|
See comments at bottom of paper explaining why we consider this
an A paper. College English I Dr. D----- 9 November 2007 Building Our Lives: The Blueprint Lies Within We all may ask ourselves many questions, some serious, some less important, in our lifetime. But at some point along the way, we all will take a step back and look at the way we are living our lives, and wonder if we are living them correctly. Unfortunately, there is no solid blueprint for the way to live our lives. Each person is different, feeling different emotions and reacting to different stimuli than the person next to them. Many people search for the true answer on how to live our lives, as if there are secret instructions out there waiting to be found. But the truth is we as a species are given a gift not many other creatures can claim to have: the ability to choose to live as we want, not as we were necessarily designed to. Even so, people look outside of themselves for the answers on how to live, which begs me to ask the question: what is wrong with just living as we are now, built from scratch through our choices and memories? Annie Dillard's essay entitled "Living Like Weasels" is an exploration into the way human beings might live, clearly stating that "We could live any way we want" (Dillard 211). Dillard's encounter with an ordinary weasel helped her receive insight into the difference between the way human beings live their lives and the way wild animals go about theirs. As a nature writer, Dillard shows us that we can learn a lot about the true way to live by observing nature's other creations. While we think and debate and calculate each and every move, these creatures just simply act. The thing that keeps human beings from living the purest life possible, like an animal such as the weasel, is the same thing that separates us from all wild animals: our minds. Human beings are creatures of caution, creatures of undeniable fear, never fully living our lives because we are too caught up with avoiding risks. A weasel, on the other hand, is a creature of action and instinct, a creature which lives its life the way it was created to, not questioning his motives, simply striking when the time to strike is right. As Dillard states, "the weasel lives in necessity and we live in choice, hating necessity and dying at the last ignobly in its talons" (Dillard 210). It is important to note and appreciate the uniqueness of the ideas Dillard presents in this essay because in some ways they are very true. For instance, it is true that humans live lives of caution, with a certain fear that has been built up continually through the years. We are forced to agree with Dillard's idea that we as humans "might learn something of mindlessness, something of the purity of living in the physical senses and the dignity of living without bias or motive" (Dillard 210). To live freely we need to live our lives with less hesitation, instead of intentionally choosing to not live to the fullest in fear of the consequences of our actions. However, we should forsake our ability of thought and choice all together. The human mind is the tool that has allowed a creature with no natural weapons to become the unquestioned dominant species on this plant, and though it curbs the spontaneity of our lives, it is not something to be simply thrown away for a chance to live completely "free of bias or motive" (Dillard 210). We are a moral, conscious species, complete with emotions and a firm conscience, and it is the power of our minds that allows us to exist as we do now: with the ability to both think and feel at the same time. It grants us the ability to choose and have choice, to be guided not only by feelings and emotions but also by morals and an understanding of consequence. As such, a human being with the ability to live like a weasel has given up the very thing that makes him human. Here, the first true flaw of Dillard's essay comes to light. While it is possible to understand and even respect Dillard's observations, it should be noted that without thought and choice she would have never been able to construct these notions in the first place. Dillard protests, "I tell you I've been in that weasel's brain for sixty seconds, and he was in mine" (Dillard 210). One cannot cast oneself into the mind of another creature without the intricacy of the human thought, and one would not be able to choose to live as said creature does without the power of human choice. In essence, Dillard would not have had the ability to judge the life of another creature if she were to live like a weasel. Weasels do not make judgments; they simply act and react on the basis of instinct. The "mindlessness" that Dillard speaks of would prevent her from having the option to choose her own reactions. Whereas the conscious thinking Dillard has the ability to see this creature and take the time to stop and examine its life, the "mindless" Dillard would only have the limited options to attack or run away. This is the major fault in the logic of Dillard's essay, as it would be impossible for her to choose to examine and compare the lives of humans and weasels without the capacity for choice. Dillard also examines a weasel's short memory in a positive light and seems to believe that a happier life could be achieved if only we were simple-minded enough to live our lives with absolutely no regret. She claims, "I suspect that for me the way is like the weasel's: open to time and death painlessly, noticing everything, remembering nothing, choosing the given with a fierce and pointed will" (Dillard 210). In theory, this does sound like a positive value. To be able to live freely without a hint of remembrance as to the results of our choices would be an interesting life, one may even say a care-free life. But at the same time, would we not be denying our responsibility as humans to learn from the mistakes of the past as to not replicate them in the future? Human beings' ability to remember is almost as important as our ability to choose, because remembering things from the past is the only way we can truly learn from them. History is taught throughout our educational system for a very good reason: so that the generations of the future do not make the mistakes of the past. A human being who chooses to live like a weasel gives up something that once made him very human: the ability to learn from his mistakes to further better himself. Ultimately, without the ability to choose or recall the past, mankind would be able to more readily take risks without regard for consequences. Dillard views the weasel's reaction to necessity as an unwavering willingness to take such carefree risks and chances. She states that "it would be well, and proper, and obedient, and pure, to grasp your one necessity and not let it go, to dangle from it limp wherever it takes you" (Dillard 211). Would it then be productive for us to make a wrong choice and be forced to live in it forever, when we as a people have the power to change, to remedy wrongs we've made in our lives? What Dillard appears to be suggesting is that humans do not take many risks, and often do not follow through on those that they do take. But who is to say that the ability to avoid or escape risks is necessarily a flaw with mankind? In her essay "Calculated Risks," K.C. Cole explores why people take certain risks while staying away from others. Though most of the essay explores the lack of analysis that typically precedes a behavior choice, it is a valuable work to look at to understand the power of mankind's risk management. As much as humans appear to always play it safe, the truth is that most of us knowingly take risks every day of our lives. As Cole clearly states, "Without knowingly taking risks, no one would ever walk out the door, much less go to school, drive a car, have a baby . . . [etc.]" (Cole 142). What separates us from the common weasel is our ability to choose which risks to take and which risks to avoid. We choose to leave our houses and venture out into the world because we can see that it is only a small risk. Conversely, we choose to stay indoors preceding a tornado because we can see the huge risk in being outdoors when it touches down. Some may see our ability to distinguish when to act and when to stay put as a means to play it safe, but most would view this as a way to play it smart. Sometimes taking risks just to take them can be a major risk in itself. And though it is undeniable that much of mankind's logic is flawed when it comes to taking risks, having the mental acuity to avoid potentially dangerous risks is invaluable to us. If we had been like the weasel, never wanting,
never needing, always "choosing the given with a fierce and pointed
will" (Dillard 210), our world would be a completely different place.
The Humans are so unique in the fact that they can dictate the course of their own lives, but many people still choose to search around for the true way to live. What they do not realize is that they have to look no further than themselves. Our power, our weapon, is our ability to have thought and choice, to remember, and to make our own decisions based on our concepts of right and wrong, good and bad. These are the only tools we will ever need to construct the perfect life for ourselves from the ground up. And though it may seem like a nice notion to live a life free of regret, it is our responsibility as creatures and the appointed caretakers of this planet to utilize what was given to us and live our lives as we were meant to, not the life of any other wild animal. Works Cited Cole, K.C. "Calculated Risks." One Hundred Great
Essays. Ed. Robert DiYanni. Dillard, Annie. "Living Like Weasels." One
Hundred Great Essays. Ed. Robert DiYanni. College
English One: An A Paper "Building our Lives: The Blueprint Lies Within" This "A"
paper in a freshman, first-semester English course at Seton Hall
evidences the technique, structure and control that instructors wish to
see as demonstrating the ability to think critically and communicate
persuasively. Why we like
this paper when we read it. The introduction to this paper signals a careful and thoughtful writer, asking questions without simple answers, acknowledging the impossibility of the easy answer-- even as he or she begins to ring a change on the notion of the search itself. In one paragraph, the enterprise of the paper is established and the reader engaged. Questioning the universal "how to live our lives" is itself to be scrutinized by us (writer and reader) together. The body of this paper continues to meld strategy with content, continually questioning and interleaving two essays in service of thesis exploration. Each outside source is brought to demonstrate the contrasting ideas of whether human beings are or should be built or wired to live for the present or to consistently confront and make choices and take risks. The student's voice is consistent and controlled, displaying both a curiosity and a critical analysis, particularly of the first referenced external source, the one which will be found to have the most shortcomings. Here, the strength of Annie Dillard's wish, "to live like a weasel" is acknowledged and appreciated. Through this method it is further examined and found wanting, lighting the way for the reader to continue to question and seek another answer. It is, of course, this continual seeking that belies the notion of choosing not to choose, an exercise of technique the student writer is able to use to advantage and allow the reader to come willingly to another essayist who examines the very assessment of risk as a human-making quality. This enables the reader to choose to agree easily and to become part of the process by identifying basic shared memories, such as the country's origins, as an undertaking of critical thinking and risk taking. This broadening of the individual consciousness and conscience to the broader human enterprise is one of the strengths near the closing of the essay. In summary, we like this paper because the writer is aware of her or his own course throughout the paper, maintains a singular voice, enfolds outside sources smoothly into her or his own argument, and successfully presents the appeal as discussion with the reader throughout. The errors in punctuation and MLA citation are minor and do not detract from persuasive read of the paper. In fact, the comma errors seem keyed to voice rather than eye and underscore the strength of this paper--consistent and confident voice. |