The association such men (and world changing men they were) have had between some higher attainment and a solitary, simple existence in the wilderness has provoked thoughts within my mind on the truth of such claims. Does such a base existence provide greater reward and satisfaction than the consumeristic life most of us live? Does it lead to realizations and answers we would not otherwise find? As an atheist, I lack any belief in the validity of claims Jesus, the buddha, or mohammed made. But that is not to say i reject the possibility of a greater self awareness achieved by such a lifestyle, which is what i believe chris mc Candless was ultimately seeking. Chris no where mentions religious motives behind his lifestyle, rather he simply believes its unpredictability and closeness with nature provides a greater satisfaction than that of wealth, which he holds in contempt. Perhaps there is truth to this statement, though i cannot see it applying to any except the purest intellectuals among us.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Solitude and nature
This summer's reading on 'Into the Wild' has provoked thoughts within my mind on the withdrawal from society of certain known and important figures in search of higher fulfillment. Chris McCandless, inspired by the writings of Thoreau and Tolstoy, decided to pursue a solitary life in the american wilderness after graduating college, in an effort to escape the confines of routine and consumerism. He believes such a lifestyle offers superior rewards to those of the average citizen. Various religious figures are known to have practiced this same withdrawal from human contact: Jesus wandered in the desert for forty days and nights, the buddha meditated under a fig tree for 49 days, and the prophet muhammed likewise withdrew to the caves of Hira to meditate in solitude. The rewards these three sought were life changing experiences and revelations in their solitary wanderings. They all claim to have found them: Jesus, as the bible has it, describes being visited by satan, the buddha reaches enlightenment, and Mohammed is visited by the angel gabriel.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In my opinion, I believe that being in the wild does allow for realizations not otherwise attainable in society. McCandless followed blindly after two men that could be considered hypocrites. Tolstoy preached abstinence, yet had several illegitimate children. Thoreau believed in being completely enclosed in nature, yet he wrote Walden's Pond in the outskirts of a town. I believe that immersion in nature can be helpful for the intellectual (and non-intellectual for that matter), but human relationships are necessary for a sane existence.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that you don't believe that you could find the types of things that those of religious background found. Despite that though, you claim it might be worth the withdrawal from society. My question to you then is what exactly would you seek to find? You stated that you do not believe in a specific religion or god, but have any others succeeded when religion was not what they were searching for? You said that you would not be opposed to going into nature in this same way. Do you think you would be able to succeed and come out as a new person with some sort of gain from the experience that could be found only in nature?
ReplyDelete