Voltaire came to fame in large part due to the witty yet insightful disposition of his writing - propelling him to become one of the great masters of satire. This is perhaps most evident in his infamous novel Candide, where he criticizes the philosophy of optimism. Voltaire uses Candide's idealistic and naive views on the world to dispel the ignorance, absurdity and callowness of this stance as illustrated by the following quotes:
"[Optimism] is the obstinacy of maintaining that everything is best when it is worst."
Expressing that optimism is a form of denial
"War is a fine thing. It's so amusing to see people killing each other."
Commentary on the horrors of war
"I have learned that we must cultivate our garden," said Candide. "But what is to be done with the rest of the world?" asked Martin. "We must let it go to the devil," said Candide.
Commentary on the futility of trying to change the world.
"The Lisbon earthquake was a little misfortune."
Use of understatement to critique the idea that God is all-powerful and all-good
"All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds."
Parody of the Leibnizian philosophy of optimism
His masterpiece is a dance between extreme optimism and cynicism where he warns against the foolishness of naivety as well as the despair of acknowledging the evils of this world. How do you perceive the philosophy of optimism as Voltaire presents it in your own life? How is it influenced by cultural and situational factors? Would you rather be an ignorant fool but happy (ie. Pangloss) or live in utter hopelessness but be wise (ie. Martin)? Where does the notion of hope lie in the midst of this?
Tolerance
Religious tolerance is a human right we often take for granted in this day and age, yet if we have this right today it is in part due to the influence Voltaire had with his "Treatise on Tolerance." Voltaire wrote this treatise at a time where the baseline was intolerance.
In Chapter V (Read Here p. 14-16), Voltaire explains his sharp disdain for dogmatic religious rule and writes "The more sects there are, the less dangerous each of them is; multiplicity weakens them." This rationale remains true today, the more diversity we embrace, the lower the probability for one "sect" to become all-powerful. However one can also posit that we live in a world that is increasingly radicalized by "chosen dogmas". How do you think Voltaire's rhetoric around freedom of speech and religious tolerance fits into modern society? We now live in a world where online platforms have simultaneously served as momentous outlets of diverse thoughts while also being the birthplace of dangerous extremist groups. Where do you think we stand when it comes to tolerance? Do we reside in a fundamentally intolerant and fragmented society (as Voltaire did) or in a society that artificially pushes tolerance to the point of silencing its people (ie. through the hyper-focus on political correctness)? What is the state of tolerance today and how does it compare to the notion of tolerance that Voltaire set forth in his treatise?
Supremacy of Reason
Voltaire was a momentous figure of the enlightenment and advocated for reason to be at the core of societal structures. He endured being locked up and exiled from his homeland in order to propagate his thoughts on human rights. In a world dictated by monarchs and a corrupt Catholic Church, Voltaire challenged the status quo and mobilized people to question the existing state of affairs. To propel this further, he wrote the Philosophical Dictionary to promote the use of reason and criticize superstition, religious intolerance and injustice. This work serves as a philosophical encyclopedia of sorts and is a collection of Voltaire's thoughts on a variety of topics, including religion, politics, philosophy, and science. Through this work, Voltaire sought to thrust wisdom and critical reasoning into the minds of the populous. He wrote "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" to warn against fanaticism.
Where do you see these forms of fanaticism today? We are in large ways still at the forefront of artificial intelligence and can see how generative AI offers a singular (and perhaps dogmatic) response to a flurry of questions we might have. In comparison to Voltaire's time, we perhaps ask more questions but are we increasingly idle when it comes to critically assessing the answers?