Free Will In Into The Wild, By Jon Krakauer

Jon Krakauer concludes the book by offering in some of his own personal experiences. "The hint of what was concealed in those shadows terrified me, but I caught sight of something in the glimpse, some forbidden and elemental riddle that was no less compelling than the sweet, hidden petals of a woman’s sex. In my case-and, I believe, in the case of Chris McCandless-that was a very different thing from wanting me to die."(156). Both McCandless and Krakauer were both at one point in their lives searching for something in the wild. Krakauer proposes this argument to prove to the audience that McCandless was not crazy due to the fact that Krakauer himself was

Throughout his adolescent to young adult years it was very clear that Chris had an attachment to the wild. In chapter 11, as Walt reminisces about Chris and their family camp trips he reflects, “‘Chris loved those trips, the longer the better . . .’”(108). Even at a very young age, Chris had a fascination about living within

Jon Krakauer had the same experience as McCandless with his family and travel to Alaska, but Krakauer knew more about survival and had company in case of any danger. Krakauer compares, “as a young man, I was unlike Mccandless in many important regard… And I suspect we had a similar intensity, a similar heedlessness, a similar agitation of the soul” (55). Acknowledging McCandless’s background, Chris left society because, in Krakauer’s point of view, of the “agitation of the soul” and the “similar heedless” of society. McCandless didn’t agree with society’s standards that being successful meant having a well paid occupation, especially when McCandless’s parents enforced it onto him. McCandless truly did not want to uphold the wishes of his parents, for Chris to go to college and get high paying career, but it wasn’t what Chris really wanted, so he left all of his conflicts with his parents and his values or “agitation of the soul” to create a new identity as Alex Supertramp and live in the wild. In today’s modern world, humanity lives in an environment where people are controlled and dependent on others. Chris’s father is someone he despises because of his characteristic of being controlling. Walter becomes controlling over Chris, who pressured him into college. As a result, Chris has an “agitation of the soul” to become independent, and a “heedlessness” for society and had an “intensity” for

In conclusion, krakauer has a bias towards chris’s life story. From chris’s life matching his own in many ways to how carine requested some of chris’s life to not be disclosed. Each bias keeps the book from telling a completely truthful depiction of chris mccandless’s

Angie Bachmann married young, a typical wife and mother of three, develops a devastating addiction to gambling, leading to the family’s bankruptcy. She was a bored housewife and a stay-at-home mom who one day decided to go gambling which led to her addiction until she lost everything in gambling at Harrah’s Casino. This book, The Neurology of Free Will written by Charles Duhigg, illustrates the challenging case of Angie Bachmann who gambled away every penny she inherited after her parents’ death, and then another $125,000 she borrowed from the casino. Harrah’s casino sued Bachmann then for the money she borrowed and held responsible for her actions. Bachmann, on the other hand, countersued defending her case. She claimed that even though

Lastly, Chris Mccandless got to fulfill his dream, live his own life, and now he even got to find his inner self, find out who he truly is. Chris was the kind of person that lived dangerously unlike most people, he was different “It is hardly unusual for a young man to be drawn to a pursuit considered reckless by his elders...Danger has always held a certain allure. McCandless, in his fashion, merely took risk-taking to its logical extreme” (Krakauer, 182). Chris’s true self-was one that was riskful and daring until he could finish the task. Furthermore, he was different from others and throughout his journey, others could see that. In the end that was the kind of person Chris Mccandless was, and this is the person he became after fulfilling his dream and living his own life. In contrast, others did

The story of Chris McCandless has become a pop culture phenomenon. Many are fascinated by his desire to abandon his family and society and “walk into the wild” (Krakauer 69). Newscasts, magazine articles, movies, and books have tried to define what motivated him to give up everything for his Alaskan odyssey; however, the answers died with McCandless. People make assumptions about him without knowing his entire story. McCandless chose to do the unconventional, making people think he was either foolish or brave and determined, but ultimately he was selfish for doing what he did.

Seven billion people in the world, all with unique personalities, on this earth to serve a purpose in their own life, or someone else’s. Chris McCandless was a man with unique qualities, and served to please himself and coincedently others as well. In the book “Into the Wild” the author, Jon Krakauer, explains the adventures and mishaps Chris McCandless went through in his life. Krakauer admired Chris for his personality, and his ability to be determined and hardworking at everything he did. Chris McCandless was an admirable man, with his individual view on life, and the way he could touch a person’s life and impact them forever.

Krakauer recalls “the revelation that he was merely human” and like himself, his father had made mistakes in raising him out of love and longing for success from his son. “Two decades after the fact, I discovered that my rage was gone and had been for years” (148); two decades Chris was shorted. That time, though lengthy, had potential to heal wounds inflicted by his childhood fallout with his father. Krakauer contrasts his seemingly insignificant fallout with his father to Chris’ harsh one as a reconciliation is eventually reached. Jon implies that Chris’ isolationism causes minute insanity and uses that as a distinctive difference between the two hinting that his own sanity has contributed to his current livelihood and tolerable relationship with his father. After college and maturing, Krakauer comes to the realization that his father’s actions had been for the best and had Chris not acted so rashly by beginning a nomadic life with little belongings and personal ties, he would not have died in Alaska without contact to his family, whom he had once been close

Chris shows self-reliance multiply times during Into the Wild. One place that we see Chris show self-reliance is when he got a ride from Jim Gallien. “I’m absolutely positive,” he assured Gallien, “I won’t run into anything I can’t deal with on my own”(Krakauer 6). Chris is saying he is extremely confident with himself showing self-reliance by saying that he does not need another person to look after him. Again with Jim Gallien, Chris shows how self-reliant he is by not needing the government. “Hell, no,” Alex Scoffed. “How I feed myself is none of the government’s business. Fuck their stupid rules”(Krakauer 6). By saying this Chris is showing that he does not want other people to run his life and he wants to live it the he wants. On May 11 Chris started to climb a glacier

Although Chris McCandless’ controlling and toxic family environment was a major motive for his escape, his deep-seated internal battle was simply an irresistible impulse for discovery and liberty. Chris’ journey shows a new level of freedom; what true independence holds. He set out into nature alone without support of family or friends, searching for a path unlike those of most, and running from a barred cage of conventional living. Unsatisfied and somewhat angry with himself and his life of abundance in money, opportunity, and security, his preceding experiences and determined character lead him to an inevitable flee into no-mans land. Throughout the novel, Krakauer wants the reader to understand that there is more to Chris than his habit of criticising authority and defying society’s pressures. He needed more from himself, and more from life. He wasn’t an ordinary man, therefore could not live with an ordinary life. Krakauer demonstrates this by creating a complex persona for Chris that draws you in from the beginning.

Timshel; meaning “thou mayest”, holds a significant role in East of Eden. It shows that anyone can desire to surmount vile in their hearts and create morality within them self. In the novel, Steinbeck portrays the significance of timshel through the introduction of free will, the internal conflict of Caleb, and the blessing of Adam.

Burnt all of his own money and forms of identification, then drives to arizona and leaves his car in the middle of the desert and from there he disappeared until his family grew so worried that they hired a private investigator to find him and he did but later lost him and did not find him again. Chris’s impact on his family was negative because he made his family worried about him and wonder why he just disappeared and they never got an answer because 4 months after he got to alaska he died of starvation. “Seven weeks after the body of his son turned up in Alaska wrapped in a blue sleeping bag that Billie had sewn for Chris from a kit, Walt studies a sailboat scudding beneath the window of his waterfront townhouse. ‘How is it,’ he wonders aloud as he gazes blankly across Chesapeake Bay, ‘that a kid with so much compassion could cause his parents so much pain?’” (Into The Wild 103-104) this quote shows how his parents were shocked at the news because he had caused them so much pain.

Journalist John Tierney, in his article, “Do You Have Free Will? Yes, It’s the Only Choice,” explores the notion of free will and exhibits how belief or disbelief in free will affects an individual’s life. By posing a hypothetical situation through rhetorical questions, incorporating experimental research, and using accusatory diction towards the opposing perspective, Tierney conveys his perception that a regard for free will allows for individuals to gain a greater sense of morality and ambition, even if the notion of free will is still disputed.

Whether we have free will is widely controversial. The absence of a universal definition poses a primary problem to this question. In this essay, I shall base my argument on a set of three conditions for free will: 1) that the actor is unconstraint in his action, 2) the actor could have acted otherwise and 3) the actor must be ‘ultimately responsible’ (Kane, 2005: 121) for his action. After I have explained them, I shall apply these conditions to three scenarios that cover most, if not any, circumstances that occur when taking choices. The purpose of this essay is to show that if my conditions are true, none of the scenarios is based on free will and thus we do not have free will.