Misery Loves Comedy

"Candide fled as quickly as possible to another village."
Candide witnessed the immense horrors of death in the
 aftermath of a war between the Bulgars and Abars.

Candide's reception
Voltaire's Candide, a satire following an overly optimistic man—Candide—through continual disasters, was immensely popular. In its first year, 20,000 copies were sold and 17 editions published across Europe. Its humor and criticism on the thoughts and authorities of the time were clearly welcomed by the public. People continue to debate how far the satire extends. Some think Voltaire's conclusion is that philosophy is useless, that to reach contentment you should just work and not think. Others think he merely pretends to be anti-philosophy, coming to the conclusion that you experience things, learn from them, and act on them, actually using philosophy to become active instead of passive and reclusive.

Voltaire's context
Voltaire was himself an active man. He fought (usually through writing and speaking with his powerful friends) against war and religious oppression. His hatred of both is evident throughout Candide, notably when Candide and his tutor, Dr. Pangloss, are severely punished simply for having an opinion on God that differs slightly from the Inquisitor's. Voltaire was after all a deist, believing God didn't influence the current world and that hierarchical religion was absurd.

Voltaire was greatly affected by the abuses of power and hypocrisy of government and religious leaders. In Candide all the characters have their own tragic backstories involving being enslaved, abused, and taken advantage of in one way or another. It seems Voltaire, through his own life events, came to believe that misery is the natural state of humanity; even if things do happen to go well, we then create our own misery. The characters, once they have been reunited and remain without abuse, even fantasize going back to their prior misfortunes over sitting in the contented boredom of their farm.

Can "Mean Girls" be the Solution to Avoiding War?

When I was in high school, I was asked to write an analytical essay on a book by Victor Davis Hansen entitled "The Father of Us All." The author claimed that war was the resting state of society, as it were, in the same way that it takes effort to constantly smile instead of just having a default resting face. In other ways, war is the natural way for mankind to resolve any sort of disagreement.

Reading Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes reminded me of that principle. Hobbes writes, "It is certain, that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war." (Hobbes, 35)

 This fascinates me because it sounds like both men agree that people would always be fighting unless the organization of society is almost literally restraining them through authority. 

As I was trying to decide whether I concur, I remembered once hearing someone compare the NFL to the Roman Coliseum. Are we naturally bloodthirsty, but capable of using proxies to satisfy that bloodlust? Then I read this line by Hobbes, and suddenly things made a bit more sense: "In the nature of man, we find three principal causes for [war: competition, distrust, and glory]. The first makes men invade for gain, the second, for safety, and the third for reputation." (Hobbes, 35)

If the warlike mindset is our natural state, maybe it follows that in the absence of a real conflict, society substitutes other institutions to satisfy those natural instincts. 

In modern America especially, capitalism allows people to acquire the property of others simply by outmaneuvering them in business. Society and especially technology have advanced to the point where DNA testing, cameras, and a dedicated police force take personal safety to a whole different level. Even just the advent of the streetlight radically changed the way nighttime itself functions. And in first-world countries, with the poverty line drastically different from many others, personal problems can much more be resolved through social revenge rather than physical revenge (think Mean Girls). 

Perhaps these are just the musings of my brain to try to understand the philosophy of the question, but perhaps there is a valid point here. What do you think?

Image Credits: "Pollice Verso" by Jean-Leon Gerome 1872, "2006 Pro Bowl tackle". Both licensed through the CC for non-commercial reuse. 

The Nature of Man

The “nature of man” is described perfectly by Thomas Hobbes as he lists “three principal causes for quarrel: first, competition; secondly, distrust; thirdly, glory.” His insights concerning the causes of war are spot on. He says that the first principal makes men invade for gain, the second one for safety, and the third for reputation.

Hobbes’s insights parallel a modern-day scripture from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It comes from the Doctrine and Covenants and reads, “We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.”

https://flic.kr/p/9fgYLg

Hobbes, himself, makes several references to the Bible, especially the familiar “law of the Gospel” that reminds us “to do unto others….” He also teaches that “men are continually in competition for honor and dignity…and consequently…there arises envy and hatred and finally war.”

We see this kind of behavior in men (meaning men and women alike) in all areas of life. As a matter of fact, I don’t believe there is any place in our lives that escapes the negative consequences of the natural man. There is one place, in particular, where I have been saddened to see this focus on competition, distrust, envy, hatred, gain, and glory; it is on the fields and in the courts of all sports. While raising my family, I got tired of hearing about how good competitive sports would be for my kids. Many proudly taught that participation in any sport would teach sportsmanship; however, I never witnessed any positive act of sportsmanship. I am sure that it was there, but no doubt it was overshadowed by a much higher percentage of negative behavior, all in the name of gain and glory for self.

I believe the reason so many great minds have been enlightened with this idea of the true nature of man is because our nature is evident throughout history. If we can accept this natural trait in ourselves, we can overcome the natural man. As we rule over each other in appropriate ways and even compete when necessary, we can do so in the manner of “doing unto others as we would have them do unto us.”