Limits, like fear, are often an illusion

Link to Ted Talk:

https://www.ted.com/talks/karen_thompson_walker_what_fear_can_teach_us/transcript?language=en

I have always had an odd fascination with fear, as evidenced by my choice of Extended Essay topic (fear’s impact on psychological and physical processes in the body). On one hand, being afraid is arguably the most daunting emotion a human being can experience, especially concerning the unknown. However, fear is also capable of producing extreme levels of hormones that allow human beings to do seemingly supernatural activities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysterical_strength). It’s the disparity between “freezing up” from a jump scare, to lifting cars to save children that fascinates me so much. Something so potent has the potential both the potential to be monumental for research and for medical practice.

The talk leads off with an enticing hook, an anecdote about the origins of Moby Dick. In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, a ship crashed that had 20 American sailors onboard. Over the course of the next few months, their actions, thoughts, and mentalities were ruled by fear, something that the speaker is quick to point out. She also mentions that in modern culture fear is something to be buried, discarded, and ignored, a result of human’s natural optimistic traits. Unfortunately, this fear culture has led to a majority of modern culture being unable to properly deal with feeling the emotion, as well as individual fears to become more toxic. Instead of fearing the irrational, she says, we should learn from our rational fears because they provide us a glimpse into our future, and possibly, the truth.

The talker, Ms. Karen Walker, connects logos and pathos to reasoning and artistry respectively through the use of both personal and shared anecdotes. The personal anecdotes, such as her fear of earthquakes and losing her family, make the talk more relatable to the listener and as a result, establishes her credibility as an expert on fear. Simultaneously, the shared anecdotes, like the Moby Dick story, gives the listener background information and knowledge needed to connect with the more intimate parts of the talk. The shared knowledge helps create emotion within the listener, as they imagine the events that happened to the 20 American sailors. Ms. Walker also connects fear to two fundamental areas of human knowledge - imagination and reasoning. She states that most fears are a result of an overly active imagination (explains why children’s fears are so vivid), and feel so potent because modern society represses fear entirely. She specifically uses pathos when describing the process of undergoing a fearful experience to allow the listener to experience empathy for those experiencing fear. Simultaneously, she also uses logos through her explanation of how to experience fear without being frightened. This impacts the text by adding reliableness to her word; we can take it at face value without any attempt at false information or manipulation.

Lastly, Ms. Walker’s purpose is to entertain and to persuade her listener/reader to learn to deal with fear the proper way. She gives an example of the “proper” way, using successful entrepreneurs’ mindset of “productive paranoia”. This mentality acknowledges fear head-on, and the users study their fears, and translate their fears into action. Her talk ends with the claim that, had the sailors switched their mentality to productive paranoia, they may have had a greater chance of survival. The example fulfills both criteria of her purpose, as it keeps the listener entertained while simultaneously persuading them to change their mindset regarding fear.

I Took a Break From Binge-Watching Lost to Write This Blog

Side Note: This whole duality of nature thing never even occurred to me until when I had nearly finished the book. I was completely underwhelmed during the entire first half of the novel because Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a literary classic that is critically acclaimed. However, I began to appreciate its values much more during the last half, and it gets REALLY interesting…

Step One:

First off, I want to say the majority of this play focuses on the connection between physical appearance and the “goodness” of a person. Goodness is in quotations because it is not a technical term, but rather one that I am using to describe a person’s quantity and quality of ethical and moral standards that they hold themselves too. Dr. Jekyll is described as a sleek, attractive man with an even more attractive job, a doctor, where he quite literally saves people's’ lives every day. This automatically causes the reader to associate Jekyll with positive emotions - he’s the firefighter who rescues kittens from trees. In contrast, when Enfield sees Hyde for the first time, he describes him as “deformed,” despite never getting a clear view at his face. This intuitive feeling, combined with Hyde’s horrific actions, further establishes the connection between physical appearance and the innate goodness of a person.

Compounding with the connection between appearance and goodness is each respective characters’ actions. Jekyll speaks “gaily” and treats Utterson with a warmth and respect usually reserved for family - that is until the name Hyde is mentioned. In contrast, Mr. Hyde is extremely abrupt and ill-mannered during Enfield’s encounter, signifying his “badness” despite his payment of one hundred pounds. These contrasting actions further institute a connection between actions and whether they are a good person. It also causes the reader to be shocked when learning the truth about each character, and helps them to understand the allegory behind the story.

Each character also has similarities. While Jekyll appears to be kind-hearted and loving, his inner voice (cue the overused Kermit meme) is cold, bitter, and unrelenting. This is evidenced by the blackness in his eyes when Hyde’s name is said. Similarly, despite Hyde’s ugliness, the reader feels sympathy (possibly unwilling) that causes them to think that maybe Hyde isn’t all that bad of a person. This plays off of the dichotomy of appearance vs. reality, something extremely prevalent throughout the play/novel.

Step 2:

I really wanted to play off of the last idea that I talked about in my post, appearance vs. reality. I think it’s a major 🔑  to understanding the rest of the play and the deeper meaning behind it.

Duality’s Deception

Jekyll: Hyde:

I am a doctor - each day I work,

I make someone’s life better.                 

 I am a criminal - each day I work                             

  I make their lives worse.

I am attractive and kind, yet

Inside me there is darkness

I am deformed and malicious, despite

The natural human good within me.

I treat Utterson as a brother,

Despite no blood relation.

I need nobody to count on, as

I alone am worthy of my friendship.

    

A friend to society

Is a definite enemy of mine.

We are Jekyll and Hyde. We are Jekyll and Hyde.

The product of emotion and The product of emotion and

Humanity’s flaws. Humanity’s flaws.