6 ms·

I think the point is that he was an independent thinker, and thus was disillusioned by all the BS in modern society. Sure he made some mistakes and he had some

I think the point is that he was an independent thinker, and thus was disillusioned by all the BS in modern society. Sure he made some mistakes and he had some back luck, but he chose to find meaning in his life instead of being another sheep. Can you say the same for your own life?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
lrm242 13y ago
Give me a break. The guy was most certainly not an independent thinker. Nor was he a critical thinker. Nor did he have any respect for the challenge he was taking on. He was an angst ridden teenage boy captured in an twenty something's body that never learned the difference between fantasy and reality. Most importantly, he never learned that in the real world there are consequences for stupid actions.
- Zimahl 13y ago
  This. The previous comment is the reason why McCandless is such a polarizing figure. Those who prepare and go on a quest without suffering negative consequences are somehow derided for not being independent thinkers, somehow cheapened for not risking enough. "Adventure is just bad planning." - Roald Amundsen
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    I like to think of adventure as good planning combined with inherently difficult circumstances. The first treks to the poles were quite the adventure, yet they were also highly methodical and carefully planned.
  - wwweston 13y ago
    The good admiral has a point, but I don't think it gets to the heart of the McCandless drama. For that, I think I'd look to Norman Maclean's _Young Men and Fire_ where he talks about smoke jumpers: "It is very important to a lot of people to make unmistakably clear to themselves and to the universe that they love the universe but are not intimidated by it and will not be shaken by it, no matter what it has in store. Moreover, they demand something from themselves early in life that can be taken ever after as a demonstration of this abiding feeling... "For many former Smokejumpers, then, smokejumping is not closely tied up with their [eventual] way of life, but is more something that is necessary for them to pass through and not around and, once it is unmistakably done, does not have to be done again. The 'it' is within, and is the need to settle some things with the universe and ourselves before taking on the 'business of the world,' which isn't all that special or hard but takes time. This 'it' is the something special within that demands we do something special, and 'it' could be within a lot of us." If people here are reading this and haven't already realized some parallels between not just McCandless and smokejumpers but also entrepreneurs I'd be surprised. Now, you can draw distinctions between McCandless and smokejumpers, too: the later train and drill and prepare, probably as well as Amundsen could be satisfied with. And their work has a practical end. But their work is still an adventure because they also operate in an area of high risk, and as a result they sometimes pay a high cost. And they don't do this job for entirely practical reasons. They do it because they have a need for an internal narrative that settles certain things and establishes a kind of identity, they do it because they need something off the beaten track for middle class success. McCandless was clearly looking for that. I think it's fair to ask if he'd been a little less romantic about it and a little more thoughtful whether he might have had both his survival adventure and his survival. Then again, unless you're Batman or some other protagonist whose superpower is acute anticipation by authorial fiat, it's mitigated by the limits of the best laid plans.
    - cpncrunch 13y ago
      I think it's an interesting point you raise about entrepreneurs, and I think that is why I feel a connection to Chris. I certainly know that I seem to think differently from that vast majority of people. That is useful in coming up with novel ideas, but it can also make it challenging fitting into society.
    - Zimahl 13y ago
      I see what you are saying but like you said, smoke jumpers prepare. While they might jump into hazardous conditions it is not done without a risk:reward ratio well above 'adventure'. When best laid plans fail they are forgiven because there were at least plans.
    - Tloewald 13y ago
      Admiral? As far as I know, Roald Amundsen was not affiliated with any military. Ironically he died while trying to rescue other, less competent, explorers.
      - wwweston 13y ago
        You're quite right, in my head I'd accidentally lumped him in with fellow polar explorers Peary and Scott as a Navy guy.
    - comrade_ogilvy 13y ago
      Smoke jumpers are taking on a job that offers a boon to others, so I politely give them the benefit of the doubt. Thus it is an exercise in adult behavior, even if the details of their personal motives are more ambiguous. I do recognize a degree of courage in a young man going into the wild to heal the angst and alienation plaguing his soul. Yet I bristle at the suggestion such is automatically heroic or independent thinking, and (implicitly or explicitly) the less wounded amongst us can be dismissed as "sheep", as some admirers have done in this discussion. I am sorry, but I see no evidence that McCandless ever had a single original thought in his head. He never completed the "hero's journey" in either the literary or practical sense -- he failed to achieve enlightenment and return with his boon, to help himself and/or others. He failed. He may have had some courage to admire, but he ultimately failed when it came to the big important stuff. McCandless was an adolescent in a man's body -- he was not proven capable of handling adult responsibilities. That is not necessarily a negative in itself -- we are where we are in life, and being honest about it and doing something about it is a fine thing. But I am not going to be patient with people lecturing genuine adults about how this adolescent has deep insights into life. Sorry, but that is just wishful thinking by people who mistake ignorance and low intellectual standards for originality.
  - Goladus 13y ago
    > Those who prepare and go on a quest without suffering negative consequences are somehow derided for not being independent thinkers, somehow cheapened for not risking enough. Who is "deriding them for not being independent thinkers?" Maybe others who go on quests are independent in their own way, none of the comments here are trying to say one way or the other. What the comment DOES imply though, is that there are a lot of people who don't try anything like that at all, no matter the level of preparation.
- emilsedgh 13y ago
  Your comment sounds like he harmed other people with his stupid actions. He was harmless to everyone but himself. And the consequence, he paid it with his life. The nobel part is that he actually left everything behind while most of us are drowning into urban life. He wasnt a hero in traditional sense of 'saving, helping' other people. He is a hero who had what it takes to leave society behind while we cannot let go of smallest of things.
  - brianobush 13y ago
    Society isn't evil in and of itself, though it does contain evil. Humans are social creatures, so why is leaving what we need/depend upon heroic?
    - emilsedgh 13y ago
      "Humans are social creatures, so why is leaving what we need/depend upon heroic?" He challenged that idea. Isnt that heroic? To let go of whole society. Everything and Everyone. Please, at least agree with me that what he did was daring. So damn daring that makes him a hero to me.
      - brianobush 13y ago
        Yes, I do agree that what he did was daring. In my book, a bit crazy. But that can be a good thing, in measured doses.
    - cpncrunch 13y ago
      (in reply to emilsedgh) Because he was trying to find meaning and purpose in his life. What struck me most powerfully was that he did actually discover the meaning of life (or at least one aspect of it) when he says "happiness only real when shared". So it appears that he did actually figure out how to have a meaningful life, but unfortunately never actually got to put it into practice. That is the saddest part of the whole story for me.
  - kamaal 13y ago
    >>The nobel part is that he actually left everything behind while most of us are drowning into urban life. You make it look like its a sin to live in a city.
- scott_s 13y ago
  Nor did he have any respect for the challenge he was taking on. The conclusion is that he died from a specific set of circumstances that few people knew were deadly. I think that directly counters the notion that he "he had no respect for the challenge" because I believe people arrive at that conclusion backwards: he died doing it, so he must have been foolhardy.
  - lrm242 13y ago
    He went into the Alaskan wilderness without a map. That demonstrates a complete lack of respect for nature AND his own life.
guywithabike 13y ago
If having "some bad luck" and living a "meaningful life" means I die of starvation / poisoning alone in a forest, then I guess you can count me out.
vecter 13y ago
How was Chris's life more meaningful than everyone else's?
untog 13y ago
he chose to live a meaningful life instead of being another sheep. Can you say the same for your own life? Yeah, I can. Most of us can. 'Sheep' is such an over-used term that covers so much. Getting a full time job for a company doesn't make your a 'sheep', you can still leave a happy and meaningful life. People say (though I have no personal experience) that having children is the most meaningful thing you can do in your life. If you do, maybe nothing else matters? The point is, it's ironic to me that you're deriding all the "BS in modern society". To me, the biggest load of BS in modern society is this first world preoccupation with "meaning", "purpose" and all that other junk. The vast majority of people out there don't even have the time to stop and think about these things. None of us can judge what McCandless did with his life because none of us are him and know how he felt as he was dying. But if I was him, I would have regrets.
- base698 13y ago
  I don't believe sheep is overused when a huge population of people are pursuing material gains for people who don't care. The short list of what this leads to: depression, hopelessness, addiction, dietary diseases, and other first world problems. All trying to keep up with the Joneses. There are more meaningful pursuits.
  - untog 13y ago
    There are more meaningful pursuits. Like Chris McCandless's one that resulted in death? Seriously, you can't hold him up as an idol of a 'better life' when his life was cut short very, very prematurely. I'm not qualified to judge whether depression and dietary diseases are better than death, but I think it's at least worth debating. And few people pursue material gains for the purpose of simply having them. Like I said, for a great many people in the world, being a parent is hugely meaningful. It leads them to pursue material gains in order to provide for their children and watch them grow in comfort. That does not make them 'sheep'. If they are then everyone is a sheep. You are an "anti-'sheep'" sheep.
    - base698 13y ago
      I'm not saying to hold him up as an idol. I'm just saying, if you aren't happy and you are "successful" then you may have to rethink your approach. Happiness is hard and a lot of work, and I know a lot of people never figure it out. If you're trying what consumer culture is offering and you're miserable, then maybe try something else? I would highly debate it's few. There's a reason AdBusters struck such a nerve.
rayiner 13y ago
The irony of your post is that his death is a vivid demonstration of one reason why humans engage in flock behavior: to develop social memory of what's safe to eat. Those who stayed with the flock lived meaningful lives--they got jobs they had kids, they propagated their genes. He didn't live a meaningful life--he died painfully in his 20's in the woods because he ate a lethal dose of neurotoxins.
- base698 13y ago
  Better stay in your manufactured suburban home and eat plastic wrapped pastries like everyone else.
  - hga 13y ago
    You could still stay at the edge of the flock and follow a zillion people who've "gone back to nature" ... but the nature of post-hunter-gatherer agriculture. Stick to growing plants and raising animals we're on very solid grounds WRT short term toxicity vs. "This wild stuff doesn't seem to be deadly" and then accidentally find out the conditions and dosages in which it turns out to be. The flock itself has value; you don't have live with someone else, but as jusben1369 points out, if he'd so much as broken his leg falling down the steps of the bus he'd have ended up just as dead. Regular contact with a neighbor would have saved him, but he had no reserves and no margin for error.
    - base698 13y ago
      I'm just pointing out that some risk is necessary and complete risk aversion can lead to undesirable outcomes. A lot of people here probably moved far from their home base to work at a startup for example. Some were exposed to completely new cultures and lost comforts of home because of it. If they did what their family or friends did they would have stayed home and not took the risk. People from my home state think California is an awful place. I moved here for work and couldn't imagine living anywhere else--imagine if I'd of took their word.
      - deleted 13y ago
anigbrowl 13y ago
Can you say the same for your own life? Hmm, yes.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

lrm242 13y ago

Give me a break. The guy was most certainly not an independent thinker. Nor was he a critical thinker. Nor did he have any respect for the challenge he was taking on. He was an angst ridden teenage boy captured in an twenty something's body that never learned the difference between fantasy and reality. Most importantly, he never learned that in the real world there are consequences for stupid actions.

Zimahl 13y ago
This. The previous comment is the reason why McCandless is such a polarizing figure. Those who prepare and go on a quest without suffering negative consequences are somehow derided for not being independent thinkers, somehow cheapened for not risking enough. "Adventure is just bad planning." - Roald Amundsen
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  I like to think of adventure as good planning combined with inherently difficult circumstances. The first treks to the poles were quite the adventure, yet they were also highly methodical and carefully planned.
- wwweston 13y ago
  The good admiral has a point, but I don't think it gets to the heart of the McCandless drama. For that, I think I'd look to Norman Maclean's _Young Men and Fire_ where he talks about smoke jumpers: "It is very important to a lot of people to make unmistakably clear to themselves and to the universe that they love the universe but are not intimidated by it and will not be shaken by it, no matter what it has in store. Moreover, they demand something from themselves early in life that can be taken ever after as a demonstration of this abiding feeling... "For many former Smokejumpers, then, smokejumping is not closely tied up with their [eventual] way of life, but is more something that is necessary for them to pass through and not around and, once it is unmistakably done, does not have to be done again. The 'it' is within, and is the need to settle some things with the universe and ourselves before taking on the 'business of the world,' which isn't all that special or hard but takes time. This 'it' is the something special within that demands we do something special, and 'it' could be within a lot of us." If people here are reading this and haven't already realized some parallels between not just McCandless and smokejumpers but also entrepreneurs I'd be surprised. Now, you can draw distinctions between McCandless and smokejumpers, too: the later train and drill and prepare, probably as well as Amundsen could be satisfied with. And their work has a practical end. But their work is still an adventure because they also operate in an area of high risk, and as a result they sometimes pay a high cost. And they don't do this job for entirely practical reasons. They do it because they have a need for an internal narrative that settles certain things and establishes a kind of identity, they do it because they need something off the beaten track for middle class success. McCandless was clearly looking for that. I think it's fair to ask if he'd been a little less romantic about it and a little more thoughtful whether he might have had both his survival adventure and his survival. Then again, unless you're Batman or some other protagonist whose superpower is acute anticipation by authorial fiat, it's mitigated by the limits of the best laid plans.
  - cpncrunch 13y ago
    I think it's an interesting point you raise about entrepreneurs, and I think that is why I feel a connection to Chris. I certainly know that I seem to think differently from that vast majority of people. That is useful in coming up with novel ideas, but it can also make it challenging fitting into society.
  - Zimahl 13y ago
    I see what you are saying but like you said, smoke jumpers prepare. While they might jump into hazardous conditions it is not done without a risk:reward ratio well above 'adventure'. When best laid plans fail they are forgiven because there were at least plans.
  - Tloewald 13y ago
    Admiral? As far as I know, Roald Amundsen was not affiliated with any military. Ironically he died while trying to rescue other, less competent, explorers.
    - wwweston 13y ago
      You're quite right, in my head I'd accidentally lumped him in with fellow polar explorers Peary and Scott as a Navy guy.
  - comrade_ogilvy 13y ago
    Smoke jumpers are taking on a job that offers a boon to others, so I politely give them the benefit of the doubt. Thus it is an exercise in adult behavior, even if the details of their personal motives are more ambiguous. I do recognize a degree of courage in a young man going into the wild to heal the angst and alienation plaguing his soul. Yet I bristle at the suggestion such is automatically heroic or independent thinking, and (implicitly or explicitly) the less wounded amongst us can be dismissed as "sheep", as some admirers have done in this discussion. I am sorry, but I see no evidence that McCandless ever had a single original thought in his head. He never completed the "hero's journey" in either the literary or practical sense -- he failed to achieve enlightenment and return with his boon, to help himself and/or others. He failed. He may have had some courage to admire, but he ultimately failed when it came to the big important stuff. McCandless was an adolescent in a man's body -- he was not proven capable of handling adult responsibilities. That is not necessarily a negative in itself -- we are where we are in life, and being honest about it and doing something about it is a fine thing. But I am not going to be patient with people lecturing genuine adults about how this adolescent has deep insights into life. Sorry, but that is just wishful thinking by people who mistake ignorance and low intellectual standards for originality.
- Goladus 13y ago
  > Those who prepare and go on a quest without suffering negative consequences are somehow derided for not being independent thinkers, somehow cheapened for not risking enough. Who is "deriding them for not being independent thinkers?" Maybe others who go on quests are independent in their own way, none of the comments here are trying to say one way or the other. What the comment DOES imply though, is that there are a lot of people who don't try anything like that at all, no matter the level of preparation.
emilsedgh 13y ago
Your comment sounds like he harmed other people with his stupid actions. He was harmless to everyone but himself. And the consequence, he paid it with his life. The nobel part is that he actually left everything behind while most of us are drowning into urban life. He wasnt a hero in traditional sense of 'saving, helping' other people. He is a hero who had what it takes to leave society behind while we cannot let go of smallest of things.
- brianobush 13y ago
  Society isn't evil in and of itself, though it does contain evil. Humans are social creatures, so why is leaving what we need/depend upon heroic?
  - emilsedgh 13y ago
    "Humans are social creatures, so why is leaving what we need/depend upon heroic?" He challenged that idea. Isnt that heroic? To let go of whole society. Everything and Everyone. Please, at least agree with me that what he did was daring. So damn daring that makes him a hero to me.
    - brianobush 13y ago
      Yes, I do agree that what he did was daring. In my book, a bit crazy. But that can be a good thing, in measured doses.
  - cpncrunch 13y ago
    (in reply to emilsedgh) Because he was trying to find meaning and purpose in his life. What struck me most powerfully was that he did actually discover the meaning of life (or at least one aspect of it) when he says "happiness only real when shared". So it appears that he did actually figure out how to have a meaningful life, but unfortunately never actually got to put it into practice. That is the saddest part of the whole story for me.
- kamaal 13y ago
  >>The nobel part is that he actually left everything behind while most of us are drowning into urban life. You make it look like its a sin to live in a city.
scott_s 13y ago
Nor did he have any respect for the challenge he was taking on. The conclusion is that he died from a specific set of circumstances that few people knew were deadly. I think that directly counters the notion that he "he had no respect for the challenge" because I believe people arrive at that conclusion backwards: he died doing it, so he must have been foolhardy.
- lrm242 13y ago
  He went into the Alaskan wilderness without a map. That demonstrates a complete lack of respect for nature AND his own life.

guywithabike 13y ago

If having "some bad luck" and living a "meaningful life" means I die of starvation / poisoning alone in a forest, then I guess you can count me out.

vecter 13y ago

How was Chris's life more meaningful than everyone else's?

untog 13y ago

he chose to live a meaningful life instead of being another sheep. Can you say the same for your own life? Yeah, I can. Most of us can. 'Sheep' is such an over-used term that covers so much. Getting a full time job for a company doesn't make your a 'sheep', you can still leave a happy and meaningful life. People say (though I have no personal experience) that having children is the most meaningful thing you can do in your life. If you do, maybe nothing else matters? The point is, it's ironic to me that you're deriding all the "BS in modern society". To me, the biggest load of BS in modern society is this first world preoccupation with "meaning", "purpose" and all that other junk. The vast majority of people out there don't even have the time to stop and think about these things. None of us can judge what McCandless did with his life because none of us are him and know how he felt as he was dying. But if I was him, I would have regrets.

base698 13y ago
I don't believe sheep is overused when a huge population of people are pursuing material gains for people who don't care. The short list of what this leads to: depression, hopelessness, addiction, dietary diseases, and other first world problems. All trying to keep up with the Joneses. There are more meaningful pursuits.
- untog 13y ago
  There are more meaningful pursuits. Like Chris McCandless's one that resulted in death? Seriously, you can't hold him up as an idol of a 'better life' when his life was cut short very, very prematurely. I'm not qualified to judge whether depression and dietary diseases are better than death, but I think it's at least worth debating. And few people pursue material gains for the purpose of simply having them. Like I said, for a great many people in the world, being a parent is hugely meaningful. It leads them to pursue material gains in order to provide for their children and watch them grow in comfort. That does not make them 'sheep'. If they are then everyone is a sheep. You are an "anti-'sheep'" sheep.
  - base698 13y ago
    I'm not saying to hold him up as an idol. I'm just saying, if you aren't happy and you are "successful" then you may have to rethink your approach. Happiness is hard and a lot of work, and I know a lot of people never figure it out. If you're trying what consumer culture is offering and you're miserable, then maybe try something else? I would highly debate it's few. There's a reason AdBusters struck such a nerve.

rayiner 13y ago

The irony of your post is that his death is a vivid demonstration of one reason why humans engage in flock behavior: to develop social memory of what's safe to eat. Those who stayed with the flock lived meaningful lives--they got jobs they had kids, they propagated their genes. He didn't live a meaningful life--he died painfully in his 20's in the woods because he ate a lethal dose of neurotoxins.

base698 13y ago
Better stay in your manufactured suburban home and eat plastic wrapped pastries like everyone else.
- hga 13y ago
  You could still stay at the edge of the flock and follow a zillion people who've "gone back to nature" ... but the nature of post-hunter-gatherer agriculture. Stick to growing plants and raising animals we're on very solid grounds WRT short term toxicity vs. "This wild stuff doesn't seem to be deadly" and then accidentally find out the conditions and dosages in which it turns out to be. The flock itself has value; you don't have live with someone else, but as jusben1369 points out, if he'd so much as broken his leg falling down the steps of the bus he'd have ended up just as dead. Regular contact with a neighbor would have saved him, but he had no reserves and no margin for error.
  - base698 13y ago
    I'm just pointing out that some risk is necessary and complete risk aversion can lead to undesirable outcomes. A lot of people here probably moved far from their home base to work at a startup for example. Some were exposed to completely new cultures and lost comforts of home because of it. If they did what their family or friends did they would have stayed home and not took the risk. People from my home state think California is an awful place. I moved here for work and couldn't imagine living anywhere else--imagine if I'd of took their word.
    - deleted 13y ago

anigbrowl 13y ago

Can you say the same for your own life? Hmm, yes.