Islam, Essay 1
02 - 20 - 09
Prompt 2: The ever cheerful philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, wrote at the end of his play Huis Clos (No Exit), “L’enfer, c’est les autres,” i.e., Hell is other people. How do the notions of Paradise and Hell function in the Qur’ân? What do they reveal about the meaning of human existence as articulated in the Qur’ân? Avoid generalities and, when appropriate, ground your argument in the text itself.
This essay will attempt to prove that the depictions of Paradise and Hell in the Qur’an aim to have a practical effect on the lives of readers. As the text states in sura 20, ayahs 2 through 3: “We have not sent down the Qur’an to you that you should be burdened, but as admonition for him who fears…” The text is intended to have an active relationship with the reader. Therefore, in turn, depictions of the afterlife are also intended to have an active relationship with the reader. These depictions, “notions,” are not merely descriptions; the descriptions are admonitions, as The Qur’an describes itself. In light of the “notions” of the afterlife, the context of the human existence is established. This essay will show that this context serves to establish that all people—thanks to the Qur’an’s references to the afterlife—make informed choices about living their lives, and, through the manner in which they live life, indirectly choose their post-life home. Because of this, free will is an essential aspect of the Qur’an. The text intends human life to be lived in the shadow of the text, so to speak. Also, in order to best understand free will and the afterlife, a human’s ability to act as an independent agent must be reconciled with God’s domineering role in existence. This is important because specific passages in the text give God the most prominent role in existence.
Before God’s role is considered in detail, however, humanity and the afterlife must be considered. The text itself acts as an earthly wedge between those going to Paradise and those going to Hell. “No one denies Our revelations except those who are unjust,” surah 29, ayah 49 states. This excerpt is followed by ayah 54, which states that “unbelievers” will go to Hell. These ayahs show that those who go to Hell go because they deny God and his revelations during their lives. Believers go to Paradise, as indicated by surah 29, ayah 58. The importance of belief cannot be emphasized too much. The Qur’an itself is obsessed with reminding the reader of God, “most benevolent, ever-merciful.” This title for God headlines most surahs. Even surah 111, which lacks any direct reference to belief in the core text carries the dedication toward God, “In the name of Allah…” Belief is the main theme of the text, and God demands faith above all else. The passages mentioned previously agree that belief is the unifying trait of those who go to Paradise. To better understand humanity in the afterlife, the concept of belief must be further examined.
Ayahs in which the nature of belief become more clear are those that describe the “people of the Book.” Surah 3, ayah 199 confirms that belief is not necessarily restricted to Muslims. The non-Muslim believers “bow in humility before God,” and respect revelations. That that passage is preceded by a reminder that believers are rewarded with Paradise reinforces the idea that belief ensures entrance into Paradise. The nature of belief becomes clearer in light of ayah 64 of the same surah. The text states that the belief in the God of the Qur’an entails that believers worship him alone, and recognize that no one is His peer. People must know this to go to Paradise. As the text proceeds to somewhat chastise the “people of the Book,” the text up to ayah 71 and beyond reinforces the importance of belief in God as omnipotent and alone in His supremacy. To repeat: belief is the key (in a sense) to Paradise. For instance, surah 56 begins with a thorough description of Paradise and Hell. Ayah 25 implies that the denizens of Paradise are believers. “They will hear no…talk of sin…” Urgings toward belief pervade the Qur’an. It is the main point of The Qur’an. The text is about nothing else in general, and the afterlife can only be understood in context of belief. Without belief, the reasons for Paradise and Hell are obscure.
Surah 56 is also important in regard to the prompt of this essay because it portrays the afterlife in vivid terms, and thereby better detail the notion of humanity’s relationship with the afterlife and existence itself. Ayahs 83 through 96 reinforce the idea that existence belongs to God, and that only two options are possible for every human being: Paradise and Hell. A third option does not exist because it is never mentioned here or anywhere else in the Qur’an. Regarding this, humanity is unable to establish the terms of its own existence. Every moment in a person’s life determines where that person goes at Judgment Day, and these acts must be infused with the notion of belief. Without belief in God, there is no Paradise for a person. For a person to be happy in the long run, God is to be the center of their existence on Earth.
The concept of the Qur’an as a wedge between the denizens of Paradise and Hell is capped by the final ayah of surah 56. “…praise your Lord…” In life, this is what counts, and nothing more. Readers see here that those are go to Hell are marked by their unbelief, just as those who go to Paradise are marked by their belief. In bears noting that descriptions of non-believers indicate their lack of willingness to analyze reality. Surah 56, ayah 53 states, “You have known the first creation, then why do you not reflect?” The “first creation” is “your birth,” referred to in ayah 57, and the object being reflected upon is “death,” referred to in surah 60. These ayahs and many others in the Qur’an paint humanity as puny, and at God’s whim. Ayahs 83 through 87 in surah 56 show that humans cannot conquer death; humanity is unable to establish the terms of its own existence. The denial of God shows that nonbelievers are unwilling to reconcile God’s role as revealed through revelation (56:81-83). They are in turn unable to come to terms with their lack of power and the notion of death; this, in detail, is the form of disbelief, and this disbelief is the reason anyone goes to Hell at all. There is no bargaining with God regarding this. The fate ultimate fate of people—death and the afterlife—is “the ultimate truth” as indicated by surah 56, ayah 95.
Readers see in 56:95 that the notions of Paradise and Hell are intended to however like cloud over earthly existence by providing the context to life itself. In light of the general requirements for entrance to either Paradise or Hell, the bellicose aspect of the Qur’an can be summarized by, “Follow God, or suffer.” This is how the Qur’an and its notions of the afterlife achieve an active relationship with the reader. In every reminded to worship God, the reader is supposed to think of where he might go when he dies. “This is indeed the ultimate truth. Then praise your Lord, the most supreme.”
The exact definitions of belief, however, become more problematic in light of the influence of God and Iblis. When considering God’s prominent role in existence, a reader of the Qur’an may be tempted to think, “Whose fault is it that people go to Hell?” A human’s independent agency seems overwhelmed by God’s power and, it will be shown, Iblis’ influence. It has already been established that God sets the rules to the game of life. Problematic ayahs include those in surah 7, which contains the story of Iblis’ first rejection of God. Iblis suggests that God “led me into error” and uses this as the reason to lure people away from “the straight path,” the belief in God (7:16-17). Furthermore, God in ayah 18 states that He promises to fill Hell with those who follow Iblis. In light of this, and the following, Iblis is the guide those who go to Hell. In ayah 20 of the same surah, “Satan suggested (evil)” to Adam and Eve to break God’s commandment.
Further on, God tells readers of the Qur’an to state that He has no part in evil, and therefore has no part in the acts of those who go to Hell. “…God never enjoins a conduct that is shameful…” states surah 7, ayah 28. This contradicts with Iblis’ claim that God led him to disobey God. It is important to further observe this contradiction because of the importance that surah 7, ayah 18 places on Iblis in regard to Hell. He is the guide of people who go to Hell, and his actions inform upon the nature of their actions.
It is important to further analyze how thoroughly God exerts himself human acts. In light of passages that reinforce God’s supremacy over reality—for instance, “God has sealed their [disbelievers’] hearts and ears and veiled their eyes” (2:7)—it is quite possible to see God as the source of evil, if not for the statement of surah 7, ayah 28. Without this understanding, sardonic readers of the Qur’an will be inclinded to say, “If God causes all evil, then shouldn’t he go to Hell?” Their blasphemous comment—a marker of the disbelief, which would send them to Hell—would be caused by God, according to such a ‘pre-determinist’ reading of the text. Paradise and Hell become absurd because humans would be receiving rewards or punishments for acts they had no control over.
The key to understanding the passage is difficult to find. The surrounding passages fail to answer Iblis’ blame on God, except for the claim that God never “enjoins” evil. The key, perhaps, is in Adam’s and Eve’s apology to God for disobeying Him. “…we have wronged ourselves…” they state in surah 7, ayah 23, and then beg for His forgiveness. In fact, God’s forgiveness is then said to be necessary to their salvation in ayah 23. Even though God’s prominent role is mentioned again, another aspect of humanity’s existence is made just as prominent: Adam and Eve take the blame. Unlike Iblis, they do not attempt to blame anyone else. They recognize that they alone face the consequences of their actions. Despite the overwhelming power of the supernatural beings, these two humans are shown to have agency over their actions. The almighty God lets them make an independent decision.
The story of Adam and Eve clear up the vagueness of God’s influence because the two take up the blame for themselves. They even leave Iblis out of their blame. For humanity, the story seems to state, sin is an individual’s own fault. This idea is supported by surah 7, ayah 30, and many other ayahs, which use the word “guide” to describe God’s and Iblis’ relationship with humanity. When describing the existence of a single man, the Qur’an gives him an active role, even though God is his primary guide toward Paradise. Surah 7, ayah 35 declares that those who “take heed” of God’s apostles will be happy. When people are stated to deny God’s signs, as in ayah 37 of surah 7, no one else receives blame for the denial. Individuals alone are responsible for the final destination, as shown by surah 7, ayahs 37 through 39. This passage shows that God does not respect the claims of those in Hell who blame other nonbelievers. Blame rests equally on each denizen of Hell. That others sin and deny God is no excuse to do likewise. Therefore, just because Iblis set the trap is no excuse for falling into the trap.
As indicated by surah 7, ayah 40, God’s role in whether people go to Paradise or Hell is thus: he provides “signs.” Iblis, too, has this role with deniers, who “fall into error” and follow him (15:42). The supernatural figures exert no ultimate power over who goes where in the afterlife. Even though God establishes the rules, it is humanity‘s choice regarding whether or not to play by those rules. God voluntarily restrains his power to that of guide, and Iblis is limited to the position of the guide. A human beings has the power over his life by deciding which power he will follow.
The individuality of belief and disbelief is further expounded by surah 66, ayahs ten through twelve, which tell the story of Noah’s and Lot’s wives, Pharaoh’s wife, and Mary. The wives of Noah and Lot are stated to be unfaithful to their husbands. That neither of their husbands (apostles of God) could save the wives shows that God is the ultimate arbiter of existence. On the other hand, Pharaoh’s wife is presented as a role model for believers. The text implies that she goes to Paradise. The story of Mary is importance in the context of the other women because she is alone. She obeys God’s revelations, and no other humans helps or hinders her belief. An individual chooses her acts, and not the acts of others; likewise, no one else chooses for her. This goes for all humans, male and female, though surah 66 is about women. Association is reason for neither guilt nor praise. Associations with certain people are beside the point of the afterlife. This is so despite the obvious tension with God’s power.
This point must be elaborated further. Imagine two brothers: Bill and Ted. Bill is a polytheist who fights Muslims and spits on the poor. His acts leave no necessary spiritual mark on Ted. Provided Ted is a believer, he will reach Paradise. Neither brother can do anything to bring up or down the other brother in regard to Paradise and Hell. In fact, Ted may reject Bill, as Pharaoh’s wife rejected her own sinful community. People are always considered on their own merits and flaws. Associations are besides the point.
An adequate understanding of human existence in the Qur’an cannot be completed without considering the intensity of the rewards and punishments in the afterlife. This will synthesize what has already been shown about human existence and the afterlife. The Qur’an states that evil deeds will be meet with an equal punishment, and a good deed gains the actor ten times the worth of that good deed (6:160). Furthermore, Hell is a “fitting reward” for those there (78:26). Indeed, Hell in surah 56 is presented as the warped form of nature. Because surah 78, ayah 26 equates the punishment with the crime, God sees the spiritual nature of disbelief as just as horrible as the Hell itself. In this light, disbelief takes on the tone of Hell itself. Considering the act of disbelief, people are supposed to be reminded of Hell and its harsh environment. People remember its lack of water, and heat. Disbelief takes on parts of the nadir of existence. In this sense, living disbelievers live in a hollow prelude to the afterlife.
Ayahs 45 through of 46 of surah 56 explain this notion. “They were endowed with good things but persisted in that greater sin.” That “good” is life. In surah 2, ayah 110, disbelief is again marked by not acknowledging that God made existence. Here, disbelief takes on an aura of ungratefulness. In light of surah 3, ayah 28, this ungratefulness is futile because death is said to come to all people. The reader sees here that God’s physical prominence establishes the moral order of existence. If one denies God, he denies the moral order of the universe. God becomes the reason for Paradise and Hell because he establishes the moral order. This also reinforces the notion that disbelief personifies Hell because God is shown to be apex of existence, even though Hell is His creation.
This is why revelation exists, according to ayahs 155 through 157 of surah 6. God sent revelation to people so people would no excuse for denying His nature. Denial when revelation is accessible deserves Hell, “a requital indeed for turning aside.” God’s preoccupation with handing down revelation is reinforced numerous passages in the Qur’an. This shows that He wants people to make an informed decision about their existence. For him, mindset (ie. mens rea) is important in considering the sins of people. Human existence is both independent and informed. Through revelation, a person will be better to understand how she relates in the cosmic scheme. God wants neither the wicked nor the stupid in Paradise, and the descriptions of the afterlife in the God serves two purposes: to warn the good to stay good, and to inform the uninformed. Humans are therefore able to live their lives as they choose; this is just because God lets them know what will happen when they stray from “the straight path.”
Every human begin will submit to God one way or another. As this essay has shown, this submission is either through voluntary belief or the harshness of death. Humanity’s agency is narrow, but it is agency nonetheless. Though God establishes the rules of reality, individuals alone decide how to live in that reality. It seems like an easy decision, considering the bliss of Paradise, but it requires humans to understand their place in God’s world, and acknowledge God’s majesty. Human existence is a process. This process is informed by the Qur’an itself, as indicated by the previous analysis of surah 20, ayahs 2 through 3. The end result is by no means a sure for any particular person. It is up to the individual to decide.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Contemporary Civilization paper #1
Contemporary Civilization, Essay 1
02 - 09 - 09
Prompt 1: Martin claims that people “live either in convulsions of misery or in the lethargy of boredom.” Does Voltaire think Candide’s resolution at the end of the novel (“but we must go and work in the garden”) is a solution to this problem or exacerbates it?
It seems that Voltaire believes in the absolute bleakness of life. He has two characters, Martin and the Old Woman, maintain the prompt: man is going to be unhappy, one way or another (pages 78 and 49). Based on their overall view of the human condition, both Martin and the Old Woman would predict Candide’s farming enterprise to end in either catastrophe, or boredom. Candide’s journey supports their view, with Candide and almost everyone else falling into pungent unhappiness. He seems stuck in a painful existence when the novel ends. His attempt to farm seems futile in regard to attaining happiness.
This is an oversimplification of the ending, however. Candide is not copping out. His decision to ‘cultivate’ is his attempt to live within the adequate contentment of work, suggested by The Turk, one of his neighbors. According to The Turk, work keeps people from ‘boredom,’ ‘vice,’ and ‘poverty’ (119). While there exists no guarantee of happiness—the entire novel is buried in misery—the novel ends with Candide believing work to be the only way out of unhappiness. He maintains twice--and therefore Voltaire believes--that he and his friends must ‘cultivate’ their property. Work without philosophizing—without thinking—is the way Voltaire believes people should live.
To prove this, it helps to consider the root of unhappiness in the novel, and then comparing this to the only content people in the novel: The Turk and the people of Eldorado. These people escape the apparent truism of “unhappiness, one way or another.” It must be understood what sets these characters apart, and their influence on the more mature Candide.
For the unhappy, living is a contradiction. Candide’s journey proves this. They are unhappy regardless of what they have. The contradiction becomes apparent with those with access to money, and further shows that material possession are beside the point in regards to happiness. Panquette and Giroflee are examples of this by losing all of the money Candide gave them, and becoming even more miserable than before. They did not ‘cultivate’, or in some way maintain their status of life. They saw their riches as an opportunity to splurge. Even though their impulses and desires were limitless, the money was not. Love of money is a joke because the contentment gained is transitory.
That contentment, however, is very minimal, according to the Signor Pococurante of chapter 25. As the picture of boredom, he complains as much as the one-armed, one-legged slave, who is the picture of misery (the slave appears on page 73). Signor is bored because he thinks too much, and expects way too much of the works of literature he reads. He is bored because he has no work. He simply exists. This kind of retreat from the world is opposite from the kind Candide falls into because the Signor has no aims whatsoever except fun, though he has no idea where to experience fun. It bears emphasizing: this man has everything in regard to material possessions. These material possessions, however, are insufficient for happiness, and the reader is shown that money fails to give what it promises: fulfillment. Considering this, the life of Farmer Candide will not be content due to material wealth. He works in order to keep his mind occupied with concrete work. The work keeps his mind away from the stillness of boredom. As The Turk maintains, only work can achieve this. It bears noting that despite Martin’s claim that most people believe themselves to be the most miserable people ever, The Turk does not complain. He seems completely fine.
Mind, then, is the root of unhappiness. In order to become reasonably content, Candide must live with a view of altering the content of his mind. To show the importance of mind, it is important to show that a lack of empathy leads to interpersonal conflicts. When Candide kills the women’s monkey lover, he does so because he failed to consider the chase from their point of view (59). The other acts of brutality in this novel occur for the same reason. Individuals are stuck in their own heads, and fall into misery when they fail to understand their impotency The world will progress regardless of their desires. There will be earthquakes, and plagues. There will be death. There will be boredom and misery. Therefore, interaction with the outside world is prone to some sort of disappointment. Though Voltaire seems very occupied with events occurring in the world, he shows that the attempts to control what happens aretile.
An example of the futility of controlling the world are the six kings of chapter 26. These men not only were rich, but they had political power. Of anyone in the novel, they had the best means to alter the status of the outside world. None of them, however, could save themselves. In fact, their power only acted as a target on their respective backs. Furthermore, the last page of the novel carries a list of deposed monarchs. Being king is about just as dangerous as being any one else. In light of this, it seems futile for a Farmer Candide or any other individual to engage with the world in a stable manner, or to hope to control the world outside of themselves. For instance, Candide failed to keep Cunegonde beautiful, and James The Anabaptist saved the sailor, only to get killed.
Living falls short of total futility, however. The King of Eldorado and his people, the only happy people in the book, show that happiness is possible according to Voltaire. They are different from the people of the outside world because they refrain from conflict and gain. Each individual refuses to impose their view of the world on others (67). The King greets Candide and Cacambo as equals, while a foreign leader would have required obeisance (68). It is a world without conflict because no one desires anything. Eldorado lacks the rat race prevalent in the rest of the world because everyone minds their own business. They cultivate their garden.
For Voltaire, unhappiness occurs when people want that they don’t have. In order to thrive then, people must ‘cultivate’ what they have. ‘Cultivation’ has nothing to do with the wealth of Signor. It is the cultivation of the self. Candide farms neither for food nor wealth. He farms to keep himself occupied. The abyss of the mind is only wrestled to complacency by work performed for its own sake. If this work is performed with a desire to perform something else, then the worker will become unhappy, as Cacambo does in the novel‘s end. In this case, Candide‘s decision to farm would foster the problem. Therefore, he must forego desire.
When Candide meets The Turk, the Turk has no desire. This is indicated by his apathy toward the outside world. His mind is on what he can control: his immediate surroundings. A desire for something outside his immediate surroundings would only lead to “boredom, vice and poverty.” The mind’s desire for a far away prize only destroys the desirer. For instance, when Candide leaves the uptopic Eldorado, he does so for desire of Cunegonde (70). This desire leads to further sadness. The danger of desire is further echoed by the history of Eldorado itself: the Incas used to live there, but left to conquer (66). The conquerors, however, were conquered by the Spaniards. Desire, therefore, is the ultimate destroyer. No element of life is more damaging toward the quest for happiness than desire, and because of this, most thought must be cut out of life. This includes philosophy (120).
When in chapter six Candide is being flogged, and witnesses the hanging of Pangloss, he laments, “If this is the best of all possible worlds, what are the others like?” Whenever Candide sees that the world is bad, the optimistic philosophy only serves to aggravate his distaste for the world because the “best of all possible worlds” falls short of his expectations. Philosophy, then, leads to unhappiness, and must be discarded.
In the end, what has changed for Candide is that he has quit chasing the carrot at the end of the stick. He understands now that the road of the chase is laden with broken glass, and the carrot is spoiled. In this way, he follows the example of the people of Eldorado, and therefore is beginning to fulfill Voltaire’s requirements for happiness. While the contentment attained here falls short of bliss, Candide can escape misery and boredom. Before long, this begins to actually work, and everyone working with Candide becomes content, even the feckless Giroflee. Their work compounded with lack of thought--lack of desire--help them feel at home.
02 - 09 - 09
Prompt 1: Martin claims that people “live either in convulsions of misery or in the lethargy of boredom.” Does Voltaire think Candide’s resolution at the end of the novel (“but we must go and work in the garden”) is a solution to this problem or exacerbates it?
It seems that Voltaire believes in the absolute bleakness of life. He has two characters, Martin and the Old Woman, maintain the prompt: man is going to be unhappy, one way or another (pages 78 and 49). Based on their overall view of the human condition, both Martin and the Old Woman would predict Candide’s farming enterprise to end in either catastrophe, or boredom. Candide’s journey supports their view, with Candide and almost everyone else falling into pungent unhappiness. He seems stuck in a painful existence when the novel ends. His attempt to farm seems futile in regard to attaining happiness.
This is an oversimplification of the ending, however. Candide is not copping out. His decision to ‘cultivate’ is his attempt to live within the adequate contentment of work, suggested by The Turk, one of his neighbors. According to The Turk, work keeps people from ‘boredom,’ ‘vice,’ and ‘poverty’ (119). While there exists no guarantee of happiness—the entire novel is buried in misery—the novel ends with Candide believing work to be the only way out of unhappiness. He maintains twice--and therefore Voltaire believes--that he and his friends must ‘cultivate’ their property. Work without philosophizing—without thinking—is the way Voltaire believes people should live.
To prove this, it helps to consider the root of unhappiness in the novel, and then comparing this to the only content people in the novel: The Turk and the people of Eldorado. These people escape the apparent truism of “unhappiness, one way or another.” It must be understood what sets these characters apart, and their influence on the more mature Candide.
For the unhappy, living is a contradiction. Candide’s journey proves this. They are unhappy regardless of what they have. The contradiction becomes apparent with those with access to money, and further shows that material possession are beside the point in regards to happiness. Panquette and Giroflee are examples of this by losing all of the money Candide gave them, and becoming even more miserable than before. They did not ‘cultivate’, or in some way maintain their status of life. They saw their riches as an opportunity to splurge. Even though their impulses and desires were limitless, the money was not. Love of money is a joke because the contentment gained is transitory.
That contentment, however, is very minimal, according to the Signor Pococurante of chapter 25. As the picture of boredom, he complains as much as the one-armed, one-legged slave, who is the picture of misery (the slave appears on page 73). Signor is bored because he thinks too much, and expects way too much of the works of literature he reads. He is bored because he has no work. He simply exists. This kind of retreat from the world is opposite from the kind Candide falls into because the Signor has no aims whatsoever except fun, though he has no idea where to experience fun. It bears emphasizing: this man has everything in regard to material possessions. These material possessions, however, are insufficient for happiness, and the reader is shown that money fails to give what it promises: fulfillment. Considering this, the life of Farmer Candide will not be content due to material wealth. He works in order to keep his mind occupied with concrete work. The work keeps his mind away from the stillness of boredom. As The Turk maintains, only work can achieve this. It bears noting that despite Martin’s claim that most people believe themselves to be the most miserable people ever, The Turk does not complain. He seems completely fine.
Mind, then, is the root of unhappiness. In order to become reasonably content, Candide must live with a view of altering the content of his mind. To show the importance of mind, it is important to show that a lack of empathy leads to interpersonal conflicts. When Candide kills the women’s monkey lover, he does so because he failed to consider the chase from their point of view (59). The other acts of brutality in this novel occur for the same reason. Individuals are stuck in their own heads, and fall into misery when they fail to understand their impotency The world will progress regardless of their desires. There will be earthquakes, and plagues. There will be death. There will be boredom and misery. Therefore, interaction with the outside world is prone to some sort of disappointment. Though Voltaire seems very occupied with events occurring in the world, he shows that the attempts to control what happens aretile.
An example of the futility of controlling the world are the six kings of chapter 26. These men not only were rich, but they had political power. Of anyone in the novel, they had the best means to alter the status of the outside world. None of them, however, could save themselves. In fact, their power only acted as a target on their respective backs. Furthermore, the last page of the novel carries a list of deposed monarchs. Being king is about just as dangerous as being any one else. In light of this, it seems futile for a Farmer Candide or any other individual to engage with the world in a stable manner, or to hope to control the world outside of themselves. For instance, Candide failed to keep Cunegonde beautiful, and James The Anabaptist saved the sailor, only to get killed.
Living falls short of total futility, however. The King of Eldorado and his people, the only happy people in the book, show that happiness is possible according to Voltaire. They are different from the people of the outside world because they refrain from conflict and gain. Each individual refuses to impose their view of the world on others (67). The King greets Candide and Cacambo as equals, while a foreign leader would have required obeisance (68). It is a world without conflict because no one desires anything. Eldorado lacks the rat race prevalent in the rest of the world because everyone minds their own business. They cultivate their garden.
For Voltaire, unhappiness occurs when people want that they don’t have. In order to thrive then, people must ‘cultivate’ what they have. ‘Cultivation’ has nothing to do with the wealth of Signor. It is the cultivation of the self. Candide farms neither for food nor wealth. He farms to keep himself occupied. The abyss of the mind is only wrestled to complacency by work performed for its own sake. If this work is performed with a desire to perform something else, then the worker will become unhappy, as Cacambo does in the novel‘s end. In this case, Candide‘s decision to farm would foster the problem. Therefore, he must forego desire.
When Candide meets The Turk, the Turk has no desire. This is indicated by his apathy toward the outside world. His mind is on what he can control: his immediate surroundings. A desire for something outside his immediate surroundings would only lead to “boredom, vice and poverty.” The mind’s desire for a far away prize only destroys the desirer. For instance, when Candide leaves the uptopic Eldorado, he does so for desire of Cunegonde (70). This desire leads to further sadness. The danger of desire is further echoed by the history of Eldorado itself: the Incas used to live there, but left to conquer (66). The conquerors, however, were conquered by the Spaniards. Desire, therefore, is the ultimate destroyer. No element of life is more damaging toward the quest for happiness than desire, and because of this, most thought must be cut out of life. This includes philosophy (120).
When in chapter six Candide is being flogged, and witnesses the hanging of Pangloss, he laments, “If this is the best of all possible worlds, what are the others like?” Whenever Candide sees that the world is bad, the optimistic philosophy only serves to aggravate his distaste for the world because the “best of all possible worlds” falls short of his expectations. Philosophy, then, leads to unhappiness, and must be discarded.
In the end, what has changed for Candide is that he has quit chasing the carrot at the end of the stick. He understands now that the road of the chase is laden with broken glass, and the carrot is spoiled. In this way, he follows the example of the people of Eldorado, and therefore is beginning to fulfill Voltaire’s requirements for happiness. While the contentment attained here falls short of bliss, Candide can escape misery and boredom. Before long, this begins to actually work, and everyone working with Candide becomes content, even the feckless Giroflee. Their work compounded with lack of thought--lack of desire--help them feel at home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)