"This is Water" is a commencement speech written by David Foster Wallace regarding everyday stresses. In the speech, Wallace poses a mental solution to control this frustration. Though I understand how many of the points he makes could seem to be logical, they lack credibility in my eyes.
In paragraph 5, after explaining the importance of "learning how to think," the author states that, "... if you cannot exercise this kind of choice in adult life, you will be totally hosed." The problem that I see with this statement is that nowhere in the paragraph (or the speech itself) does Wallace give a credible explanation as to why you would be "hosed." He does, however, give hypothetical situations and personal examples demonstrating the way this stress/frustration can consume you. Hypothetical is not enough. The word hypothetical comes from the word, hypothesis. Google's definition of a hypothesis says, "a supposition... made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." The key terms in this definition are, "limited evidence" and "further investigation." There is limited evidence in proving that you would be "hosed" if you do not have control over the way you think and therefore requires further investigation. Regarding the author's personal anecdotes, they are not sufficient proof that everyone would be "hosed" if they do not "learn how to think." Is one person's experience going to be the same as everyone else's?
Toward the end of his speech, specifically in paragraph 14, Wallace mentions the "really important kind of freedom" in which people consciously choose what to think and are willing to care for others. Later in the paragraph, he adds, "That is real freedom." Real freedom according to who? The author? One person's meaning of freedom can greatly differ from another person's. Another important downfall of the creditability of the speech can be found outside the text: in Wallace's biography. In his biography, we find out that the author committed suicide. I mean no disrespect to Wallace or his family, but this contradicts the entire speech. Could it be that the author himself did not practice the things he mentioned in the speech? For me, learning this took away any credibility left in the speech.
I completely agree with this statement, by the author contradicting his own point you honestly can’t really take him seriously. However, he seems to be a very intelligent person, but talking about adjusting his default settings and looking for a different perspective on life can drive you insane. I believe his own curiosity led him to his death. Those so called default settings are what we do to stay sane. The struggles of life itself is bearable, everyone deals with struggles, it’s what comes after that what makes it all worth it. I don’t mean any disrespect to him or his family, but I don’t believe he proposes a strong argument.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with this statement. Because not only this time, but a few times the author has contradicted himself as I was reading through this commencement speech. You can’t be for sure to actually listen to him and take him serious or not. Although this man may have been intelligent altering his settings or default settings is not always the best thing to do as I know it can make you go crazy after a while. I believe this man was a bookworm and always ready to learn something new, but at the same time too much of something is enough as he probably put more than enough thought into this default settings suggestion he states and in my eyes went nuts . Life would not be what it is if it didn’t have Pros and cons or struggles.
ReplyDelete