King Of Show, Son Full Of Pride

A similarity is found when comparing The Selfish Gene to Macbeth, because regarding genes, they are built to compete, and to remain in the gene pool, and animals compete for the throne, as Macbeth competes for the throne too. Its the same game played over and over again. Who can rule over their own species.

Join or Die: The Ultimate Choice Within Dawkins View

I this chapter Dawkins (actually W.D Hamilton...) mentions the first or second interesting points in the book. The fact of living in a compound, in group, in society is the key and the base for human life, and at last this applies for both animals (that he bases every example on) and on humans. "You scratch my back I'll ride on yours"(166). This may very well be the essence of our civilization, because without somebody riding on our back or scratching it we wouldn't have a society, and this way we would have no way of living as single units. We are a team. We rely on each other. Society was never meant to exist-or for that matter not even flourish. We might not know it, but since birth, since the animal is conceived it is bound to co-exist with other beings, with the world. Life is not possible without the significant other, without the other 23 chromosomes (as Dawkins would like to see it put). Yes, he is correct with everything he poses, but a flaw exists on his book. A very important one, one that means the difference between understanding what the book says, and what actually is going on outside of the ink and paper. Dawkins talks about the genes, yes, but he never mentions current or actual situation of this evolving mad machine. He does not see, he omits the fact that humans actually have a social part in their lives, that is influenced obviously by what he does explain in the book. The current social condition, has interfered with the original theorem of evolution. We are forgetting we need help from other individuals, and we are isolating ourselves mentally and socially in a cocoon of doom. Our evolution, the perfect Dawkins evolution has begun its ultimate stage: retro-evolution, the fact of being so developed, that what he have built, will end up destroying us.But this is a totally separate matter that will one day be recorded by the successful beings that survive and explore the unsuccessful gene that we evolved into, into the selfish gene, the gene in its own doom cocoon.

Does My Mommy Love My Sister More Than Me?

As Dawkins advances his "genealogical" word-army towards us, we start to find the text somewhat interesting after tedious chapters. He mentions something uncomfortable, something that I am sure of, everybody has thought about one time or another. The uneasy matter of a mother loving your bratty, snotty little sister more than she loves you: "Should a mother have favourites, or should she be equally altruistic towards all her children?"(80).

After omitting the fact that Dawkins is messing with our stability in our family and leaving us to think that maybe while I'm reading his book, my mom is actually spending quality time with my sister (which is actually true, and on my birthday).

If you tried to ask your mother who does she love the most her answer will always be the same: "I love all of my beautiful kids equally". The major way of finding out, is by starting to feel that monster inside you eating up your heart. This is most commonly known as jealousy.

The examples he gives, are actually non-helpful since through out the book, Dawkins uses examples that do not apply to the modern day human. My mom does not love me less than my sister because she drinks more milk, than I do, or that I'm killing my sister y drinking more milk from my mother!

But, yes, I get the point of P.I. Time is love in this matter. But I still think that Dawkins' theory is old, and does not quite apply nowadays. The original question contained the word "should", so my answer would be no. Except under an extreme case of life and death, and the second child has no possibility of living, or striving, then yes, time is better spent with the first healthy child.

In a human society preference would never be accepted, and in the conditions most people live, this scenario is not possible, and rather odd. Human mothers should be equally altruistic towards all of their children. That is the most reasonable situation.

The Proliferous Society: Finally Daddy Takes Over!

Genes, Humans, Universe.

What Dawkins poses in these brief pages of his book, is that as a gene if it is altruist, it has no chance to survive. As well as a human if it not strong enough to survive this generation it will definitely not pass on to the next. This applies for almost everything in life, and the world, since we tend to evolve, generally to be better or to die trying. And things evolve with us, like an airplane, even though we cant fly, we will not develop wings, but will develop an aircraft, and that is our evolution.

When he mentions a civilization becomes intelligent when it questions its own existence, he is automatically triggering our minds to actually think about this. He truly poses the major problems and precedents a human has in order to evolve. For example: "If we were told that a man had lived a long and prosperous life in the world of Chicago gangsters" (Dawkins 2). Dawkins poses the question of an environment. This obviously tells us that we either evolve in order to live in the environment, or the environment is adapted to us.

What is also admirable is that you could say that Dawkins compares the genes or cells with us: "Even in the group of altruists, there will almost certainly be a dissenting minority who refuse to make any sacrifice. If there is just one selfish rebel, prepared to exploit the altruism of the rest." There are people like this in any type of society, being a human body system, or a human society. There will always exists the keen of the rebells, of the ones who want to go against the flow, and rise up in arms to counter talk to the flow. And with one rebel, a rebellion may rise, bringing the fall of society, and its pillars. All for one.

Voltaire's Last Thrust: Panglossian Contradiction, Evil Exists!

After the old woman's story, Voltaire reveals what could be the real meaning of Candide and what it symbolizes. With the old woman's story, we see that evil and wrong doing exist. It completely disproves Pangloss and Candide since even if one was completely optimistic, what happened to the old woman cannot by any means or any "all is for the good", kind of mentality.

At this point we can say that the old woman is the alter ego of Pangloss and all of his theory. And recalling the novel: "I have never forgotten that I am the daughter of a Pope" (Candide p. 57).

She was the daughter of a Pope, a man of religion. the old woman was raped, sold, and abused. This is ironical, since all of these things her father prayed for not to happen and "helped" to confront, and it happened to his own daughter. Even as the old woman has no hope, and is the opposite of Pangloss, she at least is acquainted of what is going on. She is what a person should expect to be, not a blind optimist, unaware of the dangers and truths in life. This is the same type of turn Vonnegut makes in Slaughterhouse five when he mentions himself in the novel, beside Billy.

With this Voltaire, gives the final flourish in the "statement" he manages to make. He finally does what we had awaited.

He ends the novel by transforming Cunegonde into a horrible woman, and Optimism appears again: Pangloss. This is a symbol of life being fair after all, Candide's friends being free now, and everyone ending "happy".

The Powerless Powerful (Candide Chp. 12-18)

As the old woman tells her story, it is quite unusual what happens to her, and the coincidence of finding a servant to her mother, that is now basically her owner. A complete view of satire in the novel. Besides, her owner is a man with no testicles. The testes symbolize manhood and proficiency. The man that exerts pressure and horror into the lady's liberty is a man with no power, no virility. This is ironic.

When she is held captive by the Russians, and they run out of food, it is suggested that they eat the women's buttocks for food: "Cut just one buttock off each of these ladies," he said, "and that will provide you with a delicius meal"(Candide p.56). This is completely absurd. One would not slice off a woman's buttock off to eat it. It is a ridiculous story.

After a while of telling her story, she ends it with a terrible but rather truthful idea: "I have wanted to kill myself a hundred times, but somehow I am still in love with life. This ridiculous weakness is perhaps one of our most melancholy propensities" (Candide p.57).

She poses a real life dilemma, if life is so hard to live with all its perils, why do we still love it, even if it harms us?

Candide can be a satire, but for sure the goal of Voltaire was not to entertain people with books, but rather pose life, in other fictional characters stories, that could be reflected in our own, and in the present day.

Pangloss Philosophy (Candide Chp. 6-11)

The Novel has mischievous satire, seen in almost every chapter. In my first blogs about Candide, I questioned the reason for them being brief, and events happening in a quick and sort of a non-important tone. This is all part of the humor, the consistence that Voltaire wants it to have. It is the fact that this gentleman , who is an optimists under goes much suffering, whiping, and grief in such a short period of time, and in such a ravishing way.

It is the meaning and point in the novel. Absurdity within severity. But what is most absurd and satirical in the early chapters is the existence and meaning of Pangloss. "Pangloss" means extremely, blindly optimistic. Evidence of a man living in misery, but still hoping to strive upon life. Candide, has always referred to him as a much intelligent man, and highly educated. he can rely on him with every trouble that ponders Candide: "If Pangloss had not been hanged, " said Candide, "he would have given us great advice in this emergency, for he was a greta philosopher. Failing him, lets consult the old woman" (Candide p.45).

This just shows us that Pangloss could have been any man, as the woman was any woman, but that Candide needs in order to make any choice. He is extremely insecure, and needs heeding along every step of the way. He needs a mental cane. Pangloss is dead, so oh well, let us find the nearest person around who can help me make any kind of choice.