Previous - 123. Drifting off
Candide
I've just read the penultimate chapter and am hesitating before reading the conclusion. To no one's surprise, both Pangloss and Candide's love's noble brother have both turned up alive, and Candide has freed them all from slavery with his remaining wealth from Eldorado. It is a pity there are no more red sheep. The no longer enthusiastic lover has offered to marry Cunegonde but her brother the Baron refuses this notion because of Candide's low birth. Pangloss continues to believe this is the best of all possible worlds since changing his mind would be poor form for a philosopher. Both Pangloss and the Baron have experienced every imaginable loss and yet have learned nothing at all.I like that Voltaire portrays the nobleman and the philosopher as equally stubborn and prejudiced. I can't wait to learn if Candide has changed. Tomorrow.
"...we must cultivate our garden." These are both the final words and the conclusion drawn by Candide, and presumably by Voltaire. (This can also be seen as the conclusion of the fourth volume of Parade's End.)
Since this is the Norton Critical Edition I'm reading, we are now less than half way though the content. We'll see if these commentators are as interesting as the ones who commented on Faust.
Sugar and oil
In the news at the moment: A Swedish woman is preventing her child from consuming sugar because it affects the child's behavior and sleep; and activists are trying to resume the fight against the oil pipelines Trump is supporting. These stories resonate for me as a veggie and as someone who has boycotted cars for 47 years.
I gave up my car for environmental reasons and I gave up meat for ethical reasons. But it turns out that there were just as valid ethical reasons to boycott oil (it has funded Islamic fundamentalism), and just as valid environmental reasons for boycotting meat (the process of raising meat and delivering it to the consumer includes a heavy cost to the land and the air. Including a high carbon cost.)
I'm sympathetic to the Swedish woman's position, I think it would be hard to argue that sugar is good for children and there are plenty of reasons to suspect that we are currently underestimating the damage it does to everyone, but especially children. However, as a veggie of 47 years, I'm also aware of the social costs of a decision like this. (This applies to both meat and oil.) It can be done, and there's little doubt you will end up healthier and, if done right, you will be no less happy, but it's also not a trivial change. In this mother's place, I would want to do the same thing but I'm not sure I would. Though banning sugar long enough to see the effect certainly makes sense. Perhaps there can be a generation of children who are "social" sugar consumers -- though that means going through the detox process again every time. There's no easy answer here.
Both on Facebook and in my Webmail, I'm currently inundated by requests to join the fight against the oil pipelines planned or being built up in the border Red States. I've been fighting oil pipelines since 1970, bitch! To what extent are my liberal friends incensed about this issue because they know these pipelines are being built to supply their need for gasoline? It's like a drug addict protesting the crimes of his dealer and his dealer's source of supply. Give me a fucking break.
No comments:
Post a Comment