Constant Change

As we go deeper and deeper into what Dawkins proposes, I find many flaws in his theories. I do not know if he is talking about a utopia or about our world, what he proposes will only work in a utopia. He mentions, “Since one male can theoretically produce enough sperm to service a harem of 100 females we should suppose that females should outnumber males in animal populations by 100 to 1” (143). This might be true, unfortunately we can not choose weather to have a boy or a girl. If nature did not intend for us to be able to choose, and we still have a very large population of males, it might mean that it was mean to be. Males might have other purposes like hunting or caring for the women. They might not all be needed for reproduction but they are certainly needed for something else.

As I write this blog I remembered lady Macbeth. According to my standards she is the opposite of what a women should be. Macbeth is not convinced about what he should do in order to become king. His lady on the other hand believes that he has to do anything it takes. The man and the women might have switched roles. Normally, according to the Selfish Gene, men have a very small role, which is to reproduce. If it is true than Lady Macbeth does not agree with Dawkins. Macbeth is not only used to reproduce but to gain power, and protection. Maybe our genes were meant to do what Dawkins proposes but we clearly do not obey. They are constantly changing.

A Great Predator

One of the many realizations I have come to notice by reading The Selfish Gene is how lost humans are. We are desperately trying to find a purpose and a meaning for everything, and not very worried about the species itself. It is very true that humans are selfish beings. They have gotten to a point were they only care about their closed circles. There are obviously some exceptions, but in general, we do not care about what the person across the street does with his life. As I was looking for an article to write about I started thinking about our differences with animals? I found a blog by Olivia Judson (http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/a-long-melancholy-roar/#more-1285) called A long, Melancholy Roar. In this blog from the New York Times she mentions how many animals have caused deaths in recent years. The numbers seem large, but she then mentions “More recently, however, it’s been the case that the mammal most likely to kill a human is: a human. Murder and war have long been more important causes of death for us than predatory wild animals” (Olivia Jude). She is right. We can many times focus on how others kill us but we never think of how we kill ourselves. We are the greatest predators on the planet and don’t even notice it. What Dawkins suggests makes a lot of sense when you compare it to animal behavior.

The Use Of Men

Human Race: Outgrown

This morning, in my ethics class, we discussed the importance of the brain. The teacher led us to conclude that the brain was the only important part of the body. He made the students realize how little we know about the world. All life could be is a dream, which we have created ourselves. Usually I do not like to ask myself these questions. They only lead to frustration and discomfort. I may never answer them and I prefer to enjoy life as it is. Even though nobody really knows what our purpose on earth really is, almost everyone wants to leave a mark. Everyone wants humanity to remember them. It can be done in many ways: Killing, saving, leading and so forth, but the point is we want to be remembered.

In chapter eight of the book Dawkins mentions how “…genes are the immortals, or rather, they are defined as genetic entities that come close to deserving the title” (34). If you want to be remembered being immortal is certainly the answer. If we look at our existence in a matter of time we are a small dot. Our influence is of course proportionate. A gene on the other hand has a greater impact than all of humanity combined. For one it cannot die and therefore, constantly evolve. It is always learning and making itself better. The simplest but greatest difference is the way they are immortal. Humans will only live forever if they are forever remembered. If for some reason, our memories were to be wiped nobody would know who George Washington is. He has suddenly become mortal. Genes on the other hand are immortal physically. They cannot be destroyed. By being self-dependent they have outgrown the human species in every possible way.

Writing: An Expression

As we continue to enter the world that Dawkins proposes, I found that the way he introduces new ideas is very direct. There are many authors who include these very wordy introductions for a simple idea. A few paragraphs later they do it again. This process goes on and on, and unless it is what you are looking for, it can be tiring. Dawkins on the other hand simply states, “This chapter is mostly about the much-misunderstood topic of aggression” (66). This is a great example of a direct, to the point introduction. It is giving the reader the option of deciding if he wants to read the chapter quickly. He does not have to read for ten minutes and then decide that it is not what he is looking for. Since this is a science book the importance of this choice is even greater. Most people who read science books do it to inform themselves and you would like to know weather to read the book or not. This way of writing is not only included in the introductions to main ideas but in the main ideas themselves.

Something else that is great about the way Dawkins writes is how he answers the reader’s questions. It is as if he knew what the reader would think of and then simply answer it: “All they can do is set it up beforehand; then the survival machine is on its own, and the genes can only sit passively inside” (52). As I was reading this passage in my mind, the question of why this happened immediately came up. To my surprise the next paragraph was dedicated to answering my question. This ability that can be seen in the author is one that I have seen in few. Even though I do not agree with what is being stated as I mentioned in Purpose: True Or False, I greatly admire the way he is able to express himself. The connections he is able to make in the readers mind have captivated me.

Purpose: True Or False

Because the Selfish Gene is a science book, I decided to ask my science teacher about it. She told me that it was well written, but in order to use it for scientific purposes you had to update many of its hypothesis. As science never stops growing and each second we are thinking of new reasons for everything, I asked myself why Dawkins wrote the book. He mentions, “Intelligent life on a planet comes of age when it first works out the reason for its own existence” (1). This theory would make humans an intelligent species. If we were able to get as far as to know why we exist why try and continue developing. As the author is quick to mention, humans are merely machines made to transport genes. Dawkins might agree with this and maybe that is, but the rest of the population does not seem to agree with him. If his writings are now outdated it means that we continue to grow and that maybe, only maybe, our purpose is greater than what is being suggested. What proved his theory wrong is our simple urge to continue expanding. Returning to my conversation about science I was told he had written a more recent book. I do not have to know what that book is about in order to deduce that he had new ideas and wanted to publish them, which proves my point.

Approaching the end of the fourth chapter I was able to come to a conclusion. The only thing that serves a greater purpose is a gene. If our purpose can be completed by a bus and “The true ‘purpose’ of DNA is to survive, no more and no less” (45), this book is an extra. Humans do not need to now what their purpose is. It really doesn’t matter if we are an intelligent species or not. The truth is, we should enjoy what we have even if it is an illusion. That is what Dawkins is doing. By writing this book, he feels that he is informing the population and making them “intelligent”. He continues to contradict what he is stating with what he is living. I look forward to figuring out what the real purpose of this book is.

Undefined Questioning

As I begin reading The Selfish Gene a connection in my mind is immediately made. Dawkins is suggesting a totally depressing state of life. Many pieces of literature try to state the meaning of life, unsuccessfully. I believe the answer to this question lies in each individual. There are many theories about why human beings were created and I have heard many of them. Religion is one of the strongest reasons of being that we use today but our rational mind is taking over. As Dawkins proposes that “they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence (20).” I was completely surprised. This theory is completely depressing. If it is true, I now understand the purpose of religion. To live knowing that we are useless, except to harvest the “selfish gene”, this thought will destroy the species. The author clearly states that we are an intelligent race, and if we know that we are living in order act as machines then we are no longer acting as machines. Maybe our original purpose was to serve as a tool but as we evolve that purpose has now changed.

The first impression I have of this book is a good one. The author is clear in his writing but he is also very bold. As an inexperienced reader, I find it amazing that he will go out and say “The trouble with these books is that their authors got it totally and utterly wrong” (2). The authors he is criticizing will say the same thing about him. What difference would it have made to the reader if Dawkins mentions that those authors are wrong. After I continued reading I realized that his theory is so radical that if he criticized the other authors he would receive attention. A theory that might otherwise be disregarded as fiction, when compared to serious works can receive certain validity. As new theories are unveiled and we move away from belief and into rationality, more questions grow. The need to answer these questions has to be met and by reading this book we are.

Incapable Of Satisfaction

As we approach the final chapters of Candide’s story the reader is shown the conclusion to all of the past events. As the chapters subtitle clearly states, Conclusion, every teaching is given a certain importance. Some things are disregarded and the reader is, in a way, told they are wrong: “Pangloss allowed that his sufferings had been uniformly horrible; but as he had once maintained that everything would turn out right in some marvelous way, he still maintained it would, however little he believed it” (140). The change in Pangloss throughout the book led me to one idea. The human race is incapable of true satisfaction. This idea is what Voltaire wanted the reader to get to. The suffering and joy that is experienced in Candide’s life meant he was never happy. Pangloss believed strongly in what he said but life made that determination change. He made others believe something that he now did not believe. Few moments of joy marked Candide’s life: Cunegonde, the finding of El Dorado, and some others. These moments of joy led to the search of more joy and the consequence was the loss of happiness.

In one of the final chapters Candide asks if “…men have always massacred each other” (96). The response Martin gives him leads us to believe that it is human nature to do what we do. Candide does not agree with the answer and mentions “‘Oh, but there’s a great difference,’ said Candide; ‘for free Will…’” (96). This answer is one I have been looking for since the first chapter. I my first blog, Voltaire: Free Or Trapped, I mentioned free will and what Candide thought of it. Most of what I mentioned was speculation, but I now know that he does believe in free will. Voltaire was able to conclude all of the main ideas he in one point discussed, leaving the reader with great knowledge.

A Vicious Circle

Candide has received a lot of knowledge as he advances from place to place. His arrival to El Dorado taught him one of the most valuable lessons he has learned so far. It might not have been so important for Candide but in our society it definitely is. Money is what buys most people happiness these days. If you are poor but have some values, you might wonder how nice it must be to be rich. If you are rich you might not have values. The point is that people are rarely happy. We are never satisfied with what we have. Upon his arrival to El Dorado Candide realizes “how perishable are the riches of this world. There is nothing solid but virtue” (85). This statement summarizes the whole idea of materialism and the effect it has on our society.

In the New York Times article “We Don’t Surrender Until We Have To” a man is forced to learn these truths. It can many times take an accident or a near death experience to make us realize how we are wasting what we have. Why do we hold such a great importance to material things? Maybe it is because we like to look good. It is a common thought that if I wear the latest clothes and drive the newest car people will like me. What this attitude proves is that we are not content having most things if we are missing a little. Many people then resent the one that has what they don’t. The rich person knows that a person with fewer resources can be as happy as he is and the poorer person believes that if he had what the richer one has he would be much happier. It is a vicious circle that must stop; although how to stop it remains a mystery to me.

No Choice

In these chapters, a big change can be seen in Candide. At the beginning of his life he was a more accepting and peaceful person. If someone would propose something that did not sound very good he would do it. As he develops and learns, his attitude and tolerance evolve: “My master Pangloss used to tell me that men are equal; and I shall marry her without any hesitation” (67). Candide expresses what he has learned and clearly states that he is going to proceed with his plan. Some might see this as a deterioration of his character but I see it as an improvement. You always have to respect others but you can also express your ideas. Candide is now self-confident person who can express his ideas even if others disagree.

Race has always been a big part of the world. Even though slavery has been abolished discrimination still continues. When Candide expresses his wishes to marry Cunegonde he is rejected. People many times judge those whom their loved ones are going to spend their time with, and just because of class some are rejected. Since Candide was not part of the royalty that was expected he was not worthy. Instead of looking at how much love is being expressed the colonel looks at status. In this video we can see how a father and mother make a daughter marry a certain man. This tradition is part of many countries and still exists today. Voltaire tries to show the reader the wrongdoing of this, from an early stage in history. Even though Candide many times criticizes what has happened in his past he is living in the present. Unlike Billy Pilgrim he is able to regret certain decisions while living in the present.

Peer Pressure

In Chapter 14 of Candide the Voltaire targets people who take advantage of others. Cacambo, Candide’s new slave, strongly believes in this principle. If you have an opportunity to take advantage of someone for your own benefit do it: “When you don’t get what you expect on one side, you find it on the other. Fresh sights and fresh adventures are always welcome” (62). It is the same principle as cheating. If someone can copy off their neighbor’s paper without studying and receive the same grade, enjoy it. There is no reason to pass on an opportunity like that one. I can understand why that can sound interesting but the problem is, when there is no one to copy from you are lost. We many times realize our mistakes to late, because we did not pay attention to what others told us.

Voltaire is trying to imply the wrongdoing in taking advantage of others. This can be confused with taking advantage of situations, but it is totally different. When you take advantage of something you have to do it according to a certain moral standing. If you are taking advantage of something and by doing it you are not being moral don’t do it. The human desire to always have more can be very powerful. The only way to stop that desire is by being rational. Candide did not strike me as a person who would do this in his rational mind but his thinking is impaired. Since he is in a tough spot and cant find any moral solutions, he takes the easy way out. I wonder if Candide would have done the same thing if he hadn’t met Cacambo. You can many times make a decision due to others influence. We learned this in Radio labs Choice and it makes a lot of sense. It is where the principle of peer pressure comes from.

The Border Of Perfection

These two chapters have been very interesting and captivating. The best way to learn is through experience, and since you can’t experience everything, learning from others experiences is also great. The reader is told several stories which all include tragedy. It is a recurring theme that Voltaire has very present in his mind. Each time I see a movie or hear a story that has to do with a suicide I think it is ridiculous. Why would someone end his life? There is no turning back, no way to say sorry. You just end everything. What can be so bad that merits terminating everything? The bible mentions suicide as a sin. If you commit suicide you will go to hell. I am not very fond of the bible and I do not always agree with what it mentions, but I do agree with this part. I have learned a lot by reading Candide. The experiences he goes through and the attitude he shows us towards each of them are exemplary.

Surprisingly, the book touches upon suicide. Some people live their entire lives without joy and happiness. It is a classic tragedy. As I mentioned, I do not agree with suicide, but what I learned in this chapter has changed my point of view: “I have wanted to kill myself a hundred times, but somehow I am still in love with life. This ridiculous weakness is perhaps one of our most melancholy propensities; for is there anything more stupid than to be eager to go on carrying a burden which one would gladly throw away” (57). This statement is correct and has proven me wrong. We are always trying to do what interests us and not do what we dislike. If we despise life, why should you continue living? I could not find an answer to this question, and that is why I agree with this statement. There are still many reasons why suicide is not the right choice, but I have to accept that it sometimes is. I now realize that there is much for me to learn. There is no limit to a certain topic, an expert can always learn more. We must continue to try and reach the borders of perfection without expecting it in order to live happily.

A Rare Awareness

There are many ways in which we cope with misfortune. Some people suffer for the rest of their lives, some get over it very quickly, and some relate it to other stories in order to feel better. As I was reading Candide I noticed how everybody has gone through some type of misfortune. If “all things are necessarily connected and arranged for the best” as Pangloss mentions then we should not suffer. Bad things do not exist. All that happens is great. The first time I read all of this I was not convinced with what it was being suggesting. As I go deeper into the book I realized that maybe, what Pangloss taught Candide was wrong. He was very important at the beginning of the book and his death came as a great surprise to me. I wonder if his death was a way of telling the reader that his ideas must die with him.

Competition is something that can be either deadly or great. This urge is what pushes us to beat the limits and the odds and surpass every obstacle. It is one of the few reasons why we can advance so rapidly. The satisfaction we get when we are good at something or better than the other that people go to great lengths to achieve it. It is where cheating started and will probably continue for as long as we exist. Voltaire shows this to the reader by telling Cunegonde’s story: “Unless you have been ravished by two Bulgars, had two stabs in your belly, and two of your country houses demolished; unless you have had two mothers and two fathers butchered before your eyes and beheld two of your lovers flogged at an auto-da-fé, I don’t see how you can rival me, especially as I am a baron’s daughter with seventy-two quarterings in my coat of arms, and yet have served as a kitchen maid (p.48-49).” By saying that she suffered more than the others makes her feel empowered. It is very ironical. You should not feel proud of you tragedy. Voltaire gives the reader a lot of room for interpretation and that means that there is more room for learning.

Curiosity And What It Gives Us

These two chapters in the book prove to be very important. The simple death of Pangloss is devastating to the story. Through the book the reader has learned everything from him. It might be Candide who applies it but it is Pangloss who teaches it. The only thing that comes to my mind would be that Candide already learned everything that he had to. If this is true then I am surprised. Candide has a life with a lot of tragedy and many times he does not handle situation correctly. This mentor experiences a very strange death: “…Pangloss was hanged, though that was not the usual practice on those occasions” (37). Does his death symbolize his importance? The student is quick to say that Pangloss is “the greatest of philosophers” (37) and maybe that is why he is given that special treatment. Each time I see a movie or read a book where the main character dies I like it. It changes that cliché where good always wins against bad. This is a great way to learn. You many times learn more through mistakes than through success.

One of the reasons the reader learns so much from Candide’s life, is because he questions everything. Curiosity is one of the greatest attributes god gave us and it is what allows us to expand. The urge to improve is one of the things that separates us from animals. Humanity loves to criticize the way it is doing things and talk about destruction. Voltaire mentions the world in a much more optimistic manner: “If this is the best of all possible worlds […] what can the rest be like” (37)? This theory might be true and if it is, I do not know if I should feel happy or let down. I love the world but to think of it as the best there is, is not exactly inspiring. All of the questions that are posed in the book make me wonder, what Voltaire was thinking about when he wrote the book. The only way we can answer this question is to ask ourselves the questions.

The Purpose Of Life

These past few days we have been listening to Radio Lab, they mention how bad things leave a larger mark on you than good ones. A tragedy can leave a person completely marked for life. It is part of your self-preservation instinct to remember them and make sure that they don’t happen again. Voltaire as well as Epictetus, mentions how everything happens for a reason. We can see how Epictetus mentions that you have to let go of many things and accept what is meant to happen. Candide mentions, “all is for the best in this world of ours” (27) as one of Panglose’s teachings. If this is true then a death will be for the best and you have to accept it. As I mentioned in my previous blog Voltaire: Free Or Trapped, Epictetus and Candide have many things in common. A difference that changes the whole way you read each of them is, Candide is written as a story. As events occur in his life the reader learns.

A particular part of the story caught my attention. When there was a big commotion on the boat and one sailor falls into the water, another one decides to save him but “The efforts he made were so strenuous, however, that he was pitched into the sea in full view of the sailor, who left him to perish without taking the slightest notice” (32) What Voltaire is trying to teach the reader is to do things without thinking of the outcome. If the sailor who helped the one in the water stopped and doubted whether to save him or not, the sailor could have drowned. He did what he believed was right and even though he did not receive the same treatment, what he did was right. If you stop and think if the person you are helping will do the same to you, there is no reason to help. This is something that has to come from the heart spontaneously. I cannot understand what Voltaire was thinking about when he gave this example. It can have several meanings and a person can go through it without noticing what he is trying to say. Epictetus, on the other hand, does everything straight to the point. What were Voltaire’s intentions with this book? Was it meant as a story or as a handbook?