Convince me /lit/, why is this considered good? I read this a long time ago and I was very disappointed, but I assumed that was because I had very little knowledge on philosophy and on the Enlightenment.
I'm now giving it a second try, hoping I'm able to understand it this time, but so far I just don't get it. Letting aside the absurdly bad prose, the plot is confusing and unbearably boring. Apparently the main point of the book is to be an attack on Leibniz's idea of our being "the best of all possible worlds", however, no matter how wrong Leibniz may be, Voltaire basically argues, implicitly, through Candide, that a lot of evil things happen on Earth, therefore this can't the best of all possible worlds; which is an extremely weak argument and does not refute Leibniz's ideas in any way. I have to say that some parts are funny and Voltaire's sense of humor is interesting, even though I feel most of it flew over my head, but I am assuming that there is more to this book than simply irony and snarkiness that is somewhat entertaining but ultimately doesn't lead anywhere.
I'm not a native speaker, so please excuse me if some parts are poorly written or if I didn't argue my point well enough. I'm just trying to understand why this little book gets so much praise.
>>7784142
didn't like it either. read lazarillo de tormes. infinitely more rewarding
>I am assuming that there is more to this book than simply irony and snarkiness that is somewhat entertaining but ultimately doesn't lead anywhere
There isn't. It's not a philosophical treatise. If the humor flew over your head that's probably why you didn't enjoy it
I thought it was really funny. Read an annotated version
>>7784142
>Apparently the main point of the book is to be an attack on Leibniz's idea of our being "the best of all possible worlds", however, no matter how wrong Leibniz may be, Voltaire basically argues, implicitly, through Candide, that a lot of evil things happen on Earth, therefore this can't the best of all possible worlds; which is an extremely weak argument and does not refute Leibniz's ideas in any way.
Voltaire's argument is based not so much on the fact that evil things happen, but on the kind of evil things. One of the most prominent events in the book is the earthquake and tidal wave that destroyed Lisbon. There's no sensible reason why the earthquake should have happened - it served no purpose, and had no human cause. It was a wholly natural event that caused widespread death and destruction. It's this that serves as a counterexample to Leibniz 'best of possible worlds' - evil itself doesn't mean that this world can't be the best, but the utterly pointless destruction of entirely natural causes at Lisbon is difficult to reconcile with that idea.
It goes a bit beyond that, however. Most of the other violence and destruction throughout the novel is man-made. The novel starts with an obvious allusion the destruction in Germany caused by the Seven Years War, which is described again as a kind of necessary violence because of the relations of states to eachother, as the 'way of war'. But that's just as much nonsense as the idea that the earthquake is part of the best of possible worlds: there's no reason in itself for war to involve so much rape and pillaging. Rather, states simply allow their armies to cause destruction because they have no reason not to, and they stand to gain from the pillaging. All the destruction is avoidable, but it isn't avoided - showing again how we don't life in the best of possible worlds. But like that, it's also a criticism of politics at the time, who are complacently allow those terrible things to happen and don't try to solve it because of the Leibnizian way of thinking.
Candide is so popular because it's a very satirical work, with a peculiar kind of half-absurd but very black humour. He's not simply telling a half-nonsensical adventure story, much of what is depicted in the novel refers to real events and circumstances in Voltaire's time - if you don't know about these, it's easy to miss quite a lot of the satire.
>>7784168
triggered?
>>7784142
Because it is hilarious and doesn't over reach in its philosophical pretensions unlike most would be works.
>>7784168
It is funny tho?
It's just a bit of zany bantz
Friendly reminder that Voltaire drank 40 to 50 cups of coffee a day.
>>7784437
Source.
>>7784487
Google tbqhf
>>7784142
It only uses best of all words idea as a platform, it busts open the "stay positive" myth that everyone in society perpetuates for their own benefit and leaves you feeling that not even stoicism can help, hell both those things probably cause the world to stay as it is.
>>7784437
That was Balzac wasn't it?
>>7784549
It was probably both of them.
It's entertaining at best. You typed far too much to sound nothing but stupid.
>>7784173
>implying Earth could exist in the state it does now without tectonic plates
>implying wanton death and destruction is inherently bad
>implying this isn't the best of all possible worlds because this is the only way things could ever be
