Quoted By:
Neither. That should be obvious.
And it's a) an enormous waste of time and b) idiotic (not to mention disrespectful) to use one dead guy to represent your view of a very vague idea.
On one side there's the people who think it's acceptable and noble to live at extremes in pursuit of sincerity and meaning in life. Taking drastic action and ignoring social norms is liberating and a symbol of freedom. Physical safety is unimportant; living a life of security only ensures you will never live to the fullest.
Then we have the other corner, who believe it's foolish and immature to act so recklessly and put yourself in danger for a non-specific ideal that's really just a manifestation of angst and identity crisis. There's nothing wrong with danger, but entering a dangerous situation without the right preparations just shows that you aren't mature enough to be in that situation, and pretending that it's somehow more "noble" is obnoxious and misleading. Not having proper equipment doesn't bring you any closer to nature, it just shows how ignorant you are of how reality works.
These are both entirely valid and I can personally sympathize with both, but we need to realize that this argument did not start with Christopher McCandless, he is only one example of this. There have been countless people who've done this kind of thing and there will be more in the future. One thing everybody should be able to agree on is that the only thing unique about McCandless's situation is that he had a book and a movie based on him.
Also, why do people show up in every one of these threads going "oh wat an asshole so bad to his parents"?
His parents were abusive and his father had another family on the other side of the country, something the whole family knew about but chose to ignore and instead pretended they were a perfect suburban home. You act like someone with money and a family can't have problems. That particular argument has been pissing me off.
