So where did today's Martin vs. Pangloss exercise leave us?
Is the difference just one between those who see the glass as half-empty and those who see it as half-full, or is there a more far-reaching distinction between the two positions?
To what extent does Voltaire think that change is possible, either for individuals or for the human race as a whole?
What would you have liked to say today but didn't have a chance to?
Deadline: Friday (4/29), start of class.
10 comments:
The way I saw the exercise, we had a spectrum in which the two extremes were foolish optimism or mitigated pessimism. I feel that most of us are going to take the middle road here because I doubt anyone in that class is as optimistic as Pangloss, but not many want to admit to being as skeptical/pessimistic as Martin, because then where's the fun in life? To summarize, if my two choices are foolish optimism and pessimism, I'm going to take the middle road and enjoy life with a healthy dose of both.
I think the final two chapters of Candide convey different views regarding an individual’s ability to change and the possibility for universal human change. In chapter 29, when Candide tells the Baron that he plans to marry Cunegonde, the Baron rebukes Candide and claims that he “will not tolerate such a demeaning act on her part” (510). This is the same reaction the Baron has in Paraguay when Candide previously told him of his desire to marry Cunegonde. Yet the difference between the two episodes is that the instance in chapter 29 comes after Candide buys the Baron’s ransom, freeing him from the slave-ship (507-508). Despite Candide’s generosity, the Baron still perceives him as a social inferior. Rather than “thr[owing] himself at the feet of his liberator” (508) like Pangloss does, the Baron simply thanks him “with a nod of his head and promised to reimburse him at the earliest opportunity” (508). Even though Baron’s conditions have changed, he has not changed his outlook and disparages the person who secured his freedom.
Although the Baron represents the limited ability for personal change, the image of the garden at the conclusion of the story shows that personal change is possible through broader collective change. Once the group adopts Martin’s advice to “get down to work and stop all this philosophizing,” (513) social harmony emerges that is antithetical to the destruction and exploitation presented earlier in the work. As the “little society” began cultivating the garden and “Each began to exercise his talents,” (513) the community becomes productive and behaves more like Eldorado than Westphalia. Instead of preaching sermons that he hates and spending his money on prostitutes, Giroflee becomes “a very fine carpenter, and even [becomes] quote the gentleman” (513). In addition, rather than being victims of violence or exploitation as they were before, the main female characters become productive members of the community. Voltaire suggests that personal change is possible within the context of larger social change.
Personal change in Candide requires embracing one’s place in a community and abandoning speculation “about effects and causes, the best of all possible worlds, the origins of evil, the nature of the soul, and pre-established harmony” (512). I do not think Voltaire suggests that human nature can change, but he does raise questions about what human nature is? Does it naturally lead individuals into conflicts, or do its true qualities become apparent only in settings like the garden at the end of the story?
In class, I stood close to the middle of the spectrum because I only had a few seconds to make up my mind. Now, after putting more thought into whether I agree with Pangloss or Martin, I have decided that I personally would support Pangloss over Martin. Having a positive and optimistic outlook on life and especially unfortunate situations is tricky to do. However, I think it’s more important to be able to see the good in everything and everyone than the bad even if it is a little extreme on the good side. Also, I think it is crucial in society to have people who resemble Pangloss and Martin. If everyone was super optimistic and cheerful all of the time, then it would be too much. In life, we need a balance of different types of personalities and attitudes. The more pessimistic people can bring the optimistic people back to reality with their rational and realistic thinking, and the optimistic people can keep everyone’s spirits up especially those people who are brought down by the negative attitudes of others.
I think that Voltaire really did not see room for change. Most of the characters just accept their fate and do not do much to really change it. When Candide does try to change the fact that the Baron will not marry his true love he ends up killing the Baron and his love ends up ugly and he grows bored with her. This shows that even when a person trys to change a situation to 'make it better' it can still end up bad. The ending is not the fairy tale happy ending, even though Candide did everything he could to be with his love. It was also unhappy for characters that just accepted their fate. Change is basically pointless in the story.
I believe that my position at the middle of the "orbit" fits the way most people truly feel. Both viewpoints are saying the same thing! The message is "it is what it is" and the difference is just how you feel and react to it. On one side you are sad because life can suck. On the other you're happy and smiley because it's totally fine, life will throw me a bone at another time. The thing is, both are right. Sometimes you just have to say to yourself that something that happened sucks, and deal with it. Sometimes you have to tell yourself that this just makes my choice to go down a different path that much easier. Also, I agree with what people said about not being able to change human nature, but that most certainly does not mean we cannot do anything. It is our job to make things better for ourselves. Shit does happen. It's a fact of life, but we can take that shit and make it a little less stinky if we actually do something about it instead of letting it sit there.
Both types of people (those that identify more with Pangloss and those that identify more with Martin) are very present in the world. Although everyone likes to think that they are in the middle, that they have an equal balance of Martin and Pangloss within them (I did), that is not always the case. I believe that everyone leans one way or the other whether you'd like to or not. I, for example, am a much more pessimistic person than I'd ever like to admit to. I am that annoying person that sees the worst in every situation and analyzes what I can do if that possible situation becomes true before the entire situation even happens. Although I try to be positive and look at things more positively, within me I identify much more with Martin.
I think a lot of times it is just how you are- you are either born a Martin or a Pangloss. There are people that are positive, adnn there are people that there are negative.
I think we got wrapped up on the idea that Martin and Pangloss are exactly the same, only Pangloss thinks the world is the best it can be and that Martin thinks its the worst it can be. I don't see this as the case, though, because at least thinking that the world is the worst it can be means that you have to do something about it, whereas Pangloss simply accepts earthquakes and syphilis as gifts rather than realizing what they actually are. Of course, one can be too pessimistic, I just don't see Martin really displaying as extreme a viewpoint as Pangloss.
Furthermore, there was an interesting point brought up on Pangloss's side that this is the best of worlds, because this is the world we have. Philosophically, I'd say that this is both the best of worlds *and* the worst of worlds, because it's the only *possible* world. There are no alternate universes, at least that we're aware of, and if we were aware of them, they would be part of our reality and we'd have to wonder if there was some *other* possible world that was even better or worse, and so on. The only world we have is the only world we can have and in the end it doesn't matter if there are better or worse possible worlds, because you have to make what you can of this one.
I'd have to completely agree with the Debbie's post. Maybe it's my own latent pessimism showing, but I really can't see Martin on such an extreme end of the spectrum as Pangloss. Pangloss takes his optimism to the point of obliviousness (when he is too busy with his rhetoric to help Candide in the rubble earlier on in the book, for example). Martin, on the other hand, just seems aware of what the world really is, and is jaded as a result. While I agree that this world, in a sense, is the "best" possible world we have (because it's the only one we do have) ... shit happens.
I would say there is definitely more of a distinction between those who view the cup as half empty and those who see it as half full, even as shown through this story. Pangloss, with his philosophy of optimism, clings to this idea above all else, even in the face of utter conflict and turmoil. There may be an appropriate time to view the world as negative, but his view prevents him from doing so. Studies have shown that those who are depressed or more negative tend to make more accurate predictions, and that is merely a reflection of how much negativity actually exists in the world, so there is not a huge difference between the pessimism presented by many characters and and an appropriate dose of realism.
Post a Comment