The Good Old Cause

As taught by his old mentor, Dr. Pangloss, candied firmly beliefs in the law of cause and effect. The previous states that every single event occurring in our lives has a set of causes or other events that led to the effect being mentioned. As a result, Candide exposes what seems to be convinced belief in a paradigm, which leads him to belief that his life is that way because it is the end product of a set of causes: it couldn’t be any other way. When he approaches the man that had been preaching charity, a clear example of this belief takes place in the midst of the irony. The man asks about his support in favor of the “Good Old Cause,” and candied responds that “there is no effect without a cause… all things are necessarily connected and arranged for the best, it was my fate to be driven from lady Cunégonde’s presence and made to run the gauntlet (p.26-27).” He mentions his basic belief, followed by a small explanation proving its validity. By mentioning that “all things are necessarily connected and arranged for the best,” Candide may be telling to us that everything is the best outcome as a simple explanation of no other possibility. If there is only one possible outcome, then the experimental outcome shall always be the best: how couldn’t it? It was his “fate” to come to that place and moment in time in those exact conditions that he currently faced. This makes me recall Calvinist predestination, and the idea that everything is already played out and nothing we do can change what should happen because our roles have already been written and we helplessly act them out. This strikes me as pessimist and hopeless. If one thinks that nothing he does can change his future, what incentive would the individual have to live? Why would we put effort into something that is virtually unchangeable?

As an educated reader I understand historical concepts and recall Voltaire’s mentality which is widely taught and respected. By writing this ideals he may be subtly trying to depict an absurd world, he is slowly ridicule these “beliefs” that he has Candide carry out. His innovative approach at absurdity and what we would consider to be sarcasm in modern times makes out of the story an active plot. It has kept me hooked into the meaning behind the words. How will Voltaire proceed to prove his point on free will?

Reasonable Interpretations

Sections 26-30 of the Handbook of Eptictetus mention cause and effect: how everything happens for specific reasons. Nothing happens for granted, for every action comes as an effect of a cause, which in effect, originates from a chain of previous cause-effect situations. Eptictetus alludes to this ideal as follows: “Just as a target is not set up to be missed, in the same way nothing bad by nature happens in the world (section 27).” By mentioning how a target is not placed to be missed, the text directs our thinking to its purpose: everything has a purpose in life. Even the slightest blow of wind has a purpose and meteorological conditions that set the situation. The second part, mentioning that “nothing bad by nature happens” only compares our flawed judgment with the wise perception of nature. Bad things happen only in our minds as fitting to our judgments, for their essence is never evil-intentioned. To set an example let’s take death: is it really as bad and merciless as we think of it? To our basic mentality a death is a great loss, someone has been taken for good, someone who we may be missing, someone who “didn’t deserve” dying. Now take this ideal and look at it through the lens of nature: death is the basic pillar by which life is enabled. If people didn’t die, new people couldn’t be born into the world, evolution would never take place, evil of mind would be physically immortal, and a wide array of devastating effect would fall upon not one, two or a few, but upon all of us.

As proven, all acts have a reason and an irreplaceable effect which is never bad, only our interpretations and judgments of such are what turns them into bad by ignoring the complete picture as introduced in by Eptictetus: “For each action, consider what leads up to it and what follows, and approach it in the light of that (section 29).” In a sense, he is trying to approach events as mathematical equations: leave behind but one variable, and the end process is erroneous. When judging acts, events, ideas, and pretty much anything you can imagine, first make sure you understand all the variables that lead to that product, which in turn will serve as a variable within another process. We are simplistic beings and tend to forget inconvenient information which, at least to our intentions, seems useless or even counterproductive. That habit of us of shaping every little situation into a personal interpretation, making us martyrs and victims is blocking our capabilities of development and understanding.

I don’t want you to think of me as a defender of Eptictetus as a result of the previous, for I also disagree with many of his ideals, including the fact that we agree upon the positivity of anything. I am not proposing agreement towards all situations, I merely ask for understanding of them. How can one judge and condemn without the facts? To take it all to simple level, I am not agreeing upon what Eptictetus has said, I merely try to understand his intentions, and all that which led to the writing of these words.

Regarding Your Poem...

Dear Robert Frost,

I have presently laid your poem in my desk as I read its last few words. I have found the figurative meaning, that of choice making and decisions in life, very grabbing as to say it that way. I like the clarification you make in line 2 where you write: “and sorry I could not travel both.” I agree that one cannot be everywhere and there are times where you have to chose, but inst that quite logical? You fail to mention the specifics regarding the concept of free-will, which if you read my Handbook of Eptictetus, you shall understand. In many themes one can ignore the details, but on the present topic, the details are what sum up to the choice. Again you mention “two roads “diverging in a yellow wood,” and it is quite artistic as you put it, but the generalization of the situation is erroneous. My text will convince you about giving importance to the judgement, and not to the choice itself as you put it. Learn to manage your judgement and you will control everything as it happens in your mind. I hope you take my advice into consideration enxt time you write about such a profound topic,

Honestly yours,

Eptictetus.

Actor Or Director?

The concept of “free will,” as depicted by Eptictetus, has ignited much discussions recently. Free will, or our ability to make independent choices as to forge willingly whatever happens in our life, is directed in different ways according to the context as Eptictetus describes it. In sections 11-20 he talks about men being but “and actor in a play,” or the being that carries out a predestined life under a given situation. As a consequence I remember thinking: then we have an unlimited array of choices of action in a strictly limited context. As I read consequent sections of the text, I came upon greater proof that free will exists in Eptictetus’ mentality in a unique concept. The text starts talking about death and terrible components, and soon ends up talking about philosophy: “If you crave philosophy prepares yourself on the spot to be ridiculed, to be jeered at by many… But don’t you put on a high brow, but hold fast to the things that appear best to you (section 22).”Although the analytic meaning of the mentioned may be great altogether, I want you to focus on a couple of key words. Take the word “if,” what must always be true when we use this word? If you said that there must always be a condition that must happen (in this case you saying: “there must always be a condition that must happen”), then the rule, generalization, or whatever is being proven applies. This leads to the interjection of choice in the text. It indicates that “if you crave philosophy” you will be jeered at, clearly demonstrating choice: craving or not philosophy. The next word I would like you to consider it “but.” When the text reads: “But don’t you put on a high brow,” you are given a second choice. Up to the point you can either crave philosophy, or lower your brow and go by humble and unnoticed. The closing part: “hold fast to the things that appear best to you,” is a vital proof of free will. What appears best to you as an individual is completely subjective(in fact, it is the definition of the word). You get to choose in a mental state what is best for you, and then you get to chose physically if you want to hold tight to it or not. All of these indicators of choice agree with what first came to my head as an interpretation of free will in the Handbook of Eptictetus: we have an unlimited array of choices of action in a strictly limited context.

I have mentioned how we have an unlimited array of possibilities and choices, now let’s move onto the limited context. The last section I came across yet states that “you cannot demand equal share if you sis not do the same things, with a view to getting things that are not up to us (section 25).” Let the words “you cannot demand… things that are not up to us” sink deep in your understanding of this text. You cannot demand, in this case it refers to equal share, but it aims more at showing how little your control over many things are, how useless you are in changing the context of your story. Things that are not up to us exist, for believe it or not, we are far from understanding the essence of much, and only through the basis will we master the technique. We are not salves of a reality, but of an interpretation of reality we understand it. The setting is predestined to happen in an incredibly accurate way, there is no changing the limiting context. Our role has been written on the outline for the play, but the dialogue is yet to be acted out.

Stop And Think

Through history, many philosophers have come to wonder how accurate human interpretations of reality really are. Nietzsche questioned the objectivity of truth in a sense that goes beyond the moral: men have a very limited perspective of the world and shall never obtain a “complete” understanding of an object due to limitations imposed by our senses. Epictetus poses a similar reasoning as he tries to get us to understand that events as they happen are never evil or negative, only our interpretation and judgment of the previous is what gives them shades of pessimism. The Handbook of Epictetus shares a rule that applied can become very interesting: “Remember, you must behave as you do at a banquet. Something is passed around and comes to you: reach out your hand politely and take some. It goes by: do not hold it back. It has not arrived yet: do not stretch you desire on toward it, but wait until it comes to you (section 15).” Life is like a banquet, we must then learn to take the right thing at the right moment, and only for as long as intended. If we hold on to something for too long, when it eventually leaves it will devastate us, but if we only get what is right, then we won’t miss what we didn’t depend on when it leaves. The same happens in life, we are more vulnerable to that which is most dear to us. We must learn to be precise in our desires, for if we ask too much, when given we will not know how to manage, and if we ask too little, we will always desire that of our neighbor. Then the reader comes across a passage concerning our role in the world. The text tells us that “you are an actor in a play, which is as the playwright wants it to be: short if he wants it short, long if he wants it long… What is yours is to play the assigned part well. But to choose it belongs to someone else (section 17).” In brief, what should be inferred is that we do not choose who we are. We choose how we are out of what is chosen for us: how we act it out. Last week I had an enlightening conversation with the school’s priest and he said something very true: “ El problema no es lo que una persona es, sino cómo lo es.” To those of you who didn’t follow, he told me that the problem is never what you are, but how you are. He proceeded to give me an example: being a thief is not in itself the problem, it’s how and why you steal that makes you guilty. We cannot ignore specific conditions that set up the situation for something to happen. Each of us carries a very different role in the play of life, but as different actors, the way in which we carry our role out can either make or break us. In short, it is incorrect to generalize about a situation or a theme, because the conditions will always vary. What is right is to stop and think: what led the situation here, how are we acting out our part in this play of life?

The Path Of Wise

The Handbook of Eptictetus starts off with a very interesting idea: “Some things are up to us and some are not up to us (section1).” Initially, the text is trying to get us to understand our limitations and our inabilities to do certain things. We, as humans, love to keep everything under our direct control, and tend to think that this is possible, even normal procedure. It is not denying us all power, for it tells us that we are capable of changing certain things, but we must learn to difference them from those things which are not up to us. Already the text is foreshadowing a concept of wisdom: wisdom to tell the difference. Then the reader comes across an explanation of human interpretation that goes as such: “What upsets people is not things themselves but their judgment about things (section 50).” Everything that happens is there for a reason, and if we understand the reason it is easier to affront events. The problem comes when we use our understanding, or our logical interpretation, in a direction opposite of real intentions. Epictetus gives us an assertive example: death. We fear death and despise it as a result of our judgment of the present. He mentions how death was not a dreadful thing for Socrates as proof. It all comes back to that wisdom being referred to. We must develop wise interpretations of events in order to accept and understand their causes and effects. As we approach section eight we read: “Do not seek to have event happen to you as you want them to, but instead want them to happen as they do happen, and your life will go well (section 8).” We are simple and small parts of a much greater picture. What happens to us comes as a result of many events triggered by other people. If we expect everything to happen in such way as we find pleasing, we will only find disappointment. On the other hand, if we accept what happens and learn to appreciate it, everything that happens in our lives will be good, for we shall understand the conditions and take them as a learning experience. The Handbook of Epictetus is full of words of wisdom and hints to arrive to a similar condition. As a reader, we must eliminate all bias and prevention against new ideals and learn to interpret what we read here as a possible addition to our lives. We may not yet be or shall ever be the wisest, but if such a term exists, there must certainly be a way to it.

No Coincidence

Coming to the closure of Slaughterhouse-Five, I made a connection that had been calling for attention through the whole novel. I had never wondered the meaning of Trout in the book: what was so important about the plots of his Sci-Fi books? The first two pages of the last chapter finally got my attention in their last desperate attempt to make the character’s role clear. Billy mentions the Trafalmadorians, which is nothing new, but this time an apparition of one of Trout’s books follows. Billy talks about the Trafalmadorian concept of Christ as so: “there isn’t much interest in Jesus Christ. The earthling figure who is most engaging to the Trafalmadorian mind, he says, is Charles Darwin (210).” This has no great significance on its own, but then you come across: “The same general idea appears in The Big Board by Kilgore Trout. The flying saucer creatures who capture Trout’s hero ask him about Darwin (210-11).” Exactly, my mind also went click right there. It is clearly stated that there is a direct relation between Trout and his books and Billy’s accounts for his time-traveling. Take the mentioned scene for example, Trout’s book starts off with the Trafalmadorian concept of Darwin, and Billy’s conclusion in the topic reaches the same point. We have also been told about Billy’s admiration towards the mentioned author, how he has read all his books, and how they have formally met. Now it is vital to understand these recurring relationships.

As I see it, there are two options: Billy copied Trout, or Trout wrote about Billy (Yes, I will disregard coincidence). Consider the later, it is quite possible, but then spatial controversies emerge. Trout was an author before he met Billy, for Billy became a fan of the books long before he met Trout in his meeting with the paper-delivery boys. He had read his books in the hospital. He had probably read the books before the war started. Another connection between book and time-travel emerges in the hospital where Billy met Rosewater. It was a book the later happened to have in his hands: “It was The Gospel from Outer Space, by Kilgore Trout. It was about a visitor from outer space, shaped very much like a Trafalmadorian, by the way. The visitor from outer space made a very serious study on Christianity, to learn, if he could, why Christians found it so easy to be cruel (108).” A book that talks about visitors from outer space “shaped very much like a Trafalmadorian”is pointing out the obvious relation. Billy’s Trafalmadorians were a product of the book Rosewater had on his hands. It all starts to fit in perfectly now, for the second part of the description of the book will help us understand the effect this specific author has on Billy’s mind. By mentioning “why Christians found it so easy to be cruel,” the narration is definitely making an allusion to that cruel world in which Billy lives in, that cruel war which our Pilgrim had to face. We have come to view the pessimist message in the novel, where Vonnegut questions life, where makes us wonder if life is really worth it in midst of so much misery and evil. Every time the novel makes an allusion to one of Trout’s books, the plot of it finds itself completely interrelated with Billy’s experiences.

Billy has a big imagination, which we have confused with a time traveling ability, and an intergalactic kidnap. As I close this book, I am glad to have paid attention to that last hint in those controversial words. The story has started to fit in place, and themes now emerge in my mind as I incorporate this new connection to my previous understanding. But I can’t help wonder: I caught this hint only as I rushed past the final chapter of the book, them having been present at least half of the pages. How many more have I missed? There could be many other phrases hidden in the scramble that covers those thin layers waiting to be found.