“If this is the best of possible worlds, what then are the others?”

If the world was created to drive us mad, as one character in "Candide" suggests, it is quite well suited for its purpose and running like a fine-tuned machine. If, on the other hand, everything is for the best in this best of possible worlds, as the optimist philosopher Pangloss claims in admiration for Leibniz' idea of a benevolent, planning, organised deity, the above question is fair and scary. What are the other worlds like, if this is the best the creator can manage?

Candide is born into a garden Eden and taught the dogma of optimistic thinking before being thrown out into the cruel world and embarking on an absurdly funny, incredibly brutal and increasingly cynical odyssey around a fictionalised, yet recognisable violent and unfair world. Consistently striving to understand his surroundings, he keeps asking questions and challenging the people he meets, and he keeps reflecting on the events he witnesses, such as the earthquake in Lisbon in 1755.

How does reality fit in with metaphysical thoughts? Is it possible to reconcile life and faith and satisfy both body and soul, while facing the blatant inequality in the world?

In the end, Candide resigns himself to his own, active but detached business of "cultiver notre jardin", - working to be able to shut out the atrocities of the world. He emancipates himself from the philosophical framework of his teacher Pangloss, even though he lets him keep on reflecting in his typical way, thus demonstrating more tolerance than Pangloss himself accomplishes.

When I first read Candide, some twenty years ago, I thought of it as a roller coaster ride through different societies, on a quest to find individual meaning and happiness by figuring out what matters in life. I considered the external circumstances and the Leibnizian optimism a highly exaggerated sarcastic joke, a backdrop for the development of the idea that bliss is to be found in active, yet private pursuit of small scale business without dogmatic allegiances to any creed, be it religious, social or political.

Now I am not so sure about the exaggeration anymore - having spent decades studying the interactions between human beings, and their habit of labelling a "total disaster" a "great win", positioning themselves somewhere in the grey zone between delusional optimism, brutal cynicism and complete disregard for truth.

"L'optimisme c'est la rage de soutenir que tout est bien quand on est mal."

If that is what the leaders of the world support, and the majority of populations accept in resignation while minding their own private business, how can we ever get to the point of attempting to fix the problems of this best of possible worlds?

Acknowledging the issues would be the first step, wouldn't it? If we maintain climate change isn't happening, we will have human-induced catastrophes of the scale of the flood following the Lisbon earthquake. If we do not fight injustice and violence, but claim it is part of the bigger picture of the best possible of worlds, life will continue to be as brutal for our contemporaries as it was for Candide and his friends:

“I should like to know which is worse: to be ravished a hundred times by pirates, and have a buttock cut off, and run the gauntlet of the Bulgarians, and be flogged and hanged in an auto-da-fe, and be dissected, and have to row in a galley -- in short, to undergo all the miseries we have each of us suffered -- or simply to sit here and do nothing?'
That is a hard question,' said Candide.”

Having grown older, and more angry at the world, I do not agree with the two options presented. Life is not either about passively suffering it or withdrawing from the world altogether, it is about actively looking for change. It is about honestly admitting that we do not live in the best possible of worlds, while keeping up the fight to make it a tiny bit better, despite feeling despair creeping into our hearts every so often. It is about "cultiver notre jardin" - but not hidden away in a remote corner.

The garden of our shared global community has to be tended! It is not oblivious, exclusive Eden, and never will be. But it can be a good enough place to live, if the Candides of this world decide to make it a common project - one that shows collaborative commitment despite continuous disappointment. I still love Candide with all my heart, but I think it is about time he applies the knowledge he gained from travelling the world to make it a more bearable place to be - for all people - starting by telling optimistic Pangloss that facts are more important than a false mantra hiding the issues under propaganda.

Il faut cultiver notre planète - malgré tout!

Για να δανειστώ από τον πρόλογο του βιβλίου, Βολταίρος την σήμερον ημέρα; Γιατί όχι, θα απαντήσω! Αυτό το βιβλίο αποδείχθηκε πολύ διασκεδαστικό και ευκολοδιάβαστο, μια πραγματική αποδομητική σάτιρα της εποχής του Βολταίρου. Βέβαια ο σύγχρονος αναγνώστης θα πρέπει να έχει υπόψιν του το ιστορικό και φιλοσοφικό πλαίσιο το οποίο στόχευε ο Βολταίρος και σε αυτό βοηθούν ο πρόλογος και το εισαγωγικό σημείωμα του μεταφραστή. Τέλος για όσους θέλουν να εντρυφήσουν περισσότερο στο έργο το αναλυτικό επίμετρο θα τους ικανοποιήσει. Τολμήστε το!

The 18th century classic that is laid underneath with a 'savage, satiric thrust at the philosophical optimism that proclaims that all disaster and human suffering is part of a benevolent cosmic plan' just didn't get my attention or interest. Sorry! 4 out of 12.

هیچی لذت بخش تر از این نیست که به طور ناگهانی بفهمی کلاست به خاطر نیومدن معلم کنسل شده و بشینی یکی از بهترین رمان های فلسفی رو تموم کنی.
اول در مورد ساختار کتاب بگم. اول بار که با کتاب مواجه شدم فکر کردم قراره یه جستار بخونم ولی نه، کتاب رو از روی جلدش قضاوت کردم و فهمیدم که به یک رمان کلاسیک قرن 18 عالی طرفم. این رمان یه ساختار باحال و تازه ای برای من داشت که هر بخش اون در حد 2-3 صفحه بود. این مورد و سریع بود روند داستان خیلی برام دلنشین بود.

کاندید که در وستفالن و در قلعه‌ی آقای بارون توندر-تن-ترونک زندگی میکرد. استاد و فیلسوفی به نام پانگلس اون رو تربیت میکرده. بارون دختری به نام کونه گند داشته و کاندید عاشق این دختر میشه و کل داستان بر سر بوسه ای که بین کاندید و کونه گند رد و بدل میشه ، شروع میشه. کاندید رو از قلعه میندازن بیرون و ...

با این کتاب یجورایی یاد سفر به انتهای شب افتادم. کاندید همش در حال سفر و آموختن چیز های جدید بود. یچیزی که کاندید میخواست به اون برسه، تثبیت جمله ای بود که پانگلس بهش گفته بود: " آن هایی که مدعی شده اند همه چیز خوب است چرند گفته اند، می‌بایست می گفتند که همه چیز در بهترین حالتش است". این جمله ویژگی کلی داستان رو بیان میکنه که همون "خوش باوری" هستش.

کاندید با سفر های پی در پی و چشیدن سرد و گرم زندگی کم کم به چیزهایی پی میبرد که خلاف جمله پانگلس رو بیان میکرد. کاندیدی که با یک ذهن بسته و گوش به دهان فیلسوف خودش پا به دنیایی بیرحم و بی وفا و دنیایی پر از مشکلات و بی نظمی ها گذاشت. کم کم به این جمله شک میکرد و در پی یافتن یه دلیل بهتر برای اون بود. ولی چیزی که نمیذاشت کاندید امیدش رو از دست بده، عشق بود. عشق به کونه گند. یجای کتاب میگه: " دوشیزه زیبای من، اگر کسی عاشق و حسود باشد و از دادگاه تفتیش عقاید شلاق خورده باشد، هر کاری از دست برمیاید."

یک ویژگی دیگه ای که به چشم میخورد، " جبر" بود. همش توی داستان شاهد این جملاتی بودم که میگفت چون این اتفاق ها افتاد و اینطور شد، الان تو اینجا هستی و داری اینکار رو میکنی. جالب بود بنظرم. نحوه چیدمان وقایع طوری بود که آدم قشنگ قانع میشد.

یکی از دوستان کاندید، مارتن که بعدا باهاش آشنا میشه رو خیلی دوست داشتم. واقعا جهان بینی مارتن حرف نداشت. همش داشت به کاندید میگفت که هیچ چیز در بهترین حالتش نیست و همه انسان ها بدبخت هستن و نمیتونیم صرفا با دیدن یه صحنه خاص از زندگی شون اون ها رو قضاوت کنیم. دیدگاهی که مارتن داشت، آخر سر پانگلس به اون رسید و گفت که واقعا هیچ چیز در بهترین حالت خودش نیست ولی چون من یه فیلسوف هستم نمیتونم حرفم رو عوض کنم.

This book does not stick so well in my memory in either a negative or positive way, but I think this comes from the book being a mixture of two things which I could not feel more differently about: allegory and satire.

The first I find to be as silly and pointless as Aesop or Passion Plays. Characters in an allegory are oversimplified symbols, and so cannot comment on the nature of actual human beings. The style is already so firmly affixed to cultural states and norms that it cannot really say anything beyond the dichotomous, and dualists are blinded by their egos.

I do love satire, but that is generally because of the wit and skill it takes to subvert and re-imagine. Unfortunately, once one has drawn so deeply on hyperbole in a work, it loses its ability to find that necessarily uncomfortable 'grey area'--that rift between assumption and observation.

Voltaire is witty and funny, but his condemnation and praise falls only on unrealistic absolutes, and hence becomes only political rather than philosophical. In this, he becomes in many ways Shakespeare's opposite; whose characters were so vaguely sketched that they could be held representative of many disparate identities.

It is too easy to force and distort arguments when the accepted givens are so strictly defined and counterpointed. This problem should be evident to anyone in America today who sees how opposition to ideas is transformed into meaninglessly pejorative identities. The temptation of thought-terminating cliches grows ever more in the face of such opposing forces as Voltaire presents.

No doubt much of Voltaire's popularity stems from the fact that he is so narrowly applicable and divisive. In this way he almost works like a philosopher since his ideas are so forcefully professed. However, unlike a philosopher he represents his opponents in a state of utter ridicule, he is less convincing than polarizing.

The other part of Voltaire's popularity comes from his empty century. The Seventeenth had Shakespeare and Milton. The Nineteenth showed the ridiculously fecund blossoming of the Romantics. The Eighteenth, however, has Fielding, Swift, Voltaire, and Pope. Fielding has escaped as wide a reading because his satire was more social than strictly political. Pope and Swift were likewise satirists, but of such a fanciful nature as to escape more simplistic and contentious forces. This leaves us with the more accessible Voltaire, who may be used to attack ideas, but not to build upon them.

از داستان‌های پرماجرا و پرفراز و نشیب خوشم میاد ^_^
البته جاهایی در این داستان از شدت غیرواقعی بودن توی ذوق می‌زد :/

Another intellectual.

Another writer.

Another philosopher.

Another Frenchman.

Another anti-semite.

This concatenation never ceases to amaze. At every point in time, regardless of an author’s extensive education or privileged affluence or desirable geography, or lack thereof, the hate is always apparent. We, born Jewish, can see our indecent, decaying blood drip wherever we are forced to wander. And yet, we never want to believe the vitriol, even as we are about to be baked in an oven (well done, please), even as history has documented our slaughter, over and over, with impunity.

Broadway. Football. Romcoms. Pogroms; entertainment, fashion. Will the sun shine brighter and the days seem too short once a million or ten million more Jews are gone? Are there even that many of them left in all the world? There are more people living on the off streets in Sao Paulo than Yids living globally.

Should I remain quiet or feign ignorance or kill myself to let others around me live a fuller and a better life? Is it even relevant that many like me are irreligious?

Not to worry. We will all be dead soon enough, with or without those pesky Jews. They do not control Providence. The media, maybe.

Dayenu!

A brilliant book. Great. Stellar.

I, uneducated, an autodidact if you will, cannot believe some of the literary product that comes from France.

Funny. Philosophical. Engaging. Witty. Perfection in letters.

One of the greatest books ever written? Maybe.

I recommend it to each and every one. But hide the afikoman before you start it.

(In defense of Voltaire, whether he was a polytheist, a monotheist, a deist; perceptions change during a lifetime. He also, sometimes equally, had limited tolerance towards Islam or Christianity or any religion. He did speak his mind, to his credit. And humans are inconstant, the whole lot.)

من به سختی با اندیشه ها و نوشته های فرانسوی ها و آلمانی ها ارتباط برقرار میکنم
اما این یکی استثنا بود
اول باید بگم که داستان ساده بود
انقدر ساده که آدم رو به فکر مینداخت
فلسفه خواننده رو به چالش میکشه
و چالشی که زیاد دیدم شخصیت های داستان درگیرش باشن این بود که از آدمهایی که ملاقات میکنن، کی از همه بدبخت تره یا احساس بدبختی میکنه؟
واقعا کی؟

یه جمله تو ذهنم حک شد:
کاندید مانند یک آلمانی بلند شد، و پرسید چطور باید با یک ملکه انگلیسی، در آلمان، ملاقات کرد؟

تقریبا تا اواسط داستان، حماقت کاندید آزارم میداد
اما از نیمه داستان واقعا به ساده دل بودنش ایمان آوردم

François-Marie Arouet better known by his nom de plum Voltaire. During the French Englightenment he was a renowned author of a multitude of books covering a wide array of topics from history to science. But Voltaire is best known as a scathing satirist. His strong views on the established Catholic Church, and his advocacy of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and separation of church and state caused him to become famous but also a controversial figure. This caused him to have to frequently change his country and led him through France to Great Britain and Prussia, eventually back to France. In that time Voltaire kept company with a variety of people from Fredrick of Prussia to Adam Smith and Edward Gibbon.In 1758 he moved to Ferney near the Franco-Swiss border. It is here that he wrote his famous Candide, ou l'Optimisme (Candide, the Optimist).

First and foremost, I was struck by just how funny this is. The biting satire of Voltaire is non-stop and still has the capability to amuse centuries later. So we meet Candide, the Illegitimate son of the sister of the baron of Thunder-ten-Tronckh. He is in love with Cunegonde, the Baron's daughter. Candide is tutored by Prof. Pangloss who practices Liebnizian philosophy (optimism). Everything from the name of the German baron to Dr. Pangloss' specialization which is listed as a "métaphysico-théologo-cosmolonigologie" is meant to be funny.
Candide is driven out from the Baron's castle due to his love and what follows his his trials and tribulations as he travels around the world. It is the dry wit and Candide's attempts to balance his awful luck and circumstances with the philosophy of optimism that make this a wonderful tale. It is truly amazing wit, that still raises eyebrows today and must have been downright shocking in the late 1700's. The style is like Douglas Adams in that the humor is nonstop. Sometimes it is obvious, as with the names of the characters, and other times its subtly placed in the text with phrases such as :

"...whom this lady would never marry because he could prove only seventy-one generations of nobility.." or "...the Baron was one of the most powerful lords in Westphalia, for his castle had a door and windows.."

This acerbic humor continues throughout the rest of this darkly comedic tale. While it is funny, we must not forget to read what Voltaire says about the Church, religion, the nobility, etc. He manages to convey these messages without ever becoming preachy. Rather he cloaks these very serious issues in a comedic guise and that makes them even more stark.

This is a book that one can read as a historical document that shows the mindset of one of the great French Enlightenment authors or just as a very funny work of fiction. Either way, this is a book well worth reading. The humor is obvious, even after all this time, and manages to make people laugh. The sheer absurdity of the adventure and the variety of characters (all some manner of parody) make this a great tale. Highly recommend this to anyone who enjoys a good tale.

و كان يريد أن يعرف كيف يصلون للرب في إلدورادو فقال العجوز الطيب و الحكيم و المحترم: نحن لا نصلي له فليس لدينا ما نطلبه إليه فلقد أعطانا كل ما يلزمنا و نحن نشكره باستمرار.

فشعر كانديد بالفضول ليرى الكهنة فجعل كاكامبو يسأل أين يكونون؟ فضحك العجوز الطيب و قال: يا أصدقائي نحن جميعا كهنة. إن الملك و كل أرباب العائلات يرتلون الأناشيد و الحمد لله باحتفال كل صباح و يرافقهم خمسة أو ستة آلاف موسيقي.

ماذا؟! ليس لديكم رهبانا يعملون و يحكمون و يأتمرون و يحرقون الناس الذين يخالفونهم الرأي؟!!!

في أجواء تشبه أجواء ألف ليلة و ليلة يأخذنا فولتير في مغامرات متصلة لبطل الرواية الساذج كانديد الذي يبحث عن المعنى الفلسفي وراء ل شيء و يتعرض لمغامرات لا تنقطع نكاد نلهث وراءها طول الرواية القصيرة ثم ينتهي في أرض من يظنه عدو فيستقر فيها و يصل إلى خلاصة الحكمة بكلمته الشهيرة الأثيرة: إذا ماذا علينا أن نفعل؟ فلنعمل بلا تفكير. يجب علينا أن نزرع حديقتنا.

Slightly disappointed with the next-Gabriel Garcia Marquez, I took on this classic next IN ONE SITTING.
&...
WOW!

Where has this one been all my life? I adore "Candide" because it is rife with adventure, it is a speedy read, and at the very end you experience a vortex of feelings and NOVEL concepts. It transcends literature itself.

Compare this to Dante. To Shakespeare! I could not help but smile at all the awful misadventures of our poor fool. This is made for someone, like me, who thinks "The Alchemist" by Paulo Coelho isn't all that...!

I even told G that I was put off by the cover--that is, not until the entire book is ravished & torn apart by the ravenous reader does the simple, almost academic print of a globe in this particular edition of "Candide" make sense.

So...
voila! Voltaire.
Easily EASILY Top Ten.

A fast paced, short and entertaining classic. A satire of the philosophic ideas of extreme optimism summarised by “All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds”. A ridiculous number of misfortunes happen to Candide and his companions but he still clings himself of the idea that everything is for the best. The book reminded me of The 100 year old who climbed our of the window and disappeared (or something like that) because of the crazy coincidences and humorous tone.