About the Into the Wild (2007) movie with a Stoic perspective.
So this movie is about freedom. Emile Hirsch interprets Christopher Mccandless, a young man who after get graduate from college, donate his savings to charity; he leave his family and society to find freedom, to get rid of chains (according to the movie) like the law, family, and relationships. To live a kind of a primitive freedom.
But Christopher Mccandless had a dangerous concept of freedom, and what’s more, his acts were irrational (Stoically speaking). Let’s see how Stoicism see this.
According to Epictetus, 2 “(…)whoever has gained relief from grief, fear and anxiety, has gained freedom.” (Discourses, 24). Now Dr. Arthur Holmes of Wheaton College assure that the Stoics were looking for detachment (a kind of freedom) from worry, trouble in the mind, pain and externals. (Wheaton College, A History of Philosophy Stoicism, 46:00). But the question is, what is the Stoic point of view about the character of the movie? Well, if we ask Epictetus a concise answer about Christopher situation, his answer to us would be “(…) remember that they are doing or saying what they think is right.” (Enchiridion, 42). Christopher thought that the best thing to do was refusing a car from his father as a gift for finishing college; he donated his earnings to charity as a last gift to society; he abandon his dysfunctional family (only his sister knew about his intentions); he stole a small traveling boat (which was going to be available in a couple of years so he could travel across a river; and right after he met a couple of the hippie culture who lost their child before, he left them and even more… refused the love of a teenager, and a sentimental request to be the son of a lonely old man. The price for the freedom he was looking was irrationally high.
Purposefully i want to highlight the scene when Mccandless before living town, he got near a nice restaurant, and he looked across the window to see himself well suited and drinking with friends. At this point, he decided not to be like that, which touches a fundamental aspect of any philosophy: Ethics. Which is the equivalent of what to do, and what do not; however, this quest for freedom is not at all a virtue ethic, unlike Stoicism. So if Mccandless was a Stoic practitioner (to be more realist), at first he would consider the car that his father give him, but as a preferred indifferent; the money he otherwise would give to charity, probably he still would donate it but not all to use it to fulfill his obligations as a citizen, to support his family and maybe to give himself some pleasure. He would not abandon his family, and as an adult and son, would make the right thing to keep them together, welcoming the possibility that is beyond repair. About the boat, Stoically would be right not to waste time, or in this case, years, and simply judging the situation as Marcus Aurelius would put it “To cross from one way to another.” to make his desire nothing desirable (ironically). Even if is a test of patience, i believe it would’t be moderate. To simply put it, probably there’s others rivers to cross and thousands of other attractions. When it comes to the bohemian couple, guessing Christopher was traveling as anyone else, he would thank his company. About the teenager girl, who desire to have sex with him, he would probably refuse and sharing his argument to correct her (an action that is not romantic at all). And with the old man, guessing Chris, again would be traveling, he would enjoy and listen to make him feel better, and still able to see him from time to time.
Now the conclusion is that the Stoics were looking to be free from passions and concerns, but never to abandon society for good.
Sources:
*Penn, Sean, director. Into the Wild. Paramount Vantage, 2007. 148 min.
*Epictetus, Discourses (tr. Robin Hard) first edition, London, Penguin Books, 2008
*Wheaton College, A History of Philosophy, Stoicism” Youtube, April 14, educational video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLJNaLGK5Aw&t=2982s
