People believe they need to live in the wild. The weight of civilization can be overwhelming. Some think they should just take a weekend trip, but others take it to another level. Is it naive, or just plain radical?
It is believed to be normal for people to live near civilization and be with the crowd. Others though like Dave Glasheen, met by a presenter known as Ben Fogle on the show New Lives in the Wild, thinks otherwise. He insists “The great thing about living in the beyond is that I’ve learned how to survive. I’m way smarter than I ever was.” (35) I think Dave is right here because you need to live two types of lives in order to gain more knowledge and wisdom about life and what it means to truly live. Its very simple to live in the city, where you have access to food and other items right across the street or a few blocks away. However, if you accept the challenge of living alone, then you will have to find your own resources, such as shelter and consumables.
Is it possible to be successful and live a prosperous life in the wild? The word “successful”, can mean many different things, depending who you are speaking with. It could mean owning a business, having a lot of money, or even just buying a new car. But if you're Dave Glasheen, none of that matters to you. As said here, “In Sydney, I
…show more content…
Well in the song “Civilization”, by Danny Kaye and The Andrews Sisters, it is mentioned that being away from cities and towns can have a great impact on one's feelings, as said here, “They have things like the atom bomb (so I think I'll stay where I am) Civilization, I'll stay right here.” (26) I believe the meaning of this line is they would rather stay in the jungle away from cities where an atom bomb could be present and could wipe out the city at any moment. But when living in the wilderness, you can have peace of mind, knowing nothing massive could happen and living life
The story of Chris McCandless is a long story that is complex to tell in its entirety. This essay will analyze Jon Krakauer’s book, Into The Wild, in an attempt to pursued you that Krakauer did a magnificent job telling McCandless’ story up to his death.
The wild is a place to push yourself to the limit and take a look at who you truly are inside. “Wilderness areas have value as symbols of unselfishness” (Nash). Roderick Nash’s philosophy states that the wilderness gives people an opportunity to learn humility but they fight this because they do not have a true desire to be humble. Human-kind wants to give out the illusion that they are nature lovers when in reality, they are far from it. “When we go to designated wilderness we are, as the 1964 act says, "visitors" in someone else's home” (Nash). People do not like what they cannot control and nature is uncontrollable. Ecocentrism, the belief that nature is the most important element of life, is not widely accepted. The novel Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer depicts a young boy who goes on an exploration to teach himself the true concept of humility. Chris McCandless, the protagonist, does not place confidence in the universal ideology that human beings are the most significant species on the planet, anthropocentrism.
Christopher McCandless, an American traveler, once said “So many people live within unhappy circumstances and yet will not take the initiative to change their situation because they are conditioned to a life of security, conformity, and conservation, all of which may appear to give one peace of mind, but in reality, nothing is more damaging to the adventurous spirit.” This quote is far more universally applicable than originally thought to be. Throughout one’s life, one will undoubtedly experience some form of conformity. The driving factor in a majority of these moments is fear; fear of not fitting in, or of not living up to society’s expectations. The only thing that lets one escape conformity is the truth known from past experiences. This
individual to himself to live isolation land than living with the civilization. He interacts of the world of
Seeking emotionally connection to nature and wanting to be alone from the rest of the world Chris McCandless, also known as Alexander Supertramp, is determined to go into the wild. Many are lead to question why someone would do such a things as leave your family, leave your riches, and leave everything you have to have nothing and be alone in Alaska. Within this book Into The Wild by Jon Krakauer you see the personal views and beliefs of Chris McCandless; while having many excerpts within the book of his favorite authors’ gives you an insight to why as he would choose to do such a thing. Some may believe that Chris McCandless went into to the wild because of his rebellion of youth however this was not the real reason. I believe the combinations of internal and external forces such as: literary influences, his family issues, and his determination to do what he truly wanted was what truly led him to the wild. This is the real reason to why he left everything behind.
Christopher Johnson McCandless was a hiker who also went by the name Alexander Supertramp and ventured into the Alaskan wilderness in April 1992 with a bit of food and equipment, hoping to live in isolation. Almost four months later, McCandless's body was found, weighing only 30kg. His story shocked many people and got the attention of magazine writer Jon Krakauer. At First he wrote a small article in the magazine Outside that sparked a lot of controversy with the readers. Since Krakauer got a lot of attention from his article, he decided to do more investigation on McCandless’s journey. Krakauer end up writing the book named Into the Wild and explains with plenty of detail McCandless’s life before his journey to the wilderness. Now a days, most teenager or young adult would never give up the life they have, because the way were so attach to electronics and our surroundings, for Chris McCandless is a different story he gave everything he had in life to go out and live a life in seclusion that caused him his death.
Chris McCandless saw the wilderness as an escape from reality or as a better reality where he could be free of the pressures of life. “At long last he was unencumbered, emancipated from the stifling world of his parents and peers, a world of abstraction and security and material excess, a world in which he felt grievously cut off from the raw throb of existence” (Krakauer 22). He thought that being isolated in the wilderness would provide liberation from the woes of existing in society.
Around Thoreau’s time there were a smaller number of people who lived in America. Free and untouched land was vast and easy to come by. He says, “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life…” (Thoreau 1). He was able to basically walk into his backyard and build a cabin there. Today the population has grown so much that many people are lucky to have a backyard. In having tighter spaces people have learned to come together and be civil with one another. They learned to work with and around obstacles and one another. Friendly neighbors are made; rival ones forgotten. People have learned how to make others smile and cheer up the gloomier ones. If they were all to have built an isolated, self-sufficient cabin in the woods, this would not have been possible. They would have to rel...
Many years ago, people saw the wilderness as a savage wasteland, but today, it is viewed as “the last remaining place where civilization, that all too human disease, has not fully infected the earth.” (Cronon) He discusses this changed point of view by stating the difficulties that society will have rectifying environmental ailments if it stops viewing wilderness as “a dualistic picture in which the human is completely outside the nature.” (Cronon) This is understandable because humans rely on others to create opinions, and they do not know how to form their own thoughts and solutions to issues such as environmental ones. Therefore, it is with great importance that humans begin to learn how to formulate their own thoughts and share those personal thoughts with others, such as sharing solutions about environmental
have both a sense of the importance of the wilderness and space in our culture
In Into the Wild, Jon Krakauer explores the human fascination with the purpose of life and nature. Krakauer documents the life and death of Chris McCandless, a young man that embarked on an Odyssey in the Alaskan wilderness. Like many people, McCandless believed that he could give his life meaning by pursuing a relationship with nature. He also believed that rejecting human relationships, abandoning his materialistic ways, and purchasing a book about wildlife would strengthen his relationship with nature. However, after spending several months enduring the extreme conditions of the Alaskan wilderness, McCandless’ beliefs begin to work against him. He then accepts that he needs humans, cannot escape materialism, and can never fully understand how nature functions. Most importantly, he realizes that human relationships are more valuable than infinite solitude. McCandless’ gradual change of heart demonstrates that exploring the wilderness is a transformative experience. Krakauer uses the life and death of Chris McCandless to convey that humans need to explore nature in order to discover the meaning of life.
As college professors, do you ever consider exploring the world? Christopher McCandless once stated, “The core of man's spirit comes from new experiences.” This quote resonates throughout the movie adaptation, Into the Wild. Based on a true story in the 1990’s, the film explores a man’s existence and the meaning of life. Although released in 2007, I discovered the movie three years ago through the internet. Instantly, it became my favorite movie. Into the Wild describes an eye-opening adventure, an influential message, and a story that I, and possibly others, can relate to.
Imagine having to choose to reside in one place for the rest of your life. Which would you opt for? Some people would argue that the hyperactive lifestyle that a big city has to offer has more benefits than living in the country. However, others would contend that the calm and peaceful environment of the countryside is much more rewarding. Several people move from the city to a farm to get away from the hustle and bustle. Likewise, some farmers have traded in their tractors and animals to live a fast paced city life. Of course, not all large cities are the same nor are all of the places in the country identical. Realizing this, ten years ago, I decided to hang up the city life in Indiana to pursue a more laid back approach to life in rural Tennessee. Certainly, city life and life in the country have their benefits, but they also have distinguishable differences.
The increasing trend of people living alone is addressed in Eric Klinenberg’s book “Going Solo”, which offers a good explanation of the different social forces behind this trend, and investigating the psychology of the lone dweller. He starts the book off with an introduction quoting the Bible and Aristotle, laying down the difference between being alone and living alone, and introduces the context of the American individualism, and how living alone made its way into the cities. In parts of the book, he accredited this to the emancipation of women that led to increased job prospects, the flourishing property market that attracted young people to cities, and kept them there with the continual gentrification and cultural and social activities.
Krakauer said “McCandless change his name, gave the entire balance of a 24 thousand-dollar saving account to charity, abandoned his car and most of his possessions, burned all the cash in his pocket” (Author’s note). Family is an important factor in everyone’s life; apparently that was not enough for Christopher McCandless. I have been fortunate to live with my family my whole life.