In this paper, I will argue that the paradoxes Oliver Sacks mentions in his essay "The Mind's Eye" have only one purpose, that is, to show us the complex working of the brain and its ability to overcome disability. The paradoxes are made an integral part of the essay because each paradox mentioned shows us how the human brain can adapt, find creative and ingenious ways to cope with physical losses and disorders, and that how powerful the power of language actually is. In his essay, Sacks seemingly breaks the norm. Yet, it seems like those who were victims of neurological disorder seem better off blind. Sacks essay is mainly based on subjective experiences, rather than objective experiences. However, in truth, objective experiences are the
…show more content…
For blind people, description is experience, whereas sighted people seemingly cannot grasp that fact. The world of the blind can be especially rich in-between states, states for which have no common language. This is bolstered by Sacks himself as he mentions "comparing my world with his, Jean found out that his held fewer pictures and not nearly as many color"(344). This consolidates the fact that having a vivid imagination is certainly going to paint a more colorful picture than actually seeing the scene. People with the ability to visualize believe that seeing is believing; however, Sacks deviates from the norm and shows us that the power of language can take the blind to see from another person's eyes. In addition, he mentions the account of Arlene Gordon, who implies "I saw Venice when I was there"(345). The power of language as described to Gordon affect how they think and act. Gordon was described Venice by her companions, and eventually she visualized the scene. The power of language is taken for granted, thought of as an instrument in the hands of power, but in reality it is a counter-power which cannot be restricted and …show more content…
Language is not just a tool to communicate with each other, but allows to accomplish feats that seem impossible to do so. As Sacks mentions, " language, the most human invention, can enable what, in principle, should not be possible. It can allow us, even the congenially blind to see with another person's eye"(335). What he says is, that to us, it is just another way to communicate, but for the blind's, it allows them to express emotion and visualize image to something that cannot be explained by sight only. With language, we can give blind people "eyes" to look through. Furthermore, people tend to think that blind people are not able to gather up vivid imagination. That misconception is certainly cleared by Sacks when he mentions the case of Jacques Lusseyran. He states, "my screen was always as big I needed it to be"(335). All the visual imagery he think off in his mind are projected onto a screen. By referring to the "screen," and how big the screen can be, it certainly gives us evidence that boundaries of vision are indeed limitless. This bolsters the fact that having a vivid imagination within blind people is a
For blind people, description is experience, whereas sighted people seemingly cannot grasp that fact. The world of the blind can be especially rich in-between states, states for which have no common language. This is bolstered by Sacks himself as he mentions "comparing my world with his, Jean found out that his held fewer pictures and not nearly as many color"(344). This consolidates the fact that having a vivid imagination is certainly going to paint a more colorful picture than actually seeing the scene. People with the ability to visualize believe that seeing is believing; however, Sacks deviates from the norm and shows us that the power of language can take the blind to see from another person's eyes. In addition, he mentions the account of Arlene Gordon, who implies "I saw Venice when I was there"(345). The power of language as described to Gordon affect how they think and act. Gordon was described Venice by her companions, and eventually she visualized the scene. The power of language is taken for granted, thought of as an instrument in the hands of power, but in reality it is a counter-power which cannot be restricted and …show more content…
Language is not just a tool to communicate with each other, but allows to accomplish feats that seem impossible to do so. As Sacks mentions, " language, the most human invention, can enable what, in principle, should not be possible. It can allow us, even the congenially blind to see with another person's eye"(335). What he says is, that to us, it is just another way to communicate, but for the blind's, it allows them to express emotion and visualize image to something that cannot be explained by sight only. With language, we can give blind people "eyes" to look through. Furthermore, people tend to think that blind people are not able to gather up vivid imagination. That misconception is certainly cleared by Sacks when he mentions the case of Jacques Lusseyran. He states, "my screen was always as big I needed it to be"(335). All the visual imagery he think off in his mind are projected onto a screen. By referring to the "screen," and how big the screen can be, it certainly gives us evidence that boundaries of vision are indeed limitless. This bolsters the fact that having a vivid imagination within blind people is a