Many look to Philosophers, Religious leaders, and various others for the answer to one of history’s most controversial questions; “What is the meaning of life?” Although there are multiple answers to this question, each seem to center around the same idea of “giving life a meaning.” David Wallace, author of This is Water and Toni Morrison, author of Nobel Lecture had different ways of approaching this dubious topic. If the two authors were to sit down to dinner with one another and read the other’s speech, i believe one of the first things they might discuss would be the other’s view on the meaning of life.
While they each clarified what they believe the meaning of life may be, they also stated what the process of living life is to them and the simple difference between the two. Morrison would confidentially argue that, living is “doing language” and continuing to “do language” unconsciously allowing “it” to survive and progress naturally in order to improve, teach, and advance the human species further as generations progress and yesterdays children become tomorrows adults. While the meaning of life is simply to die. Wallace may counter this statement with his idea that life before death is “awareness of life”, whilst agreeing that death is inevitable, Wallace would continue on expressing that the meaning of life is to choose your life and live it with the conscious decision of how you will go on about living that day until waking up the next morning and consciously living again.
This being said, the two authors would agree that how one lives their life is entirely their choice. There is no force controlling the outcome of any one person’s life. Morrison expressed this through the old blind woman’s (or was it an old man?) response to the unsuspecting children once they repeatedly challenged, “Is the bird I am holding living or dead?” The old woman’s response was simple, “it is in your hands.” Wallace would proceed the conversation by explaining the extraordinary power of choice and conscious decisions that could potentially manipulate the “boring, frustrating, crowded parts of adult life”, into a more positive and effective perspective of living day by day, thus ultimately “giving life a meaning.”
I agree with your idea on how the two authors both want to emphasize that the message in their two pieces were to give meaning to life, though the two differed on how the would prefer to give said meaning and the priorities in their lives may be different both would agree that you must grab life by the horns and make it what you may. I also agree with your understanding of how the two differ in their "meanings of life", Tom has a much more linguistic approach to what makes life worth living while David wants us all to just be more aware of whats going on and be capable of making our own decisions.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree! The way you expressed their distinctive ways of delivering the same message is spot on. They try to define the, as you put it, "meaning of life", using a bird which represents life (Morrison) and a typical day in the life of an actual adult. I like how you point out that there are multiple meanings to different people, of what life actually is. It's not something one person can decide. It's up for discussion. Also, the idea of having them sit down for dinner is genius. This type of conversation is a successful way of putting different points of views and ideas out on other peoples plates for them to taste test.
ReplyDelete