignore them or just run away. Sadly, everyone wishes that things were different but things are just the way they are. You can think that the "antelope" could just stand up for himself and prove that he is worthy as anyone else, but "a 'stand and fight' strategy against lions would be less successful"(84). It is just the way of surviving, the person from that group, or the group itself, would  even get  more hurt and end up worse than before. That is why we have stick to that "kind of dominance hierarchy"(82), to survive those four years that may seem a waste of time.

Maybe it is just a matter of a typical high school to understand nature...

Not a Fairytale

I woke up this morning by a friend calling me, his call made me realize that I had to finish the boring book we were reading in english: Candide. I did everything that is possible to avoid that responsibility until I realized I had more homework and it was better for me to start. 

It's frustrating to read something that doesn't interest you but most of all that even if your trying to like  the story you just can't seem to be attracted to it. I read the book with that mentality until, I read the most disappointing words that Voltaire had ever written: "At he bottom of his heart Candide had no wish to marry Cunégode"(138).  Isn't it a bit pathetic? After all he went through and he didn't want to marry her? Voltaire actually made me waste my time for that kind of ending. Well I know it is dramatic irony and we are learning how to identify satire but AGH!! I guess in the end everyone expects a happy ending.

 There is always something you wish for so badly that you can't even sleep, and you go through such unnecessary stuff just to get what you want. Sadly it never ends as you expected it. 

In the case Candide we can see it when Cacombo says to Candide that, "but what is sadder still is that she has lost her beauty and has become horribly ugly"(129). After all he went through he had to deal with an ugly wife? That is just terrible. 

Well that is what you think through the naked eye, but I came to my own conclusion that it is not the result what makes you happy but what you had to go through even if you end up disappointed. As Pangloss said:"There is a chain of events in the 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 Conégonde, and if you had not been involved in the Inquisition, and had not wandered over America on foot, and had not stuck 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"(144). Obviously it was not "all is for the best" as Candide always believed, he never dreamed of this. But at least he got what he wanted and could experience things he never imagined to. He got Pangloss back, he had a small farm and had the love of his life, even if she was ugly.

Surely the optimism  here is truly disqualified, Voltaire is underestimating the hope people have. Just look at the stories ending. But what will be of us without hope? That was the virtue he had that made him overcome all of his experiences. 

We never have a happy ending, but at least we go through life wishing for one. It may not have been what they expected but they are making the best out of what they have.

Ignorance Or Just A Misunderstanding?

When we read Crystyna's blog today I had that part of the book stuck in my head. Voltaire wrote: "They found the cries came from two naked girls who were tripping along the edge of the meadow, while two monkeys followed the nibbling their buttocks"(69), after that part what I really did not agree with was when she wrote: "She turned her mouth up in a scowl"(honesty of truth). I personally thought that the phrase was not a very PG thing, but we can't judge it in that way. I know that was not her point but we are underestimating the time in which this was written. 

The perspective of the Americas was quite different from what it is now. In that time people did not think the United States is one of the strongest nations in the world or that Colombia has a president who is trying to become a dictator in a democratic way. They hardly even understood what was going on in the Americas. Not everyone had the chance to go there, and if they did have it it was for governmental reasons. Let me remind you that in the point where Candide found "the naked ladies" he was traveling through uncivilized territory. Does it ring a bell? Well they did not understand that there were certain behaviors that were different from the European society. Writers like Voltaire, that had never set foot in the new world, actually imagined how it would be to meet with Indians or with parts that were not influenced by Europe. They did not have reliable resources to write a perfect description of what they saw. Their resources were tales from sailors who thought that what they were seeing was the most primitive, uncivilized, pervert thing in the world. When evidently it was not. If you once in your life consider reading, Decadas de Orbe Novo of Pedro Martir de Angleria, you will understand that in that time people expected to understand what was going on through some writers that based their works without actually living the event. It was sort of a Historical novel, the writer did not live what was going on but he assumed it was like that. The cultural background of that time was created by assumptions.

A side from the fact that this was a satyrical phrase, it also shows us the closed mind people on this time had. How their judgment was so radical that it created perversion on things that were hardly understood. 

Ignorance always leads to misunderstandings.

The Utopia: Chapter XVII-XVIII

 Candide said, "It must be unknown to the rest of the world, because everything is so different from what we are used to"(77). This must be the world talked a about in the description i found in the introduction: "The details lifted from Garcilaso are sometimes grotesque; nevertheless Candide here finds all the eighteenth century Man of reason could desire--a society in which all physical to law;where men simplified religious belief to to the lowest common denominator of natural religion;where neither crime nor war exists; where the achievements of science are respected;and were men enjoy equality and fraternity"(12). This is the kind of world every man dreams of. Sort of the utopia Voltaire wanted to live in. It is incredible how Voltaire's criticism of reality or of the actual world is evident  through "El dorado". When the old man says: "We have so far been sheltered from the greed of the European nations, who have a quite irrational lust for the pebbles and dirt found in our soil"(79). It is absurd how he describes something as valuable and precious as emeralds as "dirt found in our soil" but of how he wants to criticize the greediness of the actual world and also the materialism found in it. As the description in the introduction says this is the escape of Candide of a better world, of the ideal world. Perhaps that was the vision of Voltaire's perfect world and with the descrpition of it society is questioned.

Unfortunately it has been more than 200 years and not one site of this world has been somehow seen.  Luckily we can still dream.

What Lies Beneath The Cross

 When Cacombo says: "The reverend fathers own the whole lot, and people own nothing:that's what I call the masterpiece of reason and justice"(62). It finally came to me, I finally got one of his so called humor! Lets just take a look at what he is saying it is totally ironic and in a weird way it is funny. Obviously his main target is the church and he is criticizing the way religion had been handled, the institution and the misleading principles they had established even in the new world. It is not fair to see how people die of hunger, and the church that is suppose to be compassionate being the main reason of the injustice. That is the whole point of his irony, to criticize the church. 

When Voltaire writes:"I don't think I have ever seen such godlike creatures as the reverend fathers. They fight the Kings of Spain and Portugal over here and give them absolution in Europe"(62). We can see how the reverends approve war, when the church is totally against it, and the hypocrisy they manage to have. The words voltaire uses, "godlike creatures" is the perfect ironical description of the situation. The church in this parody is the description of the lack of moral they had  in their principles and the way they managed situations going against the will of God.

 I must remind you that Voltaire was facing a time in which the church oppressed the human mind and men were actually realizing.

It was time to open the mind to other thoughts that didn't involve a hidden conspiracy in the cross.

Irony At A 99.9%

Seeing that there is no much left to talk about Candide, or at least there is but I am not in the mood of thinking I thought it would be interesting to apply the characteristics of satire to these chapters.

We already know that it is a parody in which most of its writing create the a bitter satyrical humor. What I noticed in these chapters is how irony is the strongest characteristic. Most of the events that happened in the story have a meaning that Voltaire wants to criticize using the opposite. One of the strongest criticism used in Candide is the church, Voltaire in a very subtle way makes the reader realize the corruption and the oppression the church managed in that time. We can see this when the old woman tells her misfortune, "But I have never forgotten that I am the daughter of a Pope"(57). Here we can see how irony is used, a Pope is not suppose to reproduce and clearly in the story he did. Another clear example of Voltaire's irony is when he wrote: "It was a friar with long sleeves who had stolen Cunégonde's money and jewels at Badajoz"(60). Again with the church, Voltaire is showing how a friar, who is supposed to be benevolent is steeling from people and is taken my men's strongest desire: money.

The irony is quite clear in these chapters and is one of the strongest characteristics of satire that make create as such a strong and emotive parody.

Senza Coglioni!

After reading chapters 8-11 I realized that Voltaire's writing reflects the bitterness and intentions of his satire. His language is basic, cruel and vague. His writing seems shallow and savage. The way he describes the events are cruel and with no feeling. But those words that narrate the story stick into our heads showing the immorality of men and how savage we get to be.

In this point of the novel we see the segregation, the superiority and the necessity of men to see women as a mean of lust and reproduction. That was the perception of women in that time, and the language used reflects the way they were treated. For Voltaire to write it it must have been that he disapproved this type of behavior or was questioning societies savageness. The Italian words prove it, "O che sciagura d'essere senza coglioni!"(53). What is said here is how unfortunate was the women on not having balls, meaning the bravery that men have. This is a very sexist comment, specially because it's saying that just because you have "coglioni" you can survive, you could be useful. But because she didn't have well it's a shame and it is gone to waste,  women are just useful for reproduction.

I also mean by cruel when Voltaire writes, "In the end I saw my mother and all our Italian ladies torn limb from limb, slashed and massacred by the monsters that fought for them"(52). That completely repelled me, is a women such and object to tear her apart? The animal instinct in men is still present, our actions don't reflect the reason we have. 

Voltaire in these chapters shows the lust, vengeance, jealousy and all men's sins that have made the world we have today. And how we think we can escape from it. Candide said,"why, even the sea round this new world is better than our Europe seas. It is undoubtedly the new world is the best world of all possible universes"(48). The new world was a mean of escape of thinking everything will be different, but we have are the ones that have to change not the world.

The sins expressed through Voltaire's language through the parody have not been yet avoided, can it be possible to not be described in that way?

Gli coglioni non fanno le persone...

Only The Good Die Young

It is amazing how this parody has so much to say and you don't even realize the strong and bitter humor. I keep on reading and every time I find myself with something Voltaire wants to criticize. No one blames him, after all it is a parody. 

This novel was written in a time where men decided to exploit their potential, and stopped underestimating their reason. But men were oppressed by church power and conservatism, it is seen clearly when, "Pangloss and his pupil, Candide, were arrested as well, one for speaking and the other for listening in the air of approval" (36). This shows the inconformity of Voltaire, maybe his own personal experience of being oppressed of his free will, in a way, and his freedom of speech. Candide is a reflection of the time Voltaire was living. 

Another thing I noticed is how Voltaire goes back to the false heroism Candide was awarded to. The fact that, "Candide was flogged in time with the anthem;the Basque and the two men who refused to eat bacon were burnt; and Pangloss was hanged"(37), makes it hard to believe that after not doing anything, and wondering in life without something clear the one who died was Pangloss and not him. Voltaire is showing how we award those who are not really worth it and have not proven themselves to life. How we let pass great minds, forgetting how our world needs them. 

What really makes it absurd is that Candide ends up with the girl, "He had the surprise of his life, for his astonishing gaze it seemed that Lady Cunégode stood before him" (39). After all the great Philosopher dies, and he ends up with more luck than him. It is a shame how some deserve the luck and they just don't have it. But who are we to judge?

That is why Queen's song, No One But You (Only The Good Die Young) describes perfectly these chapters.

 hand above the water
An angel reaching for the sky
Is it raining in heaven -
Do you want us to cry?

And everywhere the broken-hearted
On every lonely avenue
No-one could reach them
No-one but you

One by one
Only the Good die young
They're only flying too close to the sun
And life goes on -
Without you...

Another Tricky Situation
I get to drownin' in the Blues
And I find myself thinkin'
Well - what would you do?

Yes! - it was such an operation
Forever paying every due
Hell, you made a sensation
You found a way through 

One by one
Only the Good die young
They're only flyin' too close to the sun
We'll remember -
Forever...

And now the party must be over
I guess we'll never understand
The sense of your leaving
Was in the way it was planned...

So we grace another table
And raise our glasses one more time
There's a face at the window
And i aint never, never saying goodbye...

One by one
Only the Good die young
They're only flyin' too close to the sun
Cryin' for nothing
Cryin' for no-one
No-one but you

Not Everything Is For The Best

I can't find a particular interest in the story of Candide because it is much absurd for my taste. Never the less, the constant criticism has made it interesting because it makes us understand what was going on in that time. I personally think that we would have a better perception of the book or at least understand the satire better if we lived in that time, or if we experienced the philosophy of life those people had. In these chapters I had to go back to the introduction to find the purpose of voltaire and understand his acid humor.

Throughout the chapters voltaire always wrote how, "Pangloss explained to him [Candide] how all was designed for the best"(31). Every page Pangloss commented on the same thing. That must have meant something to Voltaire. I tried to find the meaning of it, but it is hard because sometimes I rely a lot on that saying, and that is why I didn't find it satyrical. But then I questioned myself, "why would he repeat this so much?, when practically there was no hope for them." It must have been that he was against this. 

In that time the only hope was God, and people relied on him as if he were guilty and as if he made everything happen "for the best". But it is this that Voltaire wants to criticize, not the fact that we believe in a God but that we are led to false expectations because we are so optimistic. It is not wrong to be optimistic, on the contrary it is a very good quality but it is wrong when we mislead it. Voltaire said that, "If all is for the best is explained in an absolute sense, without offering hope for the future, it is only an insult to the miseries we endure"(10). It is as if he were saying that if the words don't really imply a change or don't promise to make the things better they will make everything worse. Those words or our false expectations of hope are like a shield that in a way make us feel better but they really are creating a lie within our thoughts. It is not the words that voltaire is against of but the way we constantly use them without results.

That way of criticism is what made me realize that this in could be considered an ethical book, that has more advice to life than what you think. Even if we are not living in Voltaire's time and he have different perceptions, our principles have always been the same, they have come from the same roots.