Into the Wild
Would Emerson and Thoreau find Chris McCandless to be a worthy transcendentalist? Why or why not? Please cite at least one passage from your transcendentalist reading in your response ("Nature," "Walden," or "Self-Reliance"). Do you think his actions were noble? Foolish? Is there anything to be admired or reprehended in Chris McCandless? Be sure to read the other blogs before posting your response so that you avoid repetition and so that you can comment on others' posts.
posted by Kristin L | 8:45 AM
17 Comments:
woohoo first comment!!!
anywho...i think that Emerson would find Chris McCandless a transcendentalist. I think that Chris sends himself on this journey to test his own abilities, not for anyone else but himself. He wants to test his limits and seek his own boundaries, to prove to himself that he has lived life to the fullest and not missed a single challenge. So i believe that Emerson would find him worthy because he writes about how one can only find ones power by testing those limits, and challenging oneself. he states this by saying, "The power which resides in him is new in nature, and none but he knows what that is which he can do, nor does he know until he has tried. "
I think that McCandless actions were in some what foolish, he was not at all prepared to go on this journey that he took, he didnt know a thing about alaska, other than that it would be one heck of a challenge. But i also thing that they were noble, he stepped way out of his comfort zone and took this path head on. He had a goal and he intended to accomplish it. That is something that i think many people can admire about him, he was very driven, and i dont think hw was going to stop until he died.
I agree with the people in front of me that Emerson would consider Chris as a transcendentalist. Chris wants to, as the definition states; go above and beyond the perceived human limits. Most American citizens rely almost 100% on money because it determines the paths that their lives will follow. Chris is not concerned with this mold but rather seeks to go against the current and create his own life with his own standards. Americans as a whole follow the crowd, not that it is necessarily wrong in all cases, because they believe that if they do not, then they will be swept off their feet in the crowd and be thrown to the floor to be trampled. Figuratively of course! Chris wants to use his survival skills and not have to worry about careers or money or anything that goes with the American dream. He ventures into the most desolate place that he was near at the time: Alaska. What a great place to extend his boundaries! No limitations, just time, time, and more time to ponder the mysteries of life and dreams. In Emerson’s “Nature” he states that “All science has one aim, namely, to find a theory of nature.” I imagine that one of Chris’s goals of his journey was indeed to contemplate the theory of nature and creation. He wanted to better understand nature, himself, and more importantly his role in the bigger scheme of things and how he would impact society.
I think that his actions were not noble. The noble thing to do would have been to be up front with his friends and family and reveal his intentions. His actions were rash and spontaneous. His intentions are admirable. Personally it reminds me of the scene in Batman Begins where he is fighting against the snow and the wind to scale a large mountain. His task seems simple; to pick a flower and bring it to the top of the mountain. But there are hidden dangers and obstacles. It seems crazy that he would sacrifice his body for something as delicate as a flower, simply because a stranger promised him advice. But once he reaches the top, he is rewarded with shelter, warmth, and a good beating! He is whipped into shape during his stay there. In the same way, I think that Chris expected to outlast the elements, and reach a point in his mind where he felt comfortable with his surroundings. Perhaps the reason he did not tell other people was because he knew that opposition that would come. He knew that internally he was not as strong as he thought and that with enough persuasion, he would begin to doubt himself and abandon his journey. To avoid that outcome he simply left. He knew, of course, that spending time in the Alaskan wilderness, his mind and body would be whipped into shape and he would come to understand all the questions he had. Unfortunately the world is strong and he was not able to overcome the challenges that faced him.
That might be the longest blog i ever posted! Fun stuff!
Well i think Thoreau and Emerson would most definitely find Chris to be a transcendentalist! I personally would never be able to give up all the material possessions i own, and just go out and live in the wilderness and hitchhike my way through the country. I could never leave my family for the rest of my life because i could not deal with it. Chris, however, finds a way to transcend his family, friends, and possessions. Even his money from his wallet he burned. I think that the only way a person could do that is if they truly have their eyes set on a goal in which those things mean absolutely nothing. I think that in some ways what he did was noble because to not have any attachment to material possessions is something we should all strive for, but few people will ever actually achieve. I think that a lot of it was foolish. It is good to give up possessions, but you should never give up your relationship with your family no matter what. Family is one of the most important things in the world and you should never give up seeing your family willingly.
Both of the Jord(a/y)ns had excellent comments to this post, however I feel that Kyle is denying the concept of Transcendentalism. Kyle mentions that McCandless is foolish and yet, as Emerson writes, "whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist." I find it rather ironic that Newman so crassly berates his choices when I believe he would call himself a noncomformist.
Kyle's sentiments aptly reflect that of society as a whole. Kyle seems not to understand the choices McCandless made, but according to Emerson, "To be great is to be misunderstood". Simply because he did not fit into our societal standards, that gives no right to anyone to openly berate his decisions. Where I differ from some of the others here (and perhaps even Ms. Kakos) is that I believe that we can hardly classify his actions as foolish, as many have, or even as noble. They were, in short, his actions and it is not our place to try and define them. Attempting to define his actions is by its very nature an act of Rationalism.
What is admirable about McCandless, is that he pursued his dreams and that which would help to make him whole. We should all be so thoughtless and pure as to act in this way and Emerson and Thoreau would no doubt agree.
In light of Nathan's comment, perhaps I should rephrase my post.
I meant to say that it is not our place to judge others for the decisions that they make for themselves. Perhaps one might argue that Chris tainted the lives of his friends and family, but his choice was his own, and his actions did not directly affect others in a negative way.
As pertains to the idea that Chris ran from society, this is preposterousness. What would Chris have had to run from? He was on the fast track to success, but he gave it all up to pursue something purely desired by himself.
I believe that Emerson and Thoreau would undoubtedly find Chris McCandless a transcendentalist because he lived out his dream and found himself. Emerson wrote that “envy is ignorance; imitation is suicide,” I agree with this statement in the fact that each and everyone of us is an individual (although some are afraid to show it). People must realize this and break away from the norm, but not for the reason of just becoming a non-conformist, but to really and truly find themselves. I agree with Spencer when he says we cannot classify Chris’s actions as foolish or even heroic, because they where his individual choice. However, I think that Chris mainly had an impact on people who heard his story, only because his decisions ended in death; If Chris had lived I believe that his story would most likely be left untold. But what if he did survive and leave Alaska? Would he actually leave?
I believe that Chris lived his life to the fullest, when many who live much longer lives cant make this achievement. I don’t think that it is tragedy that his life ended.
In response to Spencer's comment that Chris' actions did not affect anyone in a negative way:
To me, the pain that Chris' parents and sister went through during his absence and after the discovery of his body are definite negative repercussions for his actions. Yes, Chris felt that it was necessary for him to end all contact with the outside world, but that does not give him an excuse for so abruptly dropping all connection with his family. If he felt that he needed time away from the world, he could have had the courtesy and the decency to inform his family about his decision. Instead of sending them one last letter stating that they wouldn't be hearing from him for awhile, he attempted to disappear from sight. To me, this action undermines any "insights" Chris might have gained in his trek. Regardless of how enlightening his journey was, he demonstrated great selfishness by deciding that this last adventure was more important than the family that cared for him and supported him.
Was his journey into the wild really worth the heartache and grief he caused his family? I think not.
Wow. I would first off like to say that the dicussion we had in class today was pretty darn deep. It really opened my eyes to different interpretations of trandscendentalism. In a way, I think that this trandscendentalims is mainly questioning the fulfillment of life and how people spend their precious time on Earth. People are so afraid of living life to the full and concentrating so hard on making the best lives for themselves that we forget the simplicities of life. I think that we work most of our lives only to buy matierilal things that we think will fill our lives with joy. What transcedentalism keys in on is that we need to stop TRYING so hard to get the most out of life and enjoy nature and the pure things in life. I think this is exactly what the story "Walden" was saying. It says, "Our life is frittered away by detail. An honest man has hardly need to count more than his ten fingers, or in extreme cases he may add his ten toes, and lump the resst. Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity!" This stroy is stressing we spend too much time on detials, and not enough on the big picture. I would think that Thoreau would classify Chris as a transcendentalist becuase Chris left behind all the details of his life, and went into the wilderness, prooving that he could live without the cayos of life and could survive on the simplicities of nature.
PS. I agree with Emily on some accounts about him leaving his family. I am sure that his absence cuased much grief within the family, but I believe that once he was found, his sister understood his purpose for venturing out and leaving. She knew that he had lived his own personal life to the fullest that he could have, and lived more than a man of "90 years old". I think that once his sister recognized Chirs's purpose in leaving, it was in a way, uplifting to her.
I think that both authors would consider Chris a very worthy example of a transcendentalist. Both authors talk about nature and challenging one's limits. Chris set out to fulfill an empty spot in his sole and ultimately gave his life fighting for the challenge he set for himself. I liked the quote from the movie that said he got more out of his 24 years of life than most people get from 80 years of life. I think that really shows Chris lived his life to the fullest possible.
I think his actions were both foolish and admirable. He set out for an adventure that in on way was he prepared for and got in way over his head. I think his choices were some what admirable because he did something that no one else would ever consider doing and that most people would have the courage and will to do. I agree with Milt in the material and family aspect. I don't think the vast majority of people would be willing to drop everything and give up everything they have ever worked for to go on an adventure. One of the most valuable things in life is your family and I wouldn’t be able to give all that up.
Just realized that I didn't include a citation from one of our readings.
Emerson writes in Self-Reliance that "nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind." If Chris and his journey are viewed in this light, then yes, I would say that his was a transcendental journey. That being said, I do not think that his ideas were the best approach to transcendentalism. It is possible to still embark on such a journey without hurting others in the way that he did.
As human beings, we desire interaction with people, and this element of communication makes each of us more rounded and, in a sense, complete. Our class discussions are a good example of this: the majority of our class would probably say that the discussions open their minds to possibilities and ideas that they had not previously thought of. If human interaction is so vital, then shouldn't transcendentalism still appreciate that interaction? And if a "transcending" journey deeply wounds those close to us, is it really justified? Chris' adventures should not be held up as an example of a positive of transcendental journey.
I definitely think that Thoreau and Emerson would think Chris McCandless a transcendentalist. Many people are content, or appear to be, with their cookie-cutter lifestyles. Chris was not content to have such a future. To be able to discover himself, to be able to strip his character down to the bare bones and find who he truly was became too much of a temptation. Chris had to transcend more than even the "adventurous" do. This is very much like what Thoreau did when he went to visit Walden Pond to find out the bare facts of life. He wrote of his journey, "I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived." Both Chris McCandless and Thoreau went on journeys to discover the bare facts of life, and thus I think that Thoreau would think that Chris was a transcendentalist. Emerson believed that for anyone to make a speck of good in the world, they have to find themselves and work at their lives until his "life's wishes" are fulfilled. He wrote, "...No kernel of nourishing corn can come to him but though his toil bestowed on that plot of ground which is given to him to till." Chris decided to take the step to toil at his "plot of ground", or his life, so he can feel that he has added something to the world.
I don't think that Chris' actions were either noble or foolish. Contrary to Kyle, I definitely do not think they were foolish! Instead, I think that Chris' actions were admirable, mainly because he took the step to do what he wanted to do and persevered through everything that came in his path.
In response to emilyl, just by watching the video, Chris's sister seemed to accept what Chris had chosen in his life. I'm sure Chris's family suffered in some way, as all families do when unfortunate circumstances abound, but it seemed like Chris's family respected his actions. Chris took this journey not to wound his family, but to discover his own identity. I think that's a personal choice, and I don't think his family could do anything to change that, even if they tried.
I also agree with spenzer z's comment. I don't think we can call Chris's actions noble or foolish, because by the very nature of transcendentalism, it is fruitless to label them.
I admire his intentions, but I think carried out his plan the wrong way. Spontaneity is very well idealistically, but at some point there must be some organization. Chris should have been a little more prepared for his journey. You can be self-reliant even with modern conveniences--I think Chris was going to the extreme, trying to survive with very little to survive on.
Sorry to blog so late, my internet has been down.
As for me, i completely agree with Jordyn S. Chris is defiantly a transcendentalist because like the definition states, Chris was going above and beyond the perceived human limits. In "Self Reliance" Emerson discusses the tendency to conform. "The virtue in most requests is conformity. Self-reliance is its adversion." I think that this quote defiantly prove Chris to be a transcendentalist. He went above and beyond what the world thought was possible and survived in the Alaskan wilderness for more than 100 days. Conquering such a feat is already amazing, but the fact that he did it with nothing but himself, proves Emerson right on his thoughts about self reliance. Chris felt as though he had to prove himself to someone or something, so he went out into the wilderness, but when he realized what he was doing, he knew that the only person he was trying to please was himself. He took the challenge as though it was a right of passage. In today’s society, considering Chris’s challenge occurred less than 20 years ago, there is nothing that says when one can consider them self reliant. No one told Chris that this was something he needed to do, or that Chris couldn’t do anything without first surviving in the Alaskan wilderness. He did it for himself, which almost validates the notion that Chris was a transcendentalist in and of itself. He went above his limits, for himself. Chris lost his life after 107 or 108 days, which to most people is very sad. I think that Chris died happy; he did what he thought he needed to do to validate him in society. He relied on solely himself and proved to be self reliant, Emerson said that self reliance is adversion, Chris wanted to be different.
Go Broncos
I truly believe he was on a suicide mission. I believe he was depressed, did not know what he really wanted to do with his life. He drove his car off the road, lucky he did't die with that, (I think he was hoping to). He goes into the wilderness so ill perpared, I think he knew he would not come out alive. He had been out there for 2 years and all of a sudden eats the wrong berries and roots? I think he did that on purpose knowing full well the outcome. He finally realizes the only way to have true happiness is to share it with someone, and when he tries to go back, he can't cross the river, the only way he knows to go back, thus he retreats and chooses to end his life himself. As far as being a hero or some kind of a role model, I beg to differ. He goes out to Alaska with such angst and a pompous attitude, yet he lives in a bus? How convenient, he does not truly have to fend for himself after all as he had tools, and shelter and all that he despised from society, what a hypocrite. He would have died the first winter out there, and once again, someone other than himself provided for him and he took it! If he really wanted to live this adventurous life he claimed was his mission, he never would have lived in that bus. I find him to be spoiled, self righteous and far from admirable. Great movie as it makes one think, but do not put this 'child' on a pedestal.
Post a Comment
<< Home