Morrison's "Nobel Lecture" incorporates a story of a blind wise woman who is asked by teenagers "Is the bird I am holding living or dead?" Although this situation seems straight-forward, Morrison provides different possibilities as to how this situation can be interpreted. Is the bird actually there and tangible or is it a metaphor for a complex question that requires a complex answer? Or are the teenagers there to mock the elderly woman? There could be many possibilities of who, what, when where, why and how this question is asked but language is the skeleton of all possibilities. This interpretation is largely based on language and how it can affect our views as well as our choices.
Wallace provides a relatable story explaining the mindset of humans, how we have the instinct to view life selfishly and negatively. Wallace's solution to the human "default setting" is to free our mind from the unconscious thinking. Living life "day in, day out" can be as torturous or as delightful as we choose it to be. Wallace states that the "real freedom" of life is possessing altruism and empathy for others, humans must filter what is significant in life. Humans are left with their own choice to view life in a positive light or a negative light.
Both Morrison and Wallace present the idea that we are left with choices in life. The authors have different viewpoints of how life is changed. Wallace explains life is changed by the mind's thoughts, while Morrison explains life is changed by language. Nevertheless both authors describe life as being flexible to change, the difficult task is how one will change life.
I completely agree with your opening paragraph and how you stated that life should consist of more than just the surface. Emphasizing that there is a deeper meaning to life than just how it is perceived. As well how you illustrated the comparison of Wallace and Morrisons essays. I like how you started off you're response, focusing on the key point that Wallace makes in his essay. I also like how you related language to skeleton, the resemblance is very accurate since language is like the "body" or basis of communication. The way you compared the two passages was great. But when explaining Wallaces passage I suggest to describe what was quoted so that we know what those phrases mean.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you one hundred percent. I also believe that they talk about there is more than what is just thrown on the table. We really have to break apart not only the complicated thoughts, but also the simple thoughts. There is always more than just one meaning to something. Some don't like to go into depth when dealing with thinking, but the people who do like to dig deeper will find a new light. This new light can change the way they see, as well as think about other things. Just like you said, these two authors really think that thinking can change our lives.
ReplyDelete