I read books: Into the Wild
It was interesting reading a book where the character being discussed on almost every page is a douchebag. The author tries to shine him in a happy, helpful, good character light, but every time I read something that Chris McCandless (the guy who starved to death, probably from mold poisoning, in Alaska) himself wrote, I’d find myself reeling in disgust.
The guy’s got a sense of self righteousness derived from his abstinence in all things we pride in regular society. Family, career, money, relationships, he avoids or lashes at all of them. In doing so he thinks that he’s exploring his own spiritual frontier, somehow ignorant to the idea that development can happen by establishing relationships or working hard and exploring those areas, instead of just finding remote camp grounds.
It’s possible that McCandless was on to something, and that the only way to be happy is to have an unknown future, but I don’t accept most of his claims simply because he’s not experienced the other side. He writes to a guy that he needs to abandon his house and traditional life and live on the road, or he’ll never be happy, which makes me think, “how would you know?”
I’m happy having a family, a career, money, and relationships. I haven’t gone to the same extremes that this guy did (and I’ve lived as a consequence), but I think this is the right route for me. What’s the point of judging everybody else for not wanting to hitch hike for years?
His criticisms generally ring hollow, much like a virgin’s claim that sex isn’t worth it, and because of that I find that I had a lot less sympathy for the guy. Still, it’s a really well told biography, especially considering that the guy tried to drop off the map for several years. The author has experience climbing mountains in Alaska and elsewhere, so he provided several insights that painted how scary and remote the Alaskan wilderness can be.
meezy said:
Aug 11, 08 at 9:02 amI haven’t read this book, so my commentary is useless regarding your actual assessment of the book. however, aren’t you condemning him for the exact same things that you and I do on our blogs, and humans in general do when stating their opinions?
Terry(paraphrasing from your blog ‘GenY Wussy’): If you don’t get married and start a family then your contributions to the world are probably meaningless and you are wussy.
Me(paraphrasing): I work a shitload for a startup and its badass and if you aren’t doing that you can suck my balls.
Now granted, you admit you were drunk in your post and not to be taken seriously, but still the pro-family opinion rings true through several of your posts, albeit not with the same force.
My whole point here is that when people feel strongy enough about their opinions/ideas to share them, usually they promote them as being the best.
Tarzan: Swinging from ropes is the best
Douchebag: Popping your collar is the best
Pres. GWB: Being retarded is the best
In the Wild Author: Being in the wild is the best
If he isn’t adamant about his opinions, whey write a book about them?
terry said:
Aug 11, 08 at 9:19 amI thought the same thing as I was writing the post, but then I justified it by thinking that I’ve done the just married w/out kids thing. You’ve worked at a non-startup.
Further, I think contributions and learning experiences seem to be more tangible, so they can be evaluated from external viewpoints. Happiness, on the other hand, is an internalized system that (to my knowledge) can’t be examined thoroughly.
meezy said:
Aug 11, 08 at 11:12 amThere are certain things that you can easily experience both sides of before making an opinion.
But lifelong choices where once you take one path you essentially lose the other one, i.e. having kids vs. living alone in the wild, can’t be experienced from both sides. That doesn’t make the opinion less valid if you have experienced one side and learned through other’s experiences something about the other side.
I haven’t read the book so I don’t know if he makes assumptions about other people’s happiness or not. My point is that his opinion on living life in the wild without ever having experienced other lifestyles is just as valid as your opinion on having children at your age without ever having experienced not having children at your age.
Also, to me it seems a lot of your happiness comes from your contributions and experiences, so in evaluating them, you can examine happiness. But I’m just saying that because I like to argue.
terry said:
Aug 11, 08 at 12:02 pmTaking things only in the context of this post, I tried to be careful not to assert my opinions like the other guy does. He definitely makes claims about how people can’t be happy if they’re not vagabonds. My whole beef with the guy is that he’s telling other people how to be happy, which is pointless. If everybody was made happy by the same things, people would be the exact same across the board, I think, as they’d be driven to do the same things.
As for the GenY thing, I’m not quite sure what I wrote there, so I’m just going to say it was correct, because you’re wrong and I like to argue.
As for the kids, it’s pretty fair to say that at this point I can’t experience not having kids. I passed a point of no return about 14 months ago. That said, I wasn’t making claims about happiness (I don’t think), it was more start working society to your favor, or something like that. I’d have to get drunk to reiterate those points.
terry said:
Aug 11, 08 at 12:03 pmAnd I was going to pick on you for just upping your pagerank, but you’re going to yourmom.com YMDC ftw.