Prima Facie

At first glance, the words in Macbeth seem to be a jumble of poems, put into a blender, swished around, with rhyming words at the ends. However, when we look closer, we can make sense of what he is saying, and then understand the play, meanwhile enjoying the way things are written by Shakespeare. According to Dawkins, "Langauage seems to 'evolve' by non-genetic means, and at a rate which is orders of magnitude faster than genetic evolution" (p 189).

We can nod our heads, and agree with this, because already, we speak differently than our parents did when they were kids. The language gap is even greater with our grandparents, and greatgrandparents. In the 70s, they would say 'groovy', whereas now we would say 'cool'. Somewhere in between there, people would refer to it as 'neat'. Likewise, at one point, people actually did talk the way Shakespeare writes. Of course, not in rhyme, because that would just annoy people, having to rhyme all the time; however, they used vocabulary like beguile and compunctious. Although we wouldn't say things like "I beguiled my parents into letting me go out this weekend", or "I was siezed by compunction when I came home later that night", we can still figure out what the point of the sentence is.

However, if we were to look at language that was from even further back, we would not even be able to get the basic concept.
Could it be, that hundreds of years from now, or even just twenty, people will look at the way we speak today, and laugh about it? And wonder how in the world we ever could speak like that in a day to day situation?

"You Scratch My Back, I'll Ride On Yours"

The above is the title of chapter 10. As the title foreshadows, the chapter covers the fact that somethings don't know the golden rule "Do to others as you would have them do to you". They simply accept the, as Richard Dawkins would call it, altruism of others, and do not return the kind gesture when the other needs them. Although Dawkins used birds to explain this, you could also use it to explain the actions of the new United States and France.

During the colonies revolution, the French supported them with naval help, soldiers, and supplies. However, after the British were defeated, and the United States established with their own Constitution, things kind of just were put on the back burner concerning their relationship with France. When France began their own (bloody) revolution, they needed help. They got themselves into a mess with Britain, and started a war. However, the United States was very fragile, and needed Britain as a friend, and they were also having a nice time trading with them. So, when the French asked the United States to help them fight the British (as they had helped them do a while ago) the president, George Washington, decided to just stay neutral, and not fight the British for the French.

This could be seen as similar to the bird situation in chapter 10. However, the United States did help the French concerning supplies, like wise they helped the British in the same way, yet this was more of a 'sellfish' act, because they needed the trade, and profit.

I wonder how Dawkins would explain this whole North American - French - British ordeal. He would probably say they were all selfish, and were focusing on their own needs when helping the others. He would probably write a really long and (cough,cough) "interesting" chapter and name it "You Fight My War, I'll Make A Profit From Yours".

The Website below is an article of the Neutrality Proclamation that George Washington presented.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/neutra93.asp

Animal Attraction vs. Human Attraction

Animals:

Males=Attractive/Flashy Females=Blend in/ Drabby

Humans:

Males=Less Flashy Females=Flashy

Blackmailing-Baby Birds

A certain idea in chapter 8 left me quite puzzled. The author was bringing forth the idea that birds 'blackmail' their parents. They scream loudly so as the parent is left with the choice of giving the bird more food, or letting it scream until a predator comes. Now this doesn't really seem to make sense to me. How could one bird decide one day, okay, I am going to scream really loudly until you give me food, or else I will just keep screaming until a fox comes and eats me and you.

Baby Bird: SCREAM SCREAM SCREAM!

Mommy Bird: Here is some food.

Baby Bird: SCREAM SCREAM SCREAM!

Mommy Bird: I already gave you food.

Baby Bird: SCREAM SCREAM SCREAM!
Mommy Bird: Okay here is some more food.

How do you prove that the baby bird is 'blackmailing' the mommy bird? Could he not just be hungry, and want more food? I don't think that birds can go through the process of thinking, 'if I scream, I will attract predators, so if I keep screaming, my mommy will want to shut me up so no predators find us, so if I just keep screaming, she will give me more and more food.'

Um...I don't know, but that just doesn't really seem logical to me that a baby bird would know about predators even before he is out of the nest, and that he would try to threaten his food-provider, who could just up and leave if a predator came.

Parental Care - Kin Selection

How would The Selfish Gene go about explaining the fact that some animal mothers eat their newborn babies? The ones that are weak, and probably won't survive anyway? Would this still be some form of altruism towards their kin, they want them to suffer less, so they eat them, instead of having them starve to death, or by some other means? What about Sea Turtles, who crawl up to shore, lay their eggs, and then leave, leaving their babies to figure out how to get to the shore themselves? I don't think that all parents necessarily care for their offspring in the way that Richard Dawkins explains in The Selfish Gene.

Dove or Hawk?

In chapter 5 of The Selfish Gene, they characterize fighting strategies as either hawk or dove. "Hawks always fight as hard and as unrestrainedly as they can, retreating only when seriously injured" (p 70). Doves however "merely threaten in a dignified conventional way, never hurting anybody" (p 70). I thought about this for a while. Are humans hawks or doves? Do many of us ever really fight with someone else until injury or death? Maybe a few, however, most of us just use threats, and never really live up to them. This made me think of Macbeth. He must have been a hawk, because he killed so many people, right? However, I think he might not be completely hawk, but also dove as well. In Act 1 scene 7, he is questioning himself whether or not to actually follow through with the murder of King Duncan. He says, "He's here in double trus: First, as I am his kinsman and his subject, Strong both agains the deed; then, as his host, Who should against his murderer shut the door, Not bear the knife myself. Besides, this Duncan Hath brone his faculties so meek, hath been So clear in his great office, that his virtues Will plead like angels, trumpet-tongued, against The deep damnation of his taking off" (Act 1. sc. 7 lines 12-20). His train of thought is so clear and ringing with truth, that if left to himself, he probably would not have commited the murder at all. But of course that wouldn't really be a good story, Macbeth is prophesized to be King, however after thinking things through, decides he better not kill anyone. No, it wouldn't have been a very big hit. So, instead, Shakespeare brings in Lady Macbeth, who is hawk through and through. She pushes Macbeth to kill Duncan, thus fulfilling the prophesy. However, what would you then call someone who is half hawk and half dove? A Hawve? Because so many things in this world are not completely one or the other, I think it would have been smart to address this point. If a being sometimes backs down, however sometimes fights till the death, what would he be called, according to The Selfish Gene?

Trick to get a Treat

Okay, so let me get this straight, animals lie? Are you serious? You said "the angler is telling a lie, exploiting the little fish's tendency to approach wriggling worm-like objects" (64). I think you are stepping into gray territory when you use the word "lie" for this method of obtaining food. Personally, I think he is just tricking. The poor guy is just trying to get some food, trying to survive, and you go and throw the weight of a mortal sin on his shoulders. I think he just heard about Halloween, but got confused, and instead of Trick or Treat, he heard Trick for a Treat. Therefore, it really isn't that bad if he does trick to get his food. After all, he is just a Survival Machine, trying to be on the list for Natural Selection. So, I think you owe Mr. Angler an apology.

(Plus, he is a famous movie star in Finding Nemo, using his amazing techniques, he helps Marlin find the mask!)

Survival Machines

If we were really Survival Machines as the book is arguing we are, then why would we even bother to reproduce? It doesn't affect our certain individual directly, does it? And if the book would then argue, 'it would matter if we were talking about a certain group of organisms trying to survive,' then why would it matter if the offspring were to receive 50% or 100% of the parent's genes?

Chapter 1 and 2 of The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins; Connections and Questions

One of the things I noticed immediatly upon opening Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene, is that he refers to Darwin as the first to "put together a coherent and tenable reason of why we exist" (p.1) This brought back the memory of Slaughterhouse Five, where the Tralfamadorians were interested in Charles Darwin, because of his supposed belief that "death was an improvement". I found this very interesting that so far two books in English class have refered to, or presented me with, Charles Darwin and his theories. I think it is a pretty funny coincidence.

I have to disagree with the author when he describes the fetus of a human having "no more feeling than an amoeba" (p 10). How can anybody prove that the fetus cannot feel? However, I do agree with him that other animals should have some rights, like not being test on in a lab, or similar. But do chimpanzees need certain legal rights, and to learn the human language? I think they would prefer if we just left them alone.

An excellent example of a person with pure altruism is Mother Teresa. (Click here for more information) She gave her time, effort, and pretty much entire self, towards the care of the sick, hungry, poor and dying.

Chapter two wasn't very fair. I felt like I was in science class again, and I though I was reading an english book! The author described many different scientific-observances and -names. He goes on to describe how exactly he believes life was created. By a couple of molecules. I am not sure, but could he maybe be being a little bit satirical with his novel? He seems to be protraying the message that life came from molecules, but where did the first building blocks come from? Is the author trying to answer the questions "is there a meaning to life? What are we for? What is man?" (p.1).

Four steps to finally get what you are supposed to do in life:(according to Voltaire's Candide)

1. Mind your own business

"Is it your business?" (141). - dervish

"I have no idea" (142). - old man

2. Don't worry about little things

"Do you suppose he worries whether the ship's mice are comfortable or not?" (141). - dervish

"I never bother myself about what happens in Constantinople" (142). - old man

3. Don't try to figure things out that don't really matter.

"Keep your mouth shut" (142). - dervish

"That's enough for me" (142). - old man

4. Keep yourself busy with work.

"...slammed the door in their faces" (142). - dervish

"we find that the work banishes those three great evils, boredom, vice and poverty" (143). - old man

So, that is what I got out of Voltaire's Candide.

Some Stuff in the Book

In Voltair's Candide, chapter after chapter, I keep finding the characters of women to be very similar. They almost all at one point were very pretty, if not beautiful, and all seem to have the same fate. This fate of course is being used by men over and over again. Either by the means of rape, or the women choose it as a way of living.

Why does the author constantly keep coming back to this, or presenting this to us in the book. Is it to maybe show that men always just want women for one particular reason? Or is it to show that back then, that was the only importance of women?

Also, there seems to be alot of death or killing in the book, or at least Candide keeps losing the people he is fond of. For example, Pangloss, Cunegonde, Cacambo. etc. etc.

Candide also keeps getting cheated in everything that happens to him. The wealth he accumlates is sure to soon run out, for everyone seems to find out that he is filthy rich, and then take advantage of his naïve way of thinking.

Candide's companion, Martin, seems to be the complete opposite of his former, yet still beloved, idol, Pangloss. Martin is set that everything in the world is completely terrible, and awful. He is a compelte pessimist. Pocurante and Martin seem to get along quite well, seeming as they both have the same view on life, everything is pretty much useless, disgusting, annoying, or etc. Nothing can please Pocurante.

Another theme that is often presented in Candide, is loss. It seems that when anybody ever gets something good, they either loose it, or something very bad happens to them, that cancels out the good. For example, the six kings that Candide dines with, or the fact that Candide keeps losing comfortable homes, and Cunegonde, and other people he loves.

Rocks and Dirt

Candide and Cacambo, upon following a river in a boat, are led to the country of Eldorado. Their they find an abundance of gold and precious stones, like emeralds and rubies. However, the inhabitants of that land found the "riches" of their land to be valueless, like rocks and dirt are to us. I think this is pointing towards the idea that something is only valuable if somebody says it is.

For example, in the US, the government prints out a whole bunch of green paper, marks it with a special seal, and then labels it with a worth of either 1, 5, 10, etc.

It has no worth at all, really. You cannot eat it or use it for anything really necessary. However, because the government says it is worth something, we expect to receive a certain product if we hand over the necessary amount of money.

Yet who can determine the worth of one currency against another? Apparently the government, of course, but honestly, just think about it, we are exchanging pieces of paper or pieces of metal for food, clothes, and etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/business/worldbusiness/21dollar.html

The above article is from the New York Times, discussing currency issues, and the worth of currency.

Monkeys! ...Cannibals discriminate?

In chapter sixteen, Cacambo says to Candide, "Why should you find it so strange that in some parts of the world monkeys obtain ladies' favours? They are partly human, just as I am partly Spanish" (70). At first, I did not catch the diss that was directed to the Spanish. Cacambo is stating that being partly Spanish, is sort of like being only partly human, or in other words, a monkey. So, he is comparing Spanish people with monkeys, and therefore I believe the author is targeting Spanish people in this instance.

This is the best monkey clip in the world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlVWcTFqC6k

We are also introduced to a couple of could-be cannibals Candide says how "outrageously inhuman" the Oreillons actions were, to cook their fellow-men, and that it was "scarcely the act of a Christian" (71). However, after Cacambo convinces the Oreillons that they are not Jesuits, Candide referst to them as "grand" (72). He goes on to praise them on being fine fellows, and proclaiming "what culture!" (72), seeming to forget that he was just about to be cooked and eaten by these barabarians. He seems to think that as long as they don't do those certain things to me, than that is fine, they are very nice.

I think it is very interesting that his oppinion of the Oreillons changes so quickly, and all because of the way they are treating him. He does not seem to care that they eat people, as long as they aren't eating him. However, was he not just about to become a Jesuit in one of the past chapters? Is this maybe hinting at the point that people are never really what they seem, and people who discriminate against certain people don't even know why, or what they are discriminating? It seems that people who hate a certain type of people don't know why they hate them, or who they actually are.

*************************************
Magnanimity -
generous in forgiving an insult or injury; free from petty resentfulness

Jesuit - a member of a Roman Catholic religious order (Society of Jesus) founded by Ignatius of Loyola in 1534.

Target

I think that the author of Candide is targeting a couple people and concepts in chapter 13 & 14:

He is targeting:

1. People who only treat other people with respect after hearing about their "rank and quality"(58). This would of course be Cunegonde, and her giving the old woman respect.

2.Women who are never satisfied with the man that they have. They always want more, and always expect better. Again, Cunegonde is displaying this target with her uncertainty if she should accept the Governor's hand in marriage, or if she should stay with Candide.

3. Traitors, or two-faced people. The man Cacambo protrays this quality by stating "When you don't get what you expect on one side, you find it on the other" (62).

4. Gossip, so far, two people have not been "killed" like Pangloss said they had been, Cunegonde and Cunegonde's brother. I think the author is targeting people who gossip because usually what they say is not ever really true.

5. The statement "a small world", because for some reason Candide keeps running into people who he knew from other places in lands that are very far away from their origingal dwelling place.

The Most Ridiculous

The author of Candide frequently uses ridiculous and insane ideas in his story. For example, cutting off half of the poor old woman's rear end to feed the starving soldiers, and how many times she was sold, and re-sold. Now, after Cunegonde and Candide finally find eachother, Cunegonde hesitates at accepting the hand of the rich Governor. Why did she not directly refuse, and why did she not know to say yes or no? I thought that Candide and Cunegonde were in a deep love which was reflected on either side. Why then, does she go to the old lady for advice, whether or not to accept this Governor's hand in marriage? Does she not see that he only loves her for her beauty, and in a couple weeks after fulfilling his lust, he will ditch her? Poor Cunegonde, she does not realize that she is going to be throwing away her life. We are left at the end of the chapter with the old woman's advice to Candide to flee quickly, before he is captured. So, after being together for a little while, the 'lovers' are once again separated. Will their paths be crossed again later in the book?

Interesting Words That Popped Out At Me:

Eloquence p.56

1.the practice or art of using language with fluency and aptness.

2.eloquent language or discourse: a flow of eloquence.

Propensities p.57

1.a natural inclination or tendency: a propensity to drink too much.
2.Obsolete. favorable disposition or partiality.

Sagacious p.58
1.having or showing acute mental discernment and keen practical sense; shrewd: a sagacious lawyer.
2.Obsolete. keen of scent.

Harangued p.58
1.a scolding or a long or intense verbal attack; diatribe.
2.a long, passionate, and vehement speech, esp. one delivered before a public gathering.
3.any long, pompous speech or writing of a tediously hortatory or didactic nature; sermonizing lecture or discourse

8, 9, 10 & 11

Voltaire's Candide seems to be a whirl wind of misfortunes. Every character in his book goes through the most horrid things, only to enter into more calamity.
Cunegonde's parents are killed, she is raped by a Bulgar, and a Bulgar captain, then sold to a Jew who then shared her with a Grand Inquisitor. Poor Cunegonde, after suffering so much, now has to flee from the grand house she had been staying with Candide and an old woman who was her maid. So, she gathers together the jewls that were doted upon her, and together, they ride towards Cadize.
Then in the next chapter, we find them in yet another adversity. All of Cunegonde's jewls and moidores have been stolen, and now they are completely broke, trying to get to Cadize. They then have the idea to sell one of the horses, and the old woman will ride behind Cunegonde. However, she mentions that it will be very difficult "I can hardly keep my seat with only one buttock" (47). Nevertheless, they sell the horse, and they persevere towards Cadinze.


Cunegonde and Candide then start to complain about all of the troubles and mishaps that have been swung their way. This leads the old woman to tell her story:





She tells them about how she once very beautiful, and rich. Then, how she was captured by pirates, raped, and then brought to the forsaken Morocco, which was "swimming in blood" (51) when they arrived. There, she witnessed her mother's death, along with the deaths of her handmaidens and all of the other captors and captives. She then told them that she crawled to an orange tree, and collapsed with grief underneath its shady branches, only to be awakened by a "man of fair complexion" (53).
Was the author trying to be funny when he wrote this book? Giving all of these people the hardest lives, in order to poke fun at people who say that their lives are so terrible? I can not imagine going through the hardships these characters are being put through. Thank goodness this is not a real story!