David Foster Wallace’s 2005 commencement speech for Kenyon College, referenced here from the text They Say I Say, differed from the cheery and laudatory reassurances that typically mark graduations. Rather he used his speech to impart the more momentous advice that by living intentionally one can escape the rat race that consumes and devastates many adults.
Wallace’s main assertion is that most people operate on a “default setting” of unconsciousness, letting their thoughts roam freely and never pausing to question their beliefs. This lack of self-awareness is damaging because this default is strongly self-centered and often very negative. Wallace explains that while it makes sense for our perspective to be centered around ourselves- after …show more content…
He uses a typical commencement speech as a framework for his own discourse, acknowledging his contradictions of the genre, which generally consists of the speaker orating on the “human value” (199) of the degree received, congratulating the graduates their hard work, then gracefully dismissing them into the real world. Rather Wallace acknowledges that the insulated and artificial university experience is much more forgiving and interesting than adult life, which is often filled with with “boredom, routine, and petty frustration” (203). His subversion of the ordinary valedictory address not only provides a structure to make his argument, but also skillfully grabs his audience's attention. The speech is also very emotional and opinionated, bringing up adult suicide and describing the condition of adult life as grotesquely miserable. Hence his descriptions of the two grocery store scenarios work very effectively to make his point that questioning our perspective is essential to how we experience our lives. Following the course of his general disregard for literary norms, Wallace asserts his authority on the subject by repeatedly proclaiming he has none. First he declares “I am not the wise old fish”(199), and later saying “please don’t think that I’m giving you moral advice” (206). This approach humbles him and makes him more approachable to the listener. These techniques …show more content…
In his TedTalk titled “The surprising science of happiness”, Gilbert claims that humans are remarkably adaptable and that bad experiences, even stressful and traumatic events, often have “far less impact, less intensity and much less duration than people expect them to have” (Gilbert 2004). Why? Because our perspective changes, often unconsciously to favor the outcomes we have been given. However, an ethical dilemma then arises- is it bad if we justify our bad experiences? Is there a limit to which adjusting your perspective is good? Surely not all events deserve to be reframed into a positive light- for instance, the death of a family member, the loss of a job. These events should be followed by a healthy period of grief. Gilbert’s talk cited a study claiming that “…a year after losing the use of their legs, and a year after winning the lotto, lottery winners and paraplegics are equally happy with their lives”. However, while Wallace seems to suggest a mindful mindset as a method for enjoying day to day life despite tedium, he doesn’t tell us what to when confronted with bigger losses, the one’s it seems would really make it “unimaginably hard to [...] stay conscious and alive in the adult world day in and day out”(209). However, it seems that Wallace’s argument has a nuance that Gilbert’s lacks- he offers reframing as a way of injecting compassion and calmness into
Wallace’s main assertion is that most people operate on a “default setting” of unconsciousness, letting their thoughts roam freely and never pausing to question their beliefs. This lack of self-awareness is damaging because this default is strongly self-centered and often very negative. Wallace explains that while it makes sense for our perspective to be centered around ourselves- after …show more content…
He uses a typical commencement speech as a framework for his own discourse, acknowledging his contradictions of the genre, which generally consists of the speaker orating on the “human value” (199) of the degree received, congratulating the graduates their hard work, then gracefully dismissing them into the real world. Rather Wallace acknowledges that the insulated and artificial university experience is much more forgiving and interesting than adult life, which is often filled with with “boredom, routine, and petty frustration” (203). His subversion of the ordinary valedictory address not only provides a structure to make his argument, but also skillfully grabs his audience's attention. The speech is also very emotional and opinionated, bringing up adult suicide and describing the condition of adult life as grotesquely miserable. Hence his descriptions of the two grocery store scenarios work very effectively to make his point that questioning our perspective is essential to how we experience our lives. Following the course of his general disregard for literary norms, Wallace asserts his authority on the subject by repeatedly proclaiming he has none. First he declares “I am not the wise old fish”(199), and later saying “please don’t think that I’m giving you moral advice” (206). This approach humbles him and makes him more approachable to the listener. These techniques …show more content…
In his TedTalk titled “The surprising science of happiness”, Gilbert claims that humans are remarkably adaptable and that bad experiences, even stressful and traumatic events, often have “far less impact, less intensity and much less duration than people expect them to have” (Gilbert 2004). Why? Because our perspective changes, often unconsciously to favor the outcomes we have been given. However, an ethical dilemma then arises- is it bad if we justify our bad experiences? Is there a limit to which adjusting your perspective is good? Surely not all events deserve to be reframed into a positive light- for instance, the death of a family member, the loss of a job. These events should be followed by a healthy period of grief. Gilbert’s talk cited a study claiming that “…a year after losing the use of their legs, and a year after winning the lotto, lottery winners and paraplegics are equally happy with their lives”. However, while Wallace seems to suggest a mindful mindset as a method for enjoying day to day life despite tedium, he doesn’t tell us what to when confronted with bigger losses, the one’s it seems would really make it “unimaginably hard to [...] stay conscious and alive in the adult world day in and day out”(209). However, it seems that Wallace’s argument has a nuance that Gilbert’s lacks- he offers reframing as a way of injecting compassion and calmness into