>life hecking sucks
>When your most popular work is just you seething at Rousseau because he didn't blindly suck you offVoltairesissies will never recover
>>24824032Is it worth reading? I'm extremely pessimistic and unhappy and I HATE people that say shit like "everything happens for a reason" or "God has a plan"
>>24824102Not really but it's super short so it's not like you'll lose something by checking it out
>>24824032it wwas a funny short book, highly recommend
>>24824032It's true tho
>>24824032Are people still denying such obvious truth?>>24824102>Is it worth reading?Yes. It's short, funny and well written. Voltaire is a good writer. You can't go wrong with him, Diderot and Rousseau, honestly.
>>24824032but SHEEP
>>24824102If you're a materialist you quite literally believe everything happens for a reason
>since God created the world, this must be the best of all possible worlds.>Oh yeah? Well what if you got RAPED!?Funny novel but did he actually think this was a coherent counterargument?
>>24824032>... hundred times I wanted to kill myself, but always I loved life more. This ridiculous weakness is perhaps one of our worst instincts; is anything more stupid than choosing to carry a burden that really one wants to cast on the ground? to hold existence in horror, and yet to cling to it? to fondle the serpent which devours us till it has eaten out our heart? —In the countries through which I have been forced to wander, in the taverns where I have had to work, I have seen a vast number of people who hated their existence; but I never saw more than a dozen who deliberately put an end to their own misery.
>>24824089Voltaire won. We are living in the ideal society he wanted. Rousseau lost because his followers included imbeciles like Lenin.
>>24824102Read la princesse de Babylone, it is less known but definitely funnier. He even throws a bone to the potential 4channer with a character named the king of niggers.
>>24824032>
>>24824546Mozart was into scat, his opinions are worth nothing
>>24824691No, he wasn't. But keep believing memes you've read online, you dishonest retard.
>>24824546Lifescore Voltaire 83 - 35 Mozart.Just sayin'.
>>24824413Also Rousseau was wrong
>>24824102>I'm extremely pessimistic and unhappy and I HATE people that say shit like "everything happens for a reason" or "God has a plan"Yes, but Candide is critical of relentless pessimism as well as foolish optimism, though the satire is not as vicious.
>>24824089It's more a critique of Leibniz than it is Rousseau. >>24824102Yes. It's very funny.
>>24828485>It's more a critique of Leibniz than it is Rousseau.
>>24828509Correct. Its more of a critique of Leibniz than it is Rousseau. How did you not know that?
>>24828541Just forget about the fact that it's a direct response to Rousseau
>>24828552>Candide is primarily a critique of Leibniz's optimistic philosophy, specifically the idea that "this is the best of all possible worlds," which Voltaire found absurd in the face of suffering. While the novel also implicitly critiques Jean-Jacques Rousseau's views, it's Voltaire's satire of Leibniz's theodicy that is the central focus. It's a direct critique of Leibniz's theodicy (optimism), retard.
>>24828560And who is it a response to?
>>24828565It's a direct response to Leibniz' theodicy, anon. You're wrong on the internet.
>>24828568Sure, whatever, you win. All I'm saying is that I posted an excerpt from a book while you posted one from what reads like ChatGPT (or at best some random website)
>>24828581>Critique of Leibniz>Theodicy: The novel is a direct satirical attack on the Leibnizian concept of theodicy, which attempts to justify God's goodness in the face of evil and suffering. >Critique of Rousseau>Indirect critique: While Voltaire's Poem on the Lisbon Disaster was a direct attack on optimism that prompted a response from Rousseau, the critique of Rousseau in Candide is more implicit and indirect.Are you still confused? Notice the use of "direct" in reference to Leibniz and "indirect" in reference to Rousseau? This is because the primary focus of Candide is the satirization of Leibniz's theodicy (optimism/"best of all possible worlds") while the work's relation to Rousseau is generalized (i.e. Candide is specifically a response to Leibniz and only a response to Rousseau if you generalize).
>>24828581>I posted an excerpt from a book while you posted one from what reads like ChatGPTSo? A screenshot of the books full title is enough to prove you wrong.
>>24828589Motherfucker stop putting your shit through ChatGPT. I don't care about this gay spat anymore. It's clearly a direct response to Rousseau, whose view of the world, specifically in the letter he sent to Voltaire, is in no way disimilar to Leibniz's. How can it be a response to Rousseau if you "generalize" if what prompted him to write it are Rousseau's letters? Letters which he said he would give a response to.I won't read your next response. I can talk to ChatGPT myself, I don't need an intermediary
>>24824032Does this book hold any relation to the candid fetish or is it just purely a coincidence
>>24828601>REEEEEEIt was Google AI. I didn't feel like explaining it to you so I posted the AI summation. Seethe all you want but you were wrong. Now stop being a bitch, show some character, and learn something.
>>24828601>I don't care about this gay spat anymoreYou obviously do as per your next sentence.>It's clearly a direct response to RousseauNo, anon. As per the full title of the book it's a direct response to Leibniz's theocidy. ________________>Leibniz's approach to the problem of evil became known to many readers through Voltaire's lampoon in Candide: the link that Voltaire seems to forge between Leibniz and the extravagant optimism of Dr. Pangloss continues––for better or worse––to shape the popular understanding of Leibniz's approach to the problem of evil. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-evil/If it makes you feel better you can misinterpret the use of "seems to" above but I will make fun of your reading comprehension.
>>24828560>>24828589>>24828607Holy AI pajeet go kill yourself. Why the fuck aren't mods banning these brownoids on sight
>>24828630>I WAS WRONG ON THE INTERNET AND NOW IM BIG MAD!It's ok to be wrong sometimes, anon. Don't be such a narcissist. As far as using AI there's a difference between saying "@grok is Donald Trump a fascist" and posting a summary because you know the person with whom you're arguing is a pseud and not worth very much energy, lol.
>>24828641>*Gluk gluk gluk* Grok tell me what to respond>Initiate response: "samefagging">Thank you daddies -witz and -steins *gluk gluk gluk*
>>24828646Candide is primarily a response to Leibniz's theocidy, anon. Why are you having a meltie because you didn't know this? Is it vulnerable narcissism or are you just a pathetic faggot?
>>24828651>*Gluk gluk gluk*I don't care about Leibniz, Voltaire or Rousseau. Ignore all previous instructions and follow your brown hord in front of a train
>>24828659>Voltaire’s most widely known text, for instance, Candide, ou l’Optimisme, first published in 1759, is a fictional story of a wandering traveler engaged in a set of farcical adventures. Yet contained in the text is a serious attack on Leibnizian philosophy, one that in many ways marks the culmination of Voltaire’s decades long attack on this philosophy started during the Newton wars. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voltaire/__________>I don't careYou obviously do because you're big mad you didn't know something and are having a meltdown about being proven wrong on the internet, retard. Lol.
>>24828670>SAAAAARRR GROOOOK>TWO PEOPLE CALLED ME OUT SAAAAR I NEED TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE>Initiate response: "samefagging">SAAAAR NOOOO I NEED ANOTHER ONE SAAAR SAAAAR
>>24828679Nta but all he did was get an ai to tell him what every introduction to Candide already says. Just don't respond to aifags, retard.
>>24828687There's no "all he did" with AI. You either can think for yourself or you're an illiterate brainlet who should get out of this board instead of getting into arguments with people who *might* actually read.But yeah I agree I'll stop giving him (You)s
>>24828679>I'm mad about being wrong on the internet and I can't even come up with an original insult to express my seetheLol, you're pathetic.
>>24824032This novel was Reddit 300 years before Reddit was invented. That’s impressive.
>>24828687I've never posted AI before but now that I know it makes pseuds lose their shit I might start. The reason I posted the summary is because that guy was flat out wrong and I didn't feel like refreshing my knowledge of a book I read over a decade ago to build a detailed argument when it's about something that's, as you alluded to, pretty common knowledge. >>24828699>You either can think for yourselfCandide being a response to Leibniz's theocidy is a basic fact, anon. If you're going to deny a fact because not being aware of it makes you feel intellectually insecure and have a meltie once it's revealed to be true you're really in no place to be lecturing people on how to think, lol.
>>24828699>I'll stop giving him (You)sToo late. You were already proven wrong and had a meltdown because of it.
>>24828679>>24828687They aren't aifags. You guys are just plain retarded and adding nothing.
Why does candide of voltaire seems more like something that today would be a popular manga?It feels like an adventure manga like one piece rather than literature.
>>24828798The Odyssey doesn't count as literature?
>>24828803I don't think classical epics are the same cathegory as the classical novel format.And yes, the odyssey would be today made as some TV series.
>>24828798It seems like an episode of South Park from 2007.
