Pangloss and Converse Are Fake News
When I was younger, I used to think that the one thing that would fulfill my fashion needs, bring me up to par, and essentially make me look like the coolest kid on the face of the planet was a pair of classic, black and white, high-top Converse shoes. I mean, why not? All the cool kids at my homeschool co-op wore them—the kids that had twelve-hundred followers on Instagram and totally knew what they were doing with their lives even at the tender stage of junior high. The shoes matched with every outfit imaginable and could be dressed up or dressed down. They would solve all my problems concerning fashion and I just knew I would be happy if I owned a pair. I saved up my money for several months and finally bought my dream pair of Converse. To this day, I still think I faintly heard the Hallelujah chorus as I opened the box and removed my new shoes. However, upon putting them on at home and walking around in them, I soon realized that they were literally the most uncomfortable things I had ever worn in my entire life. Period. They were flat and thin and gave no support whatsoever. I tried wearing them outside, but could feel every stick and piece of gravel underneath the soles of the shoes as I walked. They were terrible. By the end of the day, I came to the conclusion that the shoes would not solve all my problems, make me happy, or suddenly turn me into the coolest kid to ever roam the planet. The only reason I had ever thought they would solve all those issues was because the people I had looked up to most owned them and made them look so effortless to wear.
Lies.
In Voltaire’s novel Candide, the main character is also heavily influenced by an individual he greatly looks up to: his teacher, Pangloss. Pangloss’ predominant philosophy is that everything happens for the best, even the misfortunes and evil in the world. Candide is described as, even from a very young age, clinging to the teachings of Pangloss (Voltaire 2) and later putting Pangloss’ teachings into practice. Throughout the various tragedies Candide faces, however, he comes to the realization that putting trust in Pangloss’ argument, simply due to his authoritative position, was wrong, and he must decide to reason for himself by pulling away from Pangloss’ unrealistic optimism.
Pangloss’ teachings are prominently established in the beginning of the story. In Candide’s young age, Pangloss describes to his student that everything is “necessarily for the best end”. He describes how he believes that noses were made for glasses, legs were made for pants, and stones were made to build castles (Voltaire, 2). The author describes how Candide “listened attentively and believed innocently” to all that Pangloss had to say (Voltaire 2). At first glance, Pangloss’ philosophy seems fairly harmless. In fact, it may come across as relatively positive. The idea of living with an optimistic mindset in the midst of hardships does have its benefits. Readers soon see the other side of Pangloss’ argument, however, when he and Candide are in the midst of a storm on the seas. Tragically, Jacques, the Anabaptist whose character has been nothing but positive in the story, drowns during the storm. Candide is described as wanting to “throw himself into the sea after him” however, Pangloss stops him, telling him that “the Lisbon roads had been formed expressly for this Anabaptist to be drowned in” (Voltaire 12). Instead of questioning Pangloss’ reasoning for why the drowning of a good soul such as Jacques is for the best, Candide seems to accept it. Not only does he blindly accept Pangloss’ ideas, but he also openly defends them on several occasions. For example, when Candide flees to a village after being taken captive by the Bulgarians, he explains to an orator that every misfortune that has happened to him thus far— losing his love Cunégonde, running the gantlet for the Bulgarians, and now begging for bread— are necessary and for the best (Voltaire 7).
Candide begins to reach a turning point in his thinking, however. He expresses his love for Cunégonde to the Jesuit Baron, who, in return, ridicules him. In response, Candide draws his sword and kills the Baron. At this point, he realizes the sins he has committed. “I am the kindest man in the world,” he laments “and here I am killing three men already, and two of the three priests” (Voltaire 37). It is here readers begin to see a perhaps more subtle, subconscious change in Candide’s thinking. Had he continued to cling to Pangloss’ reasoning that all happens for the best, Candide likely would not have felt remorse over the murder of the three men. Eventually, Candide reaches a point where he voices his new disapproval of Pangloss. “At last,” Candide exclaims “I shall have to renounce your optimism...it is the mania of maintaining that all is well when we are miserable!” (Voltaire 51).
By the end of the book, Candide has had a chance to see the world through two different lenses: Pangloss’ and his own. It isn’t until Candide begins to reason for himself that he questions Pangloss. In the last scene of the story, Pangloss claims that all the tragedies they went through turned out for good, and that they would not be enjoying life on the island had they not suffered many hardships (Voltaire 96). “That is well said,” Candide responds “but we must cultivate our garden.” (Voltaire 96). Candide acknowledges here that Pangloss presents his argument well, but he does not agree with it. He realizes now that the eloquence and authority in which Pangloss had for so long been presenting his argument were not credible enough to make the argument true. It wasn’t until Candide was forced to experience the tragedies of the outside world that he was able see for himself that Pangloss’ argument was weak.
In my highly unfortunate experience with the Converse, I believed that the shoes were the answer to my problem simply because those that I looked up to made them out to be. They seemed like an easy, logical solution to my lack of style and my overall need for versatile shoes. However, I soon realized they did not adequately support me when I walked around outside. Similarly, Candide believed in a philosophy simply because his authority advocated it. When he experienced the evil of the outside world, though, he was able to see for himself that Pangloss’ argument did not support him, and he was able to realize the need to break away from the toxic philosophy and think for himself.
I enjoyed reading your essay, Abigail!
ReplyDeleteLike you said, Candide blindly accepts Pangloss’s philosophy because Pangloss is in an authoritative position. He acts like he is an expert on all matters and his philosophy sounds appealing, so Candide does not explore other alternatives until later, when is harshly confronted by the misfortune and evil in the world. Unfortunately, many people today are similarly influenced by people in authority. For example, when a celebrity promotes a product or endorses a political candidate, people willingly follow. Because they believe the celebrity somehow knows what is best since he is in an esteemed position, they do not research the product or political candidate to learn if it is the right choice for them. In contrast, Socrates, as recounted in The Apology, is imprisoned and later killed because he does not obey the people in authority. He believes that it is his duty to question their philosophy, and he creates various enemies in the process. Though he is faced with death, Socrates stands by his reasoning and is unwilling to change his beliefs. Instead of carelessly following people in authority, like unrealistic philosophers or famous actors, we should consider Socrates’s example. We should question their reasoning or the thing that they are promoting and think for ourselves.
Plato, and Benjamin Jowett. The Trial and Death of Socrates. Heritage Press, 1963.
Abigail, your argument gives a perfect example of what so many people do in society today. They are followers rather than leaders, who search out what is true and good for them. Now it’s not always bad to be followers, Christians are called to follow Christ’s teachings like Candide followed Pangloss’. The difference lies in the philosophies being taught and what one is doing. Dante followed Virgil throughout Inferno and Purgatory on his journey to realize that sins have consequences and in his journey unlike Candide’s, he learned that somethings have to be stopped and not followed like man’s lustful wishes. Specifically, in Inferno, Dante realizes that, “[he] found [himself] in a dark wilderness, / for [he] had wandered from the straight and true” (Inferno, 2-3). Dante basically goes, “Oh no, I’m in trouble because I have been following the wrong crowd and now, I’m in a mess.” We as Christians we need to realize when we have fallen off God’s path by obtaining accountability from people around us and by consulting God’s word so that we can get back on track with our lives in a way that is virtuous.
ReplyDeleteAlighieri, Dante. Inferno. Translated by Anthony Esolen, Modern Library, 2003.
Abigail, I loved reading your essay! The characters in Candide, from the harmfully positive Pangloss to the depressed, pessimistic Martin, certainly influence Candide significantly throughout the story, and their dynamic represents the need for one to break away from dependence on teachers and external influences in order to establish one’s philosophy. Candide’s philosophy of life had been determined by those he viewed as wise authority figures, leading him to experience many evils in the world he would have otherwise avoided. Unyielding trust in authority and eloquence is inherently dangerous, not only because it limits one’s ability to question and reason for themselves, but it allows authorities to misuse their power and manipulate those beneath them. Pangloss prevents Candide from saving Jacques because of his philosophy, stating that everything happens for a reason and “the Lisbon roads had been formed expressly for this Anabaptist to be drowned in” (Voltaire 12). Pangloss abuses his power over Candide at the peril of another human being. The jury of Athens and the accusers of Socrates also use power and rhetorical eloquence to manipulate others and bring about harmful outcomes. In Plato’s Apology, Socrates rightfully dismisses their “falsehoods” disguised by “ornamented...words and phrases” (19). In his defence, Socrates separates himself from the vain sophists of Athens, who would assume authority over the instruction of Greek youths due to their sophisticated rhetoric and flowery language. Socrates seeks to reveal “the whole truth” (19) in a direct manner. In order to live well, one must not be easily fooled by authority and rhetoric; instead, one must examine arguments on their objective truth, regardless of the source.
ReplyDeleteThis is Kathryn by the way!
DeleteI don't know what's up with this system...