The best of all possible worlds, in review of Voltaires "Candide" and of the recent election

       I have just finished reading the classic philosophical satire, Candide, by Voltaire. not but 12 hours earlier This country elected a new president, a most wretched man by the name of Donald J. Trump. These two events, though unrelated in the mind of others, sparked a series of thoughts in my mind. In order to understand this however, you must know the premise of Candide.

       In short, Candide is the story of a young man who grew up in a castle in Westphalia under the tutelage of the great philosopher Pangloss. After falling in love with the Baron's Daughter, the fair Cunegonde, he finds himself banished from castle not days before it is savagely attacked by Bulgarians. This sparks a chain of events Which sees Candide travel all across Europe, to the Americas, the legendary city of El Dorado and back.

       All the while he suffers the most dreadful of fates along the way. watching friends die, being robbed, accidentally killing men he had previously regarded well. Much of Candides suffering can be attributed to his own overdeveloped sense of optimism. Early on this led him to be far too trusting, and he lacked any amount of suspicion toward people. Though later on he slowly develops this though is at this point already desperately trying to claw his way out of the snowball of events which had already previously occurred.

       In a wild turn of events however, he finds that all of his friends he met along the journey, whom he thought lost long ago, all ended up alive and in his final destination in Turkey. In the end, Candide is uncertain of the philosophy that  this is the best of all possible worlds. But it takes but an old Turk with twenty acres of crops, a few beautiful daughters and no knowledge of world events to teach him the final lesson. Happiness comes much easier when you simply tend to your own garden. Which Is just what Candide and company end up doing.

       The reason I end up connecting the premise of this understated masterpiece is this. What if this is the best of all possible outcomes? If the ones we wanted were to win this election, could a far greater disaster that we have no way of predicting be the outcome? Just because something seems good or bad in theory does not necessarily mean that the end result will be thus. Perhaps, as Candide, we should learn to tend our own gardens and truly think hard about which events do, or do not truly effect us. 

       This is not to say, mind you, that electing such a monster is anything to be happy about. But perhaps it is the will of the world and some good may come of it by some stroke of luck. This is not to say, that where there is injustice one should turn the other cheek. But perhaps save the fight for when it comes. There are times I feel that people are ever so focused on the events ahead rather than those under their feet that the future is somehow skewed by receiving too much attention. Many of our problems are caused by people trying to be outspoken, and by trying to attend to gardens which do not belong to them.

       Perhaps, as Candide learns, the best of all possible worlds may be seen more clearly if only we view the world as it is, rather than with rose colored glasses. But learn to deal with that which needs done as though all will be well in the world. If only humanity would learn the pleasure of cultivating their own gardens, never minding others. The many sufferings of Candide and of ourselves, would be greatly lessened. Perhaps this is the best of all possible outcomes, perhaps it is not, but how are we to know when we are so focused on forcing change unto others as though their flowers may certainly grow in our soil? 

On hindsight

       At the moment I find myself in a turbulent phase of life. My previously suspended french class has come back into my schedule. It had been suspended for most of the semester to be replaced with an 8 week intensive fast-track course. I found myself struggling to keep up with the other classes I had to deal with and now I'm having another added on. I love the French language more than anything so I'm happy to have the class, as well as our dear professor back in good health. My goodness though, on top of that I find myself suddenly employed again. where exactly I will find the time or the mental energy for that I do not know, I will do what I must.
       That brought interesting thoughts to my mind though. As I left from the successful interview, tax papers in hand, I decided to stop in at my old job. A wonderful little European bistro that happens to be in the same plaza. The feelings of anger at having been fired had since subsided and I viewed it simply as what it was; a darn good restaurant. I had the pleasure of seeing the owner, my former employer, again. We had the chance to chat a moment and exchange pleasantries and assure there were no hard feelings. Business is business after all, and it felt good to know that everyone was on good terms. If there's one thing I hate its burning bridges.
       That little chat got the philosophical wheels in my head turning again. Angry as I was at the time that my hard work wasn't good enough for them, I am extraordinarily relieved now. At the time I had a measly 2 classes to worry about, virtually no effort on my part. But that job demanded way more of my time, effort and energy than school did. Now that I feel impossibly weighed down by school I feel truly blessed to not have such difficult work to worry about! Is it not wonderful how life seems to play out right sometimes? Hindsight as they say, is 20/20. Ah, if only one could view the world with such perfect vision. Or perhaps, is this possible after all, in a sense?
       Now, of course there is no way of seeing the future that I have yet been made aware of. But perhaps to the effort of maintaining peace of mind and happiness, one could learn to add the perfect vision of hindsight to their life strategy. If one thinks to themselves, what could the possible benefit of this occurrence be? Perhaps its optimism, perhaps it's faith, or just foolishly hoping things turn out to be less grim than they really are. Is it a viable strategy? or just hoping against hope?
       When you think about it however, there's really no problem with that anyway. Going through life all the time, assuming everything has its reasons. Is it foolish? perhaps, should you let optimism get in the way of realism when real strategies need to be played. But for the most part, I believe we as human beings, function better overall when we are happy. Even if said happiness is only hoped or assumed to be valid. A happy mind is an alert one, a well rested one, one prepared to snatch up the next opportunity.
       Perhaps that was the appeal to religion in the old days. Something for people to believe in, and find happiness in, even if imaginary, to get one through the day in hard times. If that was religions pure and true intention, suffice to say I am dissapointed in how awry it has gone. Religion has caused nothing but misery for the majority of humanity for some time. Perhaps that is merely human nature, to mess things up for everyone. But oh well, I will apply this sense of hind-foresight here and assume that all was for the best in the end, since there is nothing here I have the power to change anyway....

On the "virtue" of monogamy....

        I suppose I'll start off my little writing adventure with a bang. Though my own romantic relationships have been few in number to this point they have been high in variety and I have learned a lot. I've had the first awkward high school relationship, The deeply and foolishly in love relationship, the short lived but passionate relationship, and am currently engrossed in a long term but no expectations relationship. What I have found out about myself is that it isn't necessarily the type of woman that matters, but having different types of women to choose from. What I initially might have attributed as merely feelings of lust have sparked deeper thought on the subject of monogamy.

       While I of course, do not condemn monogamy I just have come to feel that for many of us it's not entirely realistic. When was it decided that a persons need to have exclusive emotional rights to their partner is more important than another’s desire

for variety and excitement in life? Even if one partner decides they have no interest in sex at all anymore, the second is forbidden from seeking satisfaction elsewhere. In what world is this fair? How is sex with another a sign you don’t love your partner, but withholding it eternally against all their desires is not? Why is it that people pay lip service to the idea that love is not about sex, and yet when confronted with infidelity the automatic assumption is that they don’t love you anymore. So, which is it, might I ask?

       In my own opinion this is nothing less than selfishness, cleverly branded as virtue. The hypocrisy of it all is astounding actually. I have noticed a curious double standard as well. Though obviously not always the case, it seems that often, when a man cheats, he’s a terrible person, no questions asked. When a woman cheats it was a “mistake” and she was “confused” seem to be acceptable answers. Why do we not all shed the lies and be honest with ourselves? Humans are not naturally monogamous creatures. Human beings, as all apes, compete for mates. Females fight for the attention of males and vice versa, naturally. But at some point we decided that in order to be more cultured we would decide that to avoid animalistic feelings of jealousy we would all choose to suppress the urge to seek other mates. The odd thing is, is suppressing the animalistic feelings of jealousy and otherwise doing as we please not just as, if not MORE valid an option?

       One thing is certain, it is far easier to control feelings of jealousy than feelings of love and desire. Love is a force far stronger than mere feelings of jealousy. I personally have no desire to be forced into a monogamous arrangement. It doesn’t suit a man of my tastes and personality. I love women, I love to talk with them, flirt with them, and spend time in close proximity to them. I’m very much a fan of sex but it isn’t all about that for me. I’d rather be in a sexless relationship where I’m allowed the freedom to spend time with all of the beautiful girls who suit my fancy than be in a sexual relationship where my activities are so restricted. I feel attracted to beautiful girls of all kinds, and I feel that is a very natural desire and it’s healthy for one’s self-esteem to be surrounded by beauty and mystery like that.

        That’s what this world is all about. Exploring the beauty and mystery that is the world around us. A man who sticks close to his own kind, only ever indulging in that which he’s grown up with and rejecting all else is considered to be closed minded, uncultured, stubborn, cold to the world… and yet committing lifelong to one relationship, no matter how dull it is, and how empty you feel inside is suddenly a virtue? I have my doubts about this. Though my real problem is not with monogamy itself. But the fact that for some god forsaken reason we have it in our heads as a culture that there’s no other way to do it, and that alternate relationship forms are inherently evil.

       My friends, I say to you this, the only evil in the world is forcing others to do as you please with their lives. I am accepting of other cultures, of course! I do not call myself un citoyen du monde for nothing! But when a culture shames people, oppresses their needs and desires and treats people as criminals for expressing who they are as individuals that is not culture! Culture is food, dance, music, art, architecture, festivals, history… habitual tyranny is not culture. People need to stop accepting “It’s just their culture” as a reason to allow the oppression of humanity.

       In regard to culture and sexuality, the middle-east has some different views on things. They serve as an excellent example of both what people are capable of when they put their minds to it as well as just how nasty human beings can be to each other. They have wholeheartedly accepted that monogamy is unrealistic and men are allowed to freely pursue that which they desire. The problem is its only men who are allowed this freedom. If women were too it would be a far happier society. The odd thing is that nearly all societies used to work this way. Whose bright idea was it to take away men’s right to freedom of exploration? What exactly would be wrong with simply allowing women the same privileges? Do we, as men really detest the idea of equality so much that we would place restrictions on our own happiness simply to keep women miserable? Or have I missed something?

       Perhaps people are afraid that with people on the loose, having sexual relations as they see fit, that instances of rape will be more frequent? I hope this is not the case because such an idea is laughably absurd. For the most part, a great many cases of rape are committed by culturally monogamous individuals. From what I can see, rape is caused by people with very little self-control and by people who are at least borderline, sociopaths. A change in attitude about sex and relationships in our culture will not, and cannot change this. Any more than building more grocery stores will stop people from hunting for sport, the two are not deeply connected.

       But what of cultures like in the aforementioned middle-east? Rape is particularly high there isn’t it? Well, that’s a different story entirely. Such a “culture” places no punishment on men for doing things such as that. So if men are never taught that such things are wrong, they follow their animalistic instincts. Rape is terrible, and to the one receiving, psychologically traumatizing, but it is in fact natural in a biological sense. So really, one doesn’t need to be a sociopath to commit such an act if they are in fact, culturally ignorant to their actions. Which is precisely why one must be careful in using the “it’s only natural” philosophy too liberally.

       Now the women of those nations… I weep for the conditions they live in, I really do. However there is ;and I did briefly foreshadow this earlier; one intriguing quality about them. They are, for their part, very calm and at times downright carefree to their husband’s amorous activities. Now, how they came to this acceptance and grace is deplorable, because they do not even have the rights to their own feelings. However, it does prove that you can suppress and even eradicate feelings of jealousy if you were truly committed to doing so, or if you grew up doing so. My only issue with this, of course is the fact that they have no choice in the matter.

       And really, that circles around to my main belief on all of this. Liberty is precious, and taking that away from anyone is despicable! Forcing your ideals on anyone, no matter what they may be, is an awful thing to do. I am less advocating a certain lifestyle, and more advocating the idea that we all leave each other alone about our individual choices. As with the institution of monogamy, when one partner demands it when the other doesn’t wish it, it is merely another form of tyranny in my eyes. Nothing more than a case of “my feelings are more important than your feelings!”

       And that brings me to another point of thought in fact. People say infidelity is “heart breaking” to them. Well, what on earth for? They haven’t hurt you in any way. This is not to say that what you don’t know won’t hurt you sometimes. But if ignorance truly is bliss, then could you not learn to be blissful with knowledge as well? To me, if you come to no physical harm whatsoever, then you are not truly wounded at all. Perhaps you are sad your partner spent his time with another. But perhaps he is sad that he is not allowed to be free to spend time with others. At this point, it is as I have said, it’s simply my feelings vs your feelings. Why have we chosen a default victor no matter the situation? Our relations run on a he-who-cries-first-wins, basis and it’s absurd.

       As is the idea that you can only love one person at a time. If you can love many children for the same reasons, or many friends for the same reasons, why is it we believe you cannot possibly love more than one romantic partner for the same, or even different reasons? We love different people for different reasons all the time! Just not usually AT the same time. The rule is that you love one person at a time or you don’t really love them. Poppycock! Need I remind us all that such rules are the rules of society, and not of the heart? The heart can love whom and whatever it desires, for any reason it desires. I am not of the school of thought that oppressing people from freely expressing their love for those around them, somehow makes a better society.

       Imagine a world, where those who find it in their hearts to love many may love openly and freely without fear of jealousy, scorn and hatred. And where those whose hearts belong to another may be free to be with that one special person just the same. A world where we do as we please, mind our own business, and govern our minds in the interest of only protecting those around us, and not commanding them based on our own invisible feelings…ah, what a wonderful world it could be!