I am currently reading Into The Wild, by Jon Krakauer. I'm not typically into the non-fiction, outdoorsy type books, but I've been dying to see the movie so I decided I needed to read the book first. I'm totally hooked. The story of Chris McCandless is as fascinating as it is bizarre and unfamiliar. I assume the majority of this book's fans are fellow outdoorsy, socially reclusive, and adventurous trekkers, which is why I find my intrique in this book so surprising.
In particular, however, I wanted to go over a concept that Krakauer touches upon - one that really frazzles my mind. I spent a good 20 minutes trying to find the specific passage but nevertheless, I gave up and now I'm cursing myself for not writing it down when I first came upon it. Anyway, Krakauer talks about McCandless as well as countless other men who disappear into the wild to live temporary or permanent lives of solitude. For each person he describes, readers realize the social pattern in each of these adventurers: while some are more readily social than others, all of them have a perpetual need to get away, to search the earth for something stronger than what can be provided through companionship.
This concept really got to me. I've always considered people who are able to spend time alone to be stronger in a sense - solitude forces people to reflect upon their actions and the general course of their lives. Additionally, people need to know that it is up to the individual to make him or herself happy, not the people who surround them (one of the most important beliefs in Buddhism). The vision quest program I partook in at Marin Academy taught me that more than any other experience in my lifetime thus far and I will never forget it.
That said, though, I am in LOVE with the people in this life who I have met, who I know, and who I have yet to meet. It is my friends, family, and social experiences that I thrive off of, that have shaped everything in my life thus far and have helped give me a better idea of what I want to do in the future.
I think about Chris McCandless, from the book, and I see his situation in two ways: Part of his allure was his ability to denounce all the material possessions in his life (including people) and let nature be his best and only friend. To do something like this, in my eyes, takes such courage and bravery and is something I don't think I could ever do in a thousand lifetimes. On the other hand though, his actions are maddening. He left his family and friends and virtually erased his existence from everything he had known because his quench for nature and solitude was too strong. Being around people for a long while made him antsy and uncomfortable. Does this almost seem like a weakness in a way? Krakauer said that for McCandless, and the others like him, ambition and yearning were strong characteristics - so much so that the the company of others did not even come close to sustaining the sense of fulfillment. Although I like to remind myself of the importance of solitude every once in a while (even if it consists of just sitting at home and reading for an hour or two), it is the friendships and relationships in my life that DO sustain my sense of fulfillment.
I understand that we are all different. I also understand that the beauty in this young man's desire for solitude acts as a voice against the rising dependency on material possessions, technology, and the general busy-ness of life. Lastly, I understand that the confirmation of not needing to depend on other people for happiness and fulfillment is important. Yet, once you can confirm these things for yourself and you know that you understand what the priorities in life are, then it is ok to allow yourself the happiness that does come from the people who surround you.
In particular, however, I wanted to go over a concept that Krakauer touches upon - one that really frazzles my mind. I spent a good 20 minutes trying to find the specific passage but nevertheless, I gave up and now I'm cursing myself for not writing it down when I first came upon it. Anyway, Krakauer talks about McCandless as well as countless other men who disappear into the wild to live temporary or permanent lives of solitude. For each person he describes, readers realize the social pattern in each of these adventurers: while some are more readily social than others, all of them have a perpetual need to get away, to search the earth for something stronger than what can be provided through companionship.
This concept really got to me. I've always considered people who are able to spend time alone to be stronger in a sense - solitude forces people to reflect upon their actions and the general course of their lives. Additionally, people need to know that it is up to the individual to make him or herself happy, not the people who surround them (one of the most important beliefs in Buddhism). The vision quest program I partook in at Marin Academy taught me that more than any other experience in my lifetime thus far and I will never forget it.
That said, though, I am in LOVE with the people in this life who I have met, who I know, and who I have yet to meet. It is my friends, family, and social experiences that I thrive off of, that have shaped everything in my life thus far and have helped give me a better idea of what I want to do in the future.
I think about Chris McCandless, from the book, and I see his situation in two ways: Part of his allure was his ability to denounce all the material possessions in his life (including people) and let nature be his best and only friend. To do something like this, in my eyes, takes such courage and bravery and is something I don't think I could ever do in a thousand lifetimes. On the other hand though, his actions are maddening. He left his family and friends and virtually erased his existence from everything he had known because his quench for nature and solitude was too strong. Being around people for a long while made him antsy and uncomfortable. Does this almost seem like a weakness in a way? Krakauer said that for McCandless, and the others like him, ambition and yearning were strong characteristics - so much so that the the company of others did not even come close to sustaining the sense of fulfillment. Although I like to remind myself of the importance of solitude every once in a while (even if it consists of just sitting at home and reading for an hour or two), it is the friendships and relationships in my life that DO sustain my sense of fulfillment.
I understand that we are all different. I also understand that the beauty in this young man's desire for solitude acts as a voice against the rising dependency on material possessions, technology, and the general busy-ness of life. Lastly, I understand that the confirmation of not needing to depend on other people for happiness and fulfillment is important. Yet, once you can confirm these things for yourself and you know that you understand what the priorities in life are, then it is ok to allow yourself the happiness that does come from the people who surround you.
No comments:
Post a Comment