Candide- A Contrast To Optimism :: essays research papers

Candide- A Contrast to Optimism Francis Marie Arouet de Voltaire was the French author of the novella Candide, also known as â€Å"Optimism†(Durant and Durant 724). Many of Voltaire’s works were popular in Europe during his time, yet it is his satire, Candide, which is still studied today. In Candide, Voltaire sought to point out the fallacy of Gottfried William von Leibniz’s philosophy by criticizing worldly superiority, the theory of optimism, and the brutality of war. Leibniz theorized that God, having the ability to pick from an infinite number of worlds, chose this world, â€Å"the best of all possible worlds†(18). To dispute that contention, Voltaire created Martin. Martin was the quintessential pessimist, and Candide’s trusted friend and advisor. Martin continuously tried to prove to Candide that there is little virtue, morality and happiness in the world. When a cheerful couple was seen walking and singing, Candide told Martin, â€Å"At least you must admit that these people are happy†(94). Martin quickly replied, â€Å"I wager they are not†(94). The only basis Martin had for his judgment was the sight of two outwardly content people, yet somehow he was compelled to characterize them as unhappy. Martin’s pessimistic outlook on life is the antithesis of Leibniz’s theory that this world is the best. The evil that Martin perceived blinded him from the good that existed in the world. The land of Eldorado was the realization of Leibniz’s theory that this world is the best. In reference to Eldorado, Candide stated that â€Å"there’s no comparison between this country and the castle where I was born†(70). The fact that Eldorado was the perfect city revealed the flawed world in which Candide lived. Martin’s ability to focus on the evils in the world and the contrast between reality and Eldorado reflect Voltaire’s criticism of Leibniz’s belief that this world is the best possible. To emphasize his criticism of optimism in the novel, Voltaire created Dr. Pangloss, an unconditional follower of Leibniz’s philosophy. Pangloss believed that everything had its purpose and things happened for the best. Even the horrendous Lisbon earthquake and fire were for the best according to Pangloss. He stated that although the disastrous earthquake took over 30,000 lives, â€Å"all this is for the very best. . . For it is impossible that things should not be where they are†(30). According to Pangloss’ philosophy, there was a purpose behind the earthquake. He believed that there was a rational explanation for the earthquake, even though he was unable to provide substantial evidence to support his claim.