“We” is Everything

The first thing I noticed while reading this chapter is when Dawkins says, "We are survival machines, but 'we' does not mean just people. It embraces all animals, plants, bacteria, and viruses" (P. 21). He states that we are survival machines. Machines are always programmed to do something so what he is stating is that we are programmed to survive. What I think Dawkins means by saying that goes back to the introduction of the book, he says that by nature we are selfish. He means that if we are programmed to survive we´ll do anything in our power to complete our purpose and that's when the selfish gene takes action. We will do anything to survive and we are willing to step on top of others to get what we want no matter the harm we do to others. That's why Dawkins believes that humans must be indoctrinated to be altruistic. To be altruistic is to be generous but to a higher grade, to such level it is that when you are altruistic you even get to stepping on your interests for the interests of others. So being altruistic is the total opposite of being a Survival Machine. Another point that Dawkins touches is that we are all made from similar genes, though in general we result very different. He says; " …the genes, are basically the same in all of us—from bacteria to elephants" (P. 21). We all preserve the same type of genes or DNA in our individual environment. The same type of genes that a bird preserves in the air, is the same type that a tiger preserves in land and that a wale preserves underwater.

Can We Count With Our Own Help?

As I started reading The Selfish Gene , the thoughts that filled my head expressly contradicted the thoughts that I had when I read the title of the book or investigated about it. Personally I thought that reading a science book was quite boring because all you can expect from it is facts, which you do receive while reading The Selfish Gene. But what I got from the book is a lot more than what I expected from it. I saw that the way that Dawkins writes has, with no doubt, a scientific root but you get not just theory but you get more literature like author-reader dialogue than what you would expect from a science book.

I liked that Richard Dawkins has the point of view of a scientist; he is a realist person. He mixes up two things: his opinion and his investigation results. He says, "Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature" (P. 3) In that sentence, what Dawkins did is to express what he wanted (to build a society in which people cooperate by all means to accomplish a sole purpose) and to express his investigation results (When he says that we don't count with the help of biological nature). So what he says afterwards is that we are born selfish and, once again, tosses the reader with his realism saying that we can teach the individuals to be altruistic and generous but that it would be harder to teach generosity to a person that was born selfish.

Nobility

As I continue reading Candide, elements of satire keep appearing with time in a more abundant way. A mock of one of the most characteristic flaws in society is shown in chapter 13, and that is interest marriage. When Candide and Cunegonde arrive to Buenos Aires they visit governor Don Fernando d'Ibaraa, Don Fernando d'Ibaraa sends Candide to review his company. With Candide off his way, he is alone with Cunegonde and he proposes to her. She doesn't really want to marry him but the old woman that was the daughter of the pope said that it was better to marry him because it would make their situation better. Cunegonde finally agrees to marry Don Fernando d'Ibaraa. This governor is a representation of the importance nobles give to their names and their titles. He is shown as a hyperbolic representation of the nobles because most of them used to have interest for none other than themselves so they would step on top of anybody to get what they wanted. Don Fernando d'Ibaraa perfectly shows this because he is a doesn't take anything seriously and is a liar and a cheater.

Is everything really for the best?

When Candide and Cunegonde meet the daughter of the Pope, she tells them stories of her life. What I have seen Voltaire doing is that he presents the one optimistic point of Pangloss and then he presents a number of points of views that contradict completely the philosophic view of Pangloss about life. All that this old lady tells is about her disgraces in life. She has been victim and been present in horrible things such as violence, rape, slavery, and betrayal. Not only has she been a victim of sin but she has also been a product of it. This is certainly ironic because the most supreme figure of the Catholic Church has not only violated his vow of celibacy but has failed to protect his own daughter from the misfortunes that life made her victim of. After going through a lot of trouble in her life, she has learned the hard way and the old woman is sharing advice with Cunegonde and Candide. She tells them that it is bad to make judgments without prior knowledge of certain topic. She tells Cunegonde that it is too early to make judgments in her life because of her little experience. The old woman has lived misery in her life and that's why she describes life in a way of being aware that anything can go wrong.

Evil vs. Good

Voltaire recreated a scene that can be shown as a metaphor in Candide. When Jacques takes Pangloss and Candide on a business trip to Lisbon a sailor is drowning and when Jacques tries to save him he goes off board while the sailor goes back on the ship. This can be seen as a metaphor so the Sailor represents evil and Jacques represents good. So what Voltaire showed is a mockery of the optimistic belief that good will always triumph over bad. In this case ironically while Jacques tried to save the sailor he went over board and the sailor didn't do anything about it when he was already safe. But the mockery continues with the persistently optimistic view of Pangloss who said that the bay he drowned in was made expressly for the Anabaptist to drown in because it was his destiny.

Voltaire also makes a social critique of how women were treated in that time and their vulnerability. Cunegonde is shown as a figure that is very susceptible for abuse. She is also shown as if she were a simple piece of property. Cunegonde is sold and bought as if she was some kind of land or livestock. The book shows how Candide can be naïve because he saw that Cunegonde was being shared between the Grand Inquisitor and Don Issachar and he still felt the same love for her.

Nothing is for Free

Voltaire starts the book with Candide as the illegitimate son of the baron's sister. Being it already a disgraceful situation, His mother doesn't want to marry his father because he only has 71 quarterings and his mother has 72. This is absurd because to my criteria, both have plenty of quarterings and one quartering doesn't make a difference, unless you find a difference between a big shield with 71 little shields inside of it and one with 72 little shields. From the start of the book you can see that Voltaire uses various elements of satire. For example, Pangloss, the tutor of the castle of Thunder-ten-tronckh has a philosophical belief that says,"those who say everything is well are uttering mere stupidities; they should say everything is for the best." After Candide is banished, he is helped by some men but his luck is just not with him so after they help him, they recruit him for the Bulgar army, where he suffers a lot.

Pangloss taught Candide at the beginning in the book and that was the only education Candide used to have. After Candide is banished from the castle he basically has to start over and learn from life. In the army which is one of his first experiences in the real life, life shows him that what Pangloss taught him is pure optimism but not realism. Pangloss taught him that this world is the best possible of all worlds but when he goes to war he sees the opposite.