“I went to the woods
because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of
life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came
to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life,
living is so dear; nor did I wish to practise resignation, unless it was quite
necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live
so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a
broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its
lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and
genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were
sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in
my next excursion.”
--Henry David Thoreau, Walden,
Chapter 2
The quote above
perfectly synthesizes with the movie Into the Wild. I have to say; this was one of the movies that has probably
gotten me thinking the most out of any production I have seen. Sure, it’s easy
to feel inspired by a movie, think about it for a while, and go back to living
your life the exact same way you left it before you sat on your couch for a few
hours. Watching Chris McCandless leave everything behind to escape the reality
he dreaded and search for happiness, however, was more, I feel, than
inspiration for a brief moment.
Being at the stages
of our lives we find ourselves in right now, we feel both pressured to follow
certain paths and continuously told to do what we love, what makes us happy.
Even though the time to make the final decisions regarding one of those paths
has not arrived yet, that question never leaves my mind. Am I willing to give
up comfort, family, friends, habits to search for what I want? Sure, maybe my “Alaska” is not so extreme as to actually
leave everything and hitchhike to Alaska;
truth is I still am pretty clueless about what my Alaska is. This relates to
the movie Lost In Translation as
well; having always lived in Curitiba, Brazil, I do not know whether I am
comfortable living around the world, exploring new places and meeting all kinds
or different people, something I so often dream about now. Both Bob Harris and
Charlotte learnt to enjoy their environment at one point with each other, and
appreciate the different culture and different surrounding they found
themselves in. As much as I love to travel, I have only been at a different
country for no longer than two weeks, and I must admit, I probably don’t get
off the tourist track very often either, if at all. Cosmopolitanism, as
suggested by Appiah, portrays the possibility that citizens from all corners of
the world are able to connect with each other, no matter what they believe in
or grew up doing. Relating to that, Planetary
Culture makes a fascinating point on how by the term “planetary culture”
the author means that “a natural society is one that follows the way,
imperfectly but authentically” and how that is directly related to the global
aspect of Buddhism.
This brief video explains the general gist of Cosmopolitanism, and how it requires acceptance, and not general consensus on everything.
Interacting with different cultures is probably one
of the things I look most forward to in college. I think it’s fascinating how
people from all cultures and backgrounds are able to come together in times of
chaos, desperation or joy and love, due to the fact of adaption and acceptance.
“Most Americans are
against gay marriage, conflicted about abortion, and amazed (and appalled) that
a Saudi woman can’t get a driver’s license. But my guess is that they’re not as
opposed to gay marriage as they were twenty years ago.” (Appiah)
As we are all
familiar with, technology seems to be presenting itself a continuously growing
tool, which helps communication with people all over the globe, promoting a
Cosmopolitan world. As I was reading The
Global Soul, however, something caught my eye, “We may find that we have
more and more ‘connections’ in the telephone, on airplanes, senses, and fewer
and fewer in the classic human sense”; Is technology actually detracting from
genuine human interaction? I thought this was an interesting perspective and was able to find this intriguing take on the subject: