Nope. You Are Not Mom's Favorite

Which Will Momma Choose?

This is a quiz. I'm sure you're very excited. I'll give you a little help. These are a few things you need to know in order to do well. Remember PI is "defined as 'any investment by the parent in an individual offspring that increased the offsprings' chance of survival" (p.124). Another key thing to remember is the way the PI is measured. As Dawkins says:"when a child uses some of its mother's milk, the amount of milk consumed isn't measured in pints or calories, but in units of detriment to other children of the same mother" (p. 124). The last important thing to remember, is Dawkins' favorite statement: we are all survival machines. "Machines" meaning all our actions are programmed. Keeping these key points in mind, we can make the following assumption: there is no emotional relationship between a mother an it's child. The mother's interest lies only in helping the child survive.

Now that we have that clear, let me give you three different situations. You have to decide what the mother will do in each case.

Situation number one:

This is not invented.

In a tribe in the Amazons, when babies are born with any kind of defect, the parents:

a. keep it alive but live secluded from the tribe

b. throw the baby into the river

c. treat it as a normal baby

d. give it more PI to increase it's chances of survival

If you answered d, you are...

WRONG! The actual answer is b. Babies are thrown in the river when they are born with defects. A doctor told me this like five months ago. I hadn't read The Selfish Gene so I didn't understand how a mother could so such a thing. Now, I find it quite harsh but also logical. Why would a parent invest on a child who's chance of survival is low, and who won't be able to make his genes survive in the gene pool?

Situation number two:

There are two lion cubs. I'm not sure how age works in lions but let's pretend it's the same as in humans. The oldest cub is four, the youngest is two. They are playing around a dangerous zone, even though their mother told them not to. When the mother comes to check on them, she sees they are about to be crushed by a huge rock. She quickly heads towards them. Knowing she can only save one of them, she saves:

a. none

b. the youngest

c. the oldest

d. wants to save both and dies trying

The right answer is c. As it says on chapter eight, if the older one dies, the mother "stands to lose a higher proportion of her life's investment ... If she saves the little brother, she will have to invest some costly resources in him just to get him up to the age of his brother" (p.125).

Situation number three:

Worms have disappeared. Mother bird hasn't fed her babies in days. They are starving so they won't stop screaming. She knows that this attracts predators. She finally finds a worm. Heading back to the nest, she sees her four little birds screaming for food. She has made her decision. She gives the worm to:

a. the oldest

b. the youngest

c. the most patient

d. the loudest

The right answer is d. We can predict the mother will give the worm to the one that screams the most because this will make it shut up. The lower the noise, the lower the chances of a predator coming by.

All three situations showed up in chapter eight. I know most of us would do very different things as parents. The reason why our actions would be different is because they aren't programmed anymore. They don't need to be because the danger we face is very little.

For example, if a mother has three children to feed, she can decide to feed the patient one first and reward him because there is no predator on the lookout.

Humans are no longer programmed, survival machines. The truth is, some parents do have favorites. Usually, the favorite son or daughter is the one that brings less trouble to the parents. We may not be programmed machines, but it's for sure we're still selfish.

The Real Reason Why Men Want To Divorce

About Today's Assembly

She stopped. Let the words sink in, and continued.

A civil war, a baby, no husband.

She wants another chance.

The boy with no father has no second chance.

Two eyelids, no sound, a pale color.

The only truth she new, was the only path she could take.

Life Without A Purpose: The Smart Choice

According to the first chapter of the book, "intelligent life on a planet comes of age when it first works out the reason of it's own existence" (p. 1). If this is true, then we are the only "intelligent" species in this world as we know it. We don't see dogs going to Pre-Ap English class learning about the QUESTions. But who knows. Maybe animals do believe there's a reason for their existence.

Let's suppose we're the only species that have questioned our existence. Was it the smartest thing to do? If we compare nature's system to ours, I'd say nature is wiser. It's system is flawless. There's no corruption and no violence unless it's necessary. We've been reading these books in class about finding the perfect world, detaching from material things and accepting death. Mother Nature already does all these things, and she doesn't need books to tell her what to do. When a lion catches a zebra, the rest of the herd moves along. They don't stop and weep for the lost life. Animals understand there's a food chain that consists of eating and eventually, getting eaten. They may not be conscious of all of this, but I'm starting to think it's better that way. Look at us. We understand we shouldn't attach to anything and we still do. Nature has created this amazing utopia, where things aren't good or bad. They just are. The best part of all, is that animals can't get bored of this "perfect life" because they're purpose in life is not to enjoy. The only purpose they know of is reproduction. Wouldn't life be much easier this way? Look at the examples in the book. A black gull can swallow a baby and not feel guilty afterwards. A female praying mantis can eat the male without hesitation. Animals don't suffer like humans do. They accept nature's course and act on an instinct of survival. You're probably disagreeing with me. Thinking animals don't suffer as we do, but they can't feel emotions we feel either. I ask you, what does that affect them? How can you miss something you never had?

If we had never questioned our reason of existence, we would have never developed many of the emotions we have right now. We wouldn't want to be happy, because we wouldn't understand it's meaning. Without happiness, there wouldn't be sadness, therefore, we'd live in a perfect state; not happy, but not sad either. We wouldn't miss what we wouldn't have. We'd just live to survive.

So, in the end, was finding the reason of our existence a smart choice?

Lucky, Or Not?

So Candide, let me get this straight. You had a great life, until you kissed Lady Cunegonde. Then, the Baron kicked you out of his house. You were hungry, and luckily met two men who gave you food. But the men made you join the battle with the Bulgars. Luckily, you managed to escape. Then, you met a beggar who turned out to be Dr. Pangloss. He told you Cunegonde was dead. Then, there was an earthquake, and you and Pangloss were arrested. Pangloss was hanged, but luckily, they didn't kill you. They just tortured you to death (almost). Luckily, an old lady found you and gave you food and shelter. You were so lucky, that you found Lady Cunegonde. Then, you killed a man but luckily escaped with the old lady and Cunegonde. You arrived to Buenos Aires where a noble man fell in love with Cunegonde. Then, you had to escape because you had killed that man. Luckily, you found Cunegonde's brother. Then, you killed him! Luckily, you managed to escape. Trying to be nice, you killed two monkeys and saved two girls. But it turned out they were the girls' lovers and you and Cacambo were caught by Oreillons. They wanted to eat you two, because you were Jesuits. But it turns out that luckily, you were not Jesuits so you weren't killed.

I'm just wondering if you can be called lucky. Really bad things happen to you, but somehow, you manage to get past them. It's like Roy Sullivan. How unlucky do you have to be, to get struck by lighting seven times? But, how lucky was he to survive them all? At the end of chapter sixteen, you say, "if i had not been lucky enough to spit Lady Cunegonde's brother, I should infallibly have been eaten" (p. 72). Seriously Candide? If you hadn't killed Lady Cunegonde's brother, you wouldn't be there in the first place. After analyzing your life for some time, I came up with this: Your actions seem to follow the domino effect. You get into a problem, that leads you to another, and another, and another. You're unlucky to have all these problems. But hey, after all you've gone through, you're lucky to be alive. The only solution I see for your bad (or good) luck, is for the last domino to fall down.

I found this video that fits your life perfectly. The domino effect, I already explained. And the Yin Yang makes reference to the good and evil you do; to the good and bad luck you have.

The Satire Show

Host: Good evening, ladies and gentleman! I'm your host Kevin and welcome to today's show: "Is this satire?" We have our two contestants here with us, Joy and Charles. How are you, Joy?

Joy: I'm doing great Kevin, thank you. A little bit nervous.

Host: Well, you have all the reasons to be. If Joy answers the questions right, she will take $200,000,000,000,009 home with her!

Now Charles, do you think you'll beat Joy and take the grand prize?

Charles: Well, yes Kevin. As a matter of fact I do. You see, Joy here is blonde. That automatically makes her stupid.

Host: I see your point Charles. Well, before we start playing, let me remind you there are three questions you have to answer. The first two questions are each worth $100,000,000,000,000. The last one is worth $ 9. Let's begin. The thirteenth chapter of the book Candide starts like this: "Having heard the old woman's story, the lovely Cunegonde began to pay all the respect due to a person of her rank and equality" (p.58). Now I expect you all have read Candide before.

Joy: I did Kevin. But, can you remind me what part of the story we are in?

Host: Sure thing. The old lady has just told Candide and Cunegonde she was, and has always been the daughter of a Pope.

Joy: Oh, yes. I remember now. This is...

Charles: Not satire because it never talks about a mythical woodland creature.

(Audience laughs)

Joy: You talk like a blonde yourself Charles. This is satire. It's ironic how the old lady's story suddenly makes Cunegonde respect her. So, yes Kevin. This is satire. If I may ad, the target here is aristocracy, for only respecting people who come from respected backgrounds.

Host: And you are right! Congratulations Joy! The next question. Later in that chapter, a wealthy nobleman asks Cunegonde to marry him. The reasons why he wants to marry her is because she is beautiful. The reasons why she thinks of marrying him is because he has money and a great mustache. Charles, do you want to try and answer this one correctly?

Charles: I'm sorry for my last answer. I thought you were asking something else. I think you need to get a new microphone or something because I can't hear you very well. That's why I didn't answer correctly, not because I didn't know. This is satire Kevin, because Lady Cunegonde is already married and she can't marry twice.

Host: Not quite Charles. Joy, any answers?

Joy: This is satire, but not because of what stupid Charles here said. It's absurd to marry someone because of their handsome mustaches. This part of the story is similar to fairy tales where they meet one day and marry the next. I'd say Voltaire's target is all those relationships based on convenience, wealth and looks.

Host: Correct again! Congratulations Joy! Now, for the last question worth $9. Joy, in chapter fourteen, the sergeant tells Candide and Cacambo the Colonel won't speak to them because "the Father Provincial, did not allow any Spaniard to open his mouth except in his presence, nor to stay more than three hours in the country" (p. 63). Is this satire?

Joy: Yes, it is. Voltaire is targeting religion, making fun of the Father Provincial and all those stupid conditions the church normally makes.

Host: You are right Joy! You won the $200,000,000,000,009. But wait, I just got a message from the director. He says there's one more question left. Who ever gets this one right will get all the money plus the other contestant's car. Now I ask you Charles. Candide is written by Voltaire. Is this satire?

Charles: No.

Host: You are correct! We have a new winner! Charles, you won the $200,000,000,000,009 and Joy's car! That's it for today folks! We hope you enjoyed.

Absurdity In Chapter Twelve

Chapter twelve has many absurd things. It tells the tale of the old woman, and not no my surprise, she had been through some ridiculous events. She first talks about what happens to castrated children. ""I was born at Naples", he told me, "where they castrate two or three thousand children every year. Some of them die, some acquire a more beautiful voice than any woman has, and others become Prime Ministers"" (p 54). I understand why they would have a nicer voice than a woman's. We just learned in Biology that when there isn't production of testosterone, there can't be secondary sexual characteristics, such as deepening of voice or facial hair. The sentence follows with: "others become Prime Ministers". This is completely unexpected. It's sudden but hilarious at the same time. Voltaire finds a very amusing way to make fun of the Prime Ministers, by comparing their voice to a child's. Children's voices are mostly ignored, so we can deduce Voltaire makes fun of how Prime Ministers are ignored too.

The next absurdity in the book, is on page fifty-six: ""Cut just one buttock off each of these ladies", he said, "and that will provide you with a delicious meal; if you find you need more, you can have as much again in a few days time"". Killing the women for food alone is outraging. But cutting of one buttock from each of them is outraging and absurd. Remembering the old lady saying "I can hardly keep my seat with only one buttock"(p. 46), and now knowing why, makes me laugh a little. I'm amazed at Voltaire's creativity and ability to break the boundaries. The reason why the old lady has only one buttock would have never occurred to me.

The last absurd scene I found in this chapter was on the following page. We had already come across this before. The old lady says, "I have grown old (with only half a behind), in misery and shame, but I have never forgotten that I am the daughter of the Pope". The target is clearly the church. A Pope having a daughter? That's a terrible accusation. This sentence is a great example of satire. It's very ironic for a Pope to have a daughter, very absurd for the old lady to have one buttock, and a great target to the Catholic religion. Keeping in mind Voltaire was a leading philosopher and writer of the Illustration, his target to the Catholic Church fits his life perfectly.

Without a doubt, Voltaire is a satire master.

The New "So It Goes"

There are things we can't understand. Why are innocent souls the victims of war? Why does death take young children's lives? All these painful events are unexplainable. We can't assure why they happen. We don't have the free will to decide what will and won't happen, but we can change our perspective on things. In Slaughterhouse-five, the Tralfamadorian's coped with death with their "so it goes". They understood we could live forever in the past. In Candide, we also find a way to cope with death. This time the philosopher isn't a two feet high, green looking creature. It's Pangloss, Candide's tutor. As stated in previous blogs, Pangloss strongly believes everything has a purpose of being: "legs are clearly intended for breeches, so we wear them. Stones were made for carving and building houses, and that is why my lord has the most beautiful house ... And since pigs were made to be eaten, we eat pork all year round" (p.20). When James, the Anabaptist falls into the sea, and Candide goes after him, Pangloss stops him "by proving that Lisbon harbour was made on purpose for this Anabaptist to drown there" (p.33). Pangloss' philosophy is somewhat different to the one of the Tralfamadorians. Pangloss simply resigns. I believe he's scared of failing. For example, if he had a relative with cancer, he would probably say: "cancer was made on purpose for my relative to get it." Instead of fighting against it, he would just accept it and move on.

I wonder what that would feel like. Knowing you could have fought against something and you didn't. What if everyone was like this? What if we all resigned to death? The thing is, we actually do, in some way. I know I'm about to contradict what I said earlier, but that's my mind right now; a web of contradicting ideas. We know there are people dying of hunger, people being killed and tortured. But the only thing we do is ask why these things happen. It would be nice to stop playing the victims and actually do something for a change. What if we did have the free will to decide what happened? But wait, if we did, we would be playing God, wouldn't we? I take that back. Here it is: we don't have the free will to decide who will fall in the sea, but we do have the free will to try and save that person. We do have the free will to decided how we solve problems. But we don't have the free will to decide who will get cancer, and who will die from it.

There is no such thing as absolute free will. It all depends. Since we don't have complete power, we have to bury our grief in phrases like "so it goes" or "that was it's purpose of being."

Free Will In Candide

Vocab:

Gauntlet:

noun

a stout glove with a long loose wrist.

• historical an armored glove, as worn by a medieval knight.• the part of a glove covering the wrist.PHRASEStake up (or throw down) the gauntlet accept (or issue) a challenge. [ORIGIN: from the medieval custom of issuing a challenge by throwing one's gauntlet to the ground; whoever picked it up was deemed to have Flogging:

1 beat (someone) with a whip or stick as punishment or torture : the stolen horses will be returned and the thieves flogged | [as n. ] ( flogging) public floggings.• informal promote or talk about (something) repetitively or at excessive length : rather than flogging one idea to death, they should be a lightheartedpop group.2 Brit., informal sell or offer for sale : he made a fortune flogging beads to hippies. (Not very nice images on google of flogging) From Mac Dictionary

We've already read "Epictetus" and "The Road Not Taken", two different perspectives on free will. Epictetus assures you don't decide what path to follow, but you do decide how to live it. Robert Frost's poem talks about two roads we can choose from. These different views are affected by the authors' lives. Epictetus, being a slave, had no roads to choose from. Frost, on the other hand, had many paths he could take. Candide, has a little bit of both.

Free will is mentioned in Chapter two: "It was useless to declare his belief in Free Will, and say he wanted neither; he had to make his choice" (p. 24). The first thing that stands out, it that "free will" are capitalized. This gives these words a significant importance, suggesting free will is important not only in this chapter, but in the rest of the book. Candide has to decide whether "being flogged thirty-six times by the whole regiment, or having twelve bullets in his brain" (p.24). I find this quite absurd (ding! ding, satire!). Basically, Candide doesn't have the choice of being hurt or not, but he can choose how he'll be tortured. Humorously, Voltaire adds, "so, exercising that divine gift called Liberty, he decided to run the gauntlet thirty-six times and survived two floggings" (p.24). (Again, liberty is capitalized. Is that how it's usually written, or does Voltaire want to highlight it's importance?)

How ironic is it to have the liberty to choose between pain and death? Candide can choose between two paths, both terrible, but can't choose not taking a path at all. So, does he have free will? What would Epictetus say? What would Frost say?