E. S5 Digital Notes #2 Module #2 by Guilherme Amaral

Running away form society does not makes us closer to our human nature.

jose_amaral251_1 — 2024-04-29 23:13:14 UTC

Running away form society does not makes us closer to our human nature. Humans are an inherently social species and that is our nature, to live in a society. In my opinion going into the wild, on your own, to live a better life, as Chris McCandless makes it clear in the book that he think that's the case; just like a pilgrim, but with no religious intention, he seeks a meaning for life. Like it is stated in the epigram of chapter 4, pilgrimage is something that Jon Krakauer had in mind when writing this book: "through the desert go pilgrims and exiles... not to escape but to find reality" (Krakauer, 25). Coming back to the human nature, it is a standard detail of the Homo sapiens' evolution process was all done in groups, as a community, and that is one of the main reasons for why were were able to go this far into the Earth's history. I do not believe that leaving society, looking for a life based on your own actions and beliefs, and cutting all relations to those who appreciate you, is a good thing, in fact I think it is a bad thing for the person; McCandless lasted less than a third of a year living alone, in the wild, and through that time, even though there is proof that he was happy and satisfied, "I am reborn. This is my dawn. Real life has just begun" (Krakauer, 168), it is against the human instincts to settle for death, and so there is some evidence, found in the bus where he was found dead, where he showed great desperation for his life, when he wrote on a piece of paper and left on the bus when he left to try and hunt anything he could, since he was injured: "S.O.S. I NEED YOUR HELP. I AM INJURED, NEAR DEATH, AND TOO WEAK TO HIKE OUT HERE. I AM ALL ALONE, THIS IS NO JOKE. IN THE NAME OF GOD, PLEASE REMAIN TO SAVE ME. I AM OUT COLLECTING BERRIES CLOSE BY AND SHALL RETURN THIS EVENING. Thank you, Chris McCandless. AUGUST?" (Krakauer, 12). It is inevitable to feel desperate in this situations, and humans survided this long, as a society, because we were able to help ourselves in situations where we were uncapable of surviving alone.

Connection between the first post on "My ideas" to the movie Society of the Snow by J. A. Bayona.

jose_amaral251_1 — 2024-04-29 23:28:41 UTC

By the end of my post I made an inference in the necessity of a community for humans to survive as a species in its history, and how living alone does not connect us to our "human nature". As soon as I made that inference I thought of the perfect example, that happened in real life, that was portrayed as a movie in 2023, which is the horrific case of the 1972 Uruguayan planne crash in the Andes. This case happened in 1972, involving an Uruguayan rugby team that had their final destination being Chile, but had a plane crash when going over the Andes. Half of the team was stuck in the middle of those huge mountains, as the other half passed away during the crash, since the plane was broken in half, 29 people survived the crash, but after 72 days of collaboration between the rugby players, and sacrifices (such as cannibalism) made for survival, two players were able to walk great distances to reach civilization and the survival of the remaining. This story is the perfect example of how nature does not forgive those who are in a disadvantage, it is always the same, and collaboration is necessary for the survival in the wild, mainly in harsh conditions. These rugby players were able to survive in the middle of the snowy peaks of the Andes, with no resources but what they had packed, and stayed in the plane, and the corpses of those who were not able to survive the incident were the only may of food they had during those 72 days. This movie contradicts the idea that Chris McCandles wanted to portray, and also some ideas presented by HDT, "I could not but smile to see how industriously they locked the door on my meditations... as they could not reach me, the had resolved to punish my body" (Thoreau, 222), it in fact shows evidence of a real happening that shows how you need to go against your own mind to thrive, or to even do the bare minimum to survive in extreme circumstances, which is exactly what happened when the survivors decided to eat their own dead friends' bodies in order to live to see the next day.

There is no such thing as running away from life, there is looking for a different way of living.

jose_amaral251_1 — 2024-04-30 01:13:07 UTC

On page 163 of the book Into the Wild there is a record of Chris' writing where he writes about himself in third person. He says, "Escaped from Atlanta" (Krakauer, 163), as if he had left his hometown, Atlanta, and escaped from life there, with his family and friends, and all the luxury he had as a member of a rich family. Later on the same record, he says, "No longer poisoned by civilization" (Krakauer, 163), both of these quotes, coming from Alex himself, makes it seem as he was leaving away his own life, running away from it, as if it was a threat to him, since he was around people "contaminated" with the modern societal and political approach of society. He seemed proud of it, and wrote it as a glorious happening in his life, leaving Chris McCandless behind, where he was a normal person who believed in obeying laws, and becoming Alex Supertramp, this amazing guy who lived by his own standards and free from any kind of judgement or norm holding him back. But in my opinion, there is no running away from life, but finding a way of living that you feel like you fit in; your approach changes completely, your behaviors change completely, but your life is still the same, you are still the same body, the same mind, you just look at life through a different pair of lenses.

How Sartre and Tolstoy impacted Chris and his beliefs.

jose_amaral251_1 — 2024-05-01 22:17:42 UTC

As we know, Chris is an avid follower of the beliefs and theories of Henry David Thoreau, but throughout the book I was able to connect some of his ideas, and actions to the concept of Existentialism, one of the main works of the french philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre. To Sartre, everyone is free, there is nothing impeding people from doing whatever they want, they define their success; freedom and happiness are subjective topics, and they mean different things to each and every person. Chris was also a appreciator of Tolstoy's work, and Tolstoy's description of life in Family Happiness (1859) happiness is: "A quiet secluded life in the country, with the possibility of being useful to people to whom it is easy to do good, and who are not accustomed to have it done to them". Chris was a hard worker, and his connection to this quote is really visible in the book, when he was working with Wayne Westberg and Westberg said, "He was the hardest worker I've ever seen" (Krakauer, 18), and this shows how Chris really put his beliefs into action; this idea of working for people who aren't used to having work being done for them, and doing good connects right away with the theory of existentialism, where you can do whatever you want, there might only be some obstacles in your way, but if you dice to do it, who's going to stop you. Tolstoy's definition of happiness, and Sartre's theory on Existentialism, both paved the way for Chris to get where he did, leaving his family behind, and feeling guilty for their success and his privilege, because Tolstoy shows humbleness in happiness, and Sartre shows freedom besides others, and the mix of both theories developed a mindset of revolt against societal norms, that led to his deep appreciation for Thoreau.

How Petrarch might have defined Chris' ideas without the knowledge of either one of them.

jose_amaral251_1 — 2024-05-02 00:03:25 UTC

The main contribution for the idea of humanism by Renaissance poet and philosopher Francesco Petrarch, was to say that God gave humans intellectual and creative potential for it to be used at its fullest; implying that humans need to work mainly in what they are passionate for and know will strive instead of being chained by the stories of the bible, which at that time (XIV century) was possibly the most important, and looked up to piece of writing in the whole world with the capability of controlling any person who believed in the Catholic church. Petrarch's main work De Vita Solitaria, emphasizes the beauty of the life of leisure, meaning, living in a society composed by a selected group of people, based on books, and literature, and when I heard about this my mind was instantly drawn to the ideas of Thoreau, and McCandless. On page 57, in a letter to Ron Franz, Chris wrote, "My point is that you do not need me or anyone else around to bring this new kind of light in your life" (Krakauer, 57), he said this as he left Ron's company to proceed in his journey, and I believe that he was in fact talking about himself; all McCandless wanted was to be alone and live by his own principles, and, just like Petrarch mentioned, Chris wanted a life away from anyone or simply composed by people who he flt were valuable to his life at that set time, like Ron Franz, or Wayne Westerberg.

"Freedom is the prison of choice" Jean-Paul Sartre

jose_amaral251_1 — 2024-05-02 15:51:43 UTC

This quote by Sartre really defines the concept of existentialism and it gives background the mind and acts of Chris McCandles. In philosophy destiny comes over your own existence, so you are born with a predetermined destiny, whatever life wishes and plans for you ahead in life, will happen. Sartre argued the opposite; To Sartre your existence comes over your destiny, and he wanted to show how you are the one that controls your future. There is no blaming others, and your circumstances for your actions, so the habit of thinking you are not free to make your own choices due to fear, and to Sartre he called it "Bad faith". There is no reason for blaming your lack of happiness or your lack of success in life on others, you are the one responsible for doing what you will, and that is where the quote, "Freedom is the prison of choice" by Jean-Paul Sartre comes to reality in the story of Chris McCandless and his pursuit for life. The quote implies that being free requires responsibility to assume all your actions, and this makes people afraid of being free, afraid of assuming the responsibility of life. Chris McCandless was an avid practitioner of this idea of being against "bad faith" and also about having the power of controlling your own destiny, which is one of the reasons he ended up leaving society behind and going after what he was really passionate about. Another quote by Sartre that shows the path of Chris in his story might be, "Consciousness is what it is not and is not what it is", that implies that consciousness is a mixture of facticity and transcendence, which means that it changes constantly as life goes, and Chris is the literal example of how this can be applied in life, since he is always going with the flow and based on his interests, to reach a final goal (his stay in Alaska), following this greatly non-linear path to "success".

Into the Wild was a mean to finding an answer to the project question: "what is means to be a human?"

jose_amaral251_1 — 2024-05-02 21:26:30 UTC

Looking at the life of Chris McCandless, and how his deviant look at the world, being a believer that humans thrive solitude, I was able to conclude that the meaning of humanity is possibly the most subjective topic discussed by humans. As Chris believed, his meaning for life was found in the middle of his journey, as he was incredibly happy with his decisions, and showing no regret over any thing he'd ever done; as he defined the term deliberate living: "conscious attention to the basics of life, and constant attention to your immediate environment and its concerns" (Krakauer, 168), claiming that he had reached his peak, living the real life. This view over what real life was, is just his view over what he thought his purpose in the world was, which brings me back to the ideas of Sartre, and how every single person has the power to control their destiny, and have no reason to blame the environment they live ("bad faith"). Another theory over the meaning of life can be taken from the german philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche; "Life consists of rare, isolated moments of the greatest significance, and of innumerably many intervals, during which at best the silhouettes of those moments hover about us", this quote by Nietzsche expresses his views that life is built upon small excerpts of someone's time on Earth, life is built from the smallest, most meaningful moments that build someone's character. Chris's journey was filled with these small moments that together built his dream state of life, the so called "deliberate living" explained previously. Moments such as working for Wayne Westberg, or the moment he met Ron Franz and left him behind to pursue on his journey; these are the little spaces in time that make a journey impactful, and according to Nietzsche creates reason for someone's life.

Though life has a different meaning for each and every person in the whole world, it is built in similar ways, and such that come together in the end, as you lie back and reflect on all you've done in life. Nietzsche also said, "For many men do not have those moments at all, and are themselves intervals and intermissions in the symphony of real life" and I agree, some people don't have the will to pursue the life they always wished/hoped for, some don't happen to be in the right places at the right times to experience these moments, and others are just unlucky, but finding a true meaning for life requires effort, and sometimes risks so big that might cause your ambition to kill you, but you at least reached your goal; this is the exact case for Chris McCandless, a young adult so ambitious that he ended up killing himself, though he reached his point of most joy, and true meaning of life.

Connection to the discussion question: "Why do you think rebelling usually requires great risk? Is independence in this sense good for humans? Does humankind need deviance? Are deviants better humans? Do humans need to take these risks?"

jose_amaral251_1 — 2024-05-07 21:57:18 UTC

First of all, the whole concept of rebellion is based on going against the norm, and to do so risk is inevitable.. Usually the people who are involved in rebellions are the ones who do not agree with some societal belief that is taken on by everyone (Thoreau for example)quote, and these people are the ones who can be often called deviants; deviance is a socially established concept towards actions and consequences. It is not something we need, but something we can't avoid, (we can't know who is in a social group without knowing who isn't in it). Talking about rebellions and deviants, it is also important to note that even though rebels tend to fight for "a better cause" they do not end up satisfying everyone, and because of that the concept of being a better human becomes completely subjective regarding the beliefs of each person. Risk is the absolute reason that certain people don't consider taking action against things they disagree on, "Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterwards" (Thoreau, 221), Thoreau expresses this idea of fear when questioning the reason for a man's conscience and the reason for people to subject themselves to the government or a greater political power, making a statement at the same time on how you need to think for yourself before you let others think for you. People risk losing the safety of their home, they risk their lives (McCandless), and they also risk their own sanity when they get so invested in their own ideas and goals that they lose the capability of discernment for what is good or not to them. Chris for example shows how living alone in the wild is a greak risk for your own life; experts claim that he passed due to an intoxication and all because of a mistake he could have never known: "Had McCandless's guidebook to edible plants warned that H. alpinum seed contain a "highly toxic secondary plant constituent," as L-canavenine… he probably would have walked out of the wild in late August" (Krakauer, 212). Chris left into the wild under his own responsability, but he was definitely unprepared, as shown in the beginning of the book, when Chris receives his first ride when hitchhiking, "He wasn't carrying anywhere near as much food and gear as you'd expect a guy to be carrying fro that kind of trip" (krakauer, 4), the book shows how Chris was unprepared going into his journey from the beginning to the end of the book, and this emphasizes how risk is part of the essence of being deviant and rebelling/parting ways with the societal norms.

Connection to the discusiion question: "Chris McCandless has still been a kind of cult icon for many people who feel like outsiders for the last thirty years. What about his story could be seen as compelling or inspirational to so many?"

jose_amaral251_1 — 2024-05-07 21:59:05 UTC

I believe that his impact comes a lot more from social classes, and inequality. Social inequality is probably the most known social problem in the whole world, since it involves everyone but is detrimental only to some (the majority), and because he was "ashamed" from the success of his family, as it is mentioned in the book: "Her son, the teenage Tolstoyan, believed that wealth was shameful, corrupting, inherently evil…" (Krakauer, 115), and this is an idea that surely attracts many people who feel wronged by society, and its unequal standards. Though, it is hard to act this way, and actually make an impact and at the same time sustain your beliefs for a long time. The struggle to maintain a strong belief and actions towards a specific idea that requires work and sacrifice, also has a lot to do with hypocrisy when people are not satisfied with their way of living, and believe that things should be better for them but at the same time they do nothing in their power to make things change, not only for them but fore everyone around the, and they expect people to make these changes for them while they sit and complain; but there is also the fact that people who live in horrible living conditions and want to see change, can't change things because they do have economic, or even health conditions to make anything other than just trying to survive in the city with no one to help them, and to feel empathetic for them.