Gardener’s letter

That an author would explicitly tell a reader what their work means is a foriegn concept to me and I’m not sure how I feel about it. Typically, I like to figure literature out on my own and come up with conclusions that are personal to me. But, this work isn’t like The Grapes of Wrath or To Kill a Mockingbird (which is not to say that those novels are simplistic), this is a deep philolosophical study.

Gardener’s letter helped me better understand his position and added a new layer of meaning (I did not realize that “Sing walls” had a legit meaning etc.,). That being said, I think that Gardener had some really interesting ideas. Even if everything is pointless, life still has a point. We must give ourselves morals and strive to do good, even if that leaves us as foolish as Ork.

I have a question, though. If religion is a benefitial thing because it gives us a code to live by and morals are positive because they make us “good”, what are we supposed to make of the great evils that are so often empowered by religion? Does the existence of hatred, bigotry, war, and terrorism mean that we are just horrible beings? And what of the fact that, often, the wronger a person is the more sure of themselves they become (conformation bias)? I think that Gardener means to say that we except philosophy with these flaws because we have no other option. We can’t just find a pile of gold and wait to die.

I also wouldn’t have pegged Unferth as a true-hero-type. I find it ironic that only a man who killed his own brother is able to communicate with the “descendant of Cain”. And, I find it even more ironic that this same man has the decency to support the greater good even when he’s been humiliated.

I enjoyed the things I learned from Gardener’s letter, I just wish he didn’t have to spell it out for me.