Voltaire on optimism in ‘Candide’

Reading is one of my passions. I like books that make me think. Voltaire’s Candide is one of those exceptional novels that work on the reader’s sensibilities. "‘The most useful books," he wrote, "are those to which the readers themselves contribute half; they develop the idea of which the author has presented the seed."

A rare novel of sharp wit and biting satire, Voltaire’s masterpiece is a glorious depiction of the intolerable folly of society and its perverted way of thinking. The key issue of Candide is optimism – more specifically, the belief held during Voltaire‘s time declaring that all human suffering is part of a benevolent cosmic plan – which undermines the need to question, much less refute or amend, the theory of philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz that "all for the best in the best of all possible worlds."

Voltaire brilliantly parodies this philosopohy in the novel as he courses the protagonist Candide through a series of dismal events that would challenge his views and prompt him to overhaul himself. It starts as Candide is kicked out of his childhood home when unjustly accused of being romantically interested in Lady Cunégonde. Young and ignorant, he moves from place to place looking for a place to stay in, armed with nothing more than the philosophy he learned from Dr. Pangloss – that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. For the first time in his life, he is forced to reconcile his actual experiences to the theoretical precept he cherished since childhood as he is assaulted with all kinds of tragedy imaginable. His experiences can humorously serve as proof to the infamous Sod’s law which states that if something can go wrong it will, Candide desperately clings to his beliefs as he is exposed to the contemptible struggles of man but finally renounces his misguided optimism, "I’m through, I must give up optimism after all... It is a mania for saying things are well when one is in hell." Candide’s tribulations culminate in the much-anticipated reunion with his beloved Cunégonde who, alas, had turned unbearably ugly, owing to the unbelievably sardonic humor of Fate. Candide then discovers that contrary to the philosophy of Dr. Pangloss, all is not for the best.

Some may downright disagree with the ideas espoused by Voltaire. In fact, this satire cost Voltaire himself severe attacks from many critics. Perhaps it would be easier to understand it if we recognize the author‘s intentions which were shaped by the political and socio-economic circumstance during his time. Voltaire used Candide to condemn the widely-accepted illusion of "heaven on earth" by attacking pertinent issues as the hypocrisy of the Church, the absurdities of war, his arch rival Rousseau’s premise that man is intrinsically good, and the complacent acceptance of human oppression. He observed around him seeds of discord and misery – in addition to the military disasters of 1709 and the horrors of religious persecution – and did not attempt to conceal the fact. The misguided optimism and exhausting complacency of the people he put down largely to religion which after all, according to another great thinker, Karl Marx, is the "opiate of the masses." Voltaire impugns the prevailing creed of that time which dictates that since God is perfect He would create nothing less than the best of all possible worlds; that if He created a less perfect world, then He becomes a less perfect God. At least that is how the logic behind the theory of Leibnitz goes. Perhaps it is open to interpretation whether Voltaire is against the philosophy per se or against how the philosophy was used to justify all evil, cruelty and suffering.

As opposed to those who might find such ideology too malicious to accept, I admire the extraordinary courage of Voltaire to express the imperfection of the world and the sorry condition of man without any form of disguise, notwithstanding the criticisms that came with it. I agree with the idea that sometimes we have to quit romanticizing things and events in order to see the malignant reality – even if doing so makes it even more painful to bear – for only after we break the illusions that imprison us would we become free to think with reason and common sense.

Men have differing opinions, benevolent or notorious, about life and humanity. Some contend that mankind, having no control over destiny, is doomed no matter what so it is absurd to pretend everything will turn out nice and peachy in the end. On the other hand, some remain firm in their notion that there is a certain truth to the "heaven on earth" precept and that the only way to surmount adversity is by being optimistic even if it seems preposterous. In any case, we can never be sure which philosophy is true, significant, or even practical under all circumstances – although I doubt that there is one. After all, no one can really claim to have all the right answers for no one has the monopoly of the truth.

Voltaire had as much right to pronounce his ideas just as Leibnitz had when he proposed his "the best of all possible worlds" creed. It would be an insult to one’s intelligence to passively accept conventions and doctrines without any question. I believe in the necessity to dispute beliefs, no matter how strongly-accepted they are. The only worse thing than having one’s ideology opposed, regardless of how plausible it seems, is to allow it to pass unchallenged.