To Build A Fire Philosophy Essay

For this essay I chose to compare and contrast both Jack Londons What Life Means to Me and Stephen Cranes The Open Boat. I chose to use these two texts because both Jack London and Stephen Crane are reputable naturalist writers who display the idea of naturalism in two very adverse methods. Naturalism describes the very limited control that humans have over their own fate in comparison to the forces of the natural world. Despite what any individual may do in order to save themselves from a certain fate, they can never know with full certainty what the consequences of their actions will be.

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!

Essay Writing Service

In Jack London’s ‘To Build a Fire,’ it quickly becomes clear that nature will be the antagonist of the story. London writes of a man whose seemingly easy journey is made much more difficult due to the unpredictable power of nature. The first resistance that the man meets completely surrounds him. The temperature of his location is seventy-five-below zero (652). However, the man underestimates his enemy from the start and guesses that the temperature is twenty five degrees lower than it actually is. Aside from the extreme cold, the man also faces a hidden enemy. Snow-covered pools of water line the man’s path, and act almost as traps; as if set by nature to remind mankind that humans are more vulnerable and frail creatures than we would like to imagine. London also shows how man’s self-proclaimed superiority is falsely assumed. The man fails to realize his dog’s apprehension regarding their journey (981), and also fails to realize that the dog’s natural instinct for survival in such an extreme settings is far greater than his own. Later in the text the man thinks: “Any man who was a man could travel alone” (656) The man’s continued arrogance signifies that the man operates independent of nature. 

Although London illustrates how nature is a difficult, uncontrollable force, only the man is responsible for his own misfortune, as his circumstances are the consequences of his choices. The narrator explains that the man’s intention for embarking on his journey was “to take a look at the possibilities of getting out logs in the spring” (651); more than likely, he did not have to perform this task, which required taking ?the roundabout way? (978). Also, despite being a ?newcomer to the land? (977), the man fails to bring a human companion to the ?unprotected tip of the planet? (982): just as the Earth is exposed to space here, as the narrator describes, the man has little defense against the cold. The man is not ignorant of the extreme cold, but rather, arrogant; though warned about the conditions (982), the man does not bring anything except a small lunch (978). Another sign of his lack of preparation is his failure to sufficiently protect himself from frostbite: he ?experienced a pang of regret that he had not devised a nose-strap…[that] passed across the cheeks, as well, and saved them? (979). Granted, the man can not see the water he falls into (981), but the fundamental responsibility for the journey is his. Furthermore, he elects to build the fire to thaw himself under the spruce tree, which proves disastrous (983). The narrator notes, ?It was his own fault, rather, his mistake? (982); the man also recognizes this, and knows he alone must create a new fire. When he does not succeed at starting a fire or killing the dog (985), the man does not curse the matches or the numbness or the dog, but realizes his failure. Similar to deciding where to build the fire, the man chooses running as his course of action, which exhausts him significantly (986). Had the fatigue killed him, the result would have been two consequential degrees from his decision, but the man actually accepts death, opting to ?take it decently? (987): the man makes a conscious choice to submit to sleep, having given up his will to live. 

Though London illustrates how nature is a difficult external force, the man is responsible for his misfortune, as his circumstances are the consequences of his choices. The narrator explains that the man was traveling ?to take a look at the possibilities of getting out logs in the spring? (978); more than likely, he did not have to perform this task, which required taking ?the roundabout way? (978). Also, despite being a ?newcomer to the land? (977), the man fails to bring a human companion to the ?unprotected tip of the planet? (982): just as the Earth is exposed to space here, as the narrator describes, the man has little defense against the cold. The man is not ignorant of the extreme cold, but rather, arrogant; though warned about the conditions (982), the man does not bring anything except a small lunch (978). Another sign of his lack of preparation is his failure to sufficiently protect himself from frostbite: he ?experienced a pang of regret that he had not devised a nose-strap…[that] passed across the cheeks, as well, and saved them? (979). Granted, the man can not see the water he falls into (981), but the fundamental responsibility for the journey is his. Furthermore, he elects to build the fire to thaw himself under the spruce tree, which proves disastrous (983). The narrator notes, ?It was his own fault, rather, his mistake? (982); the man also recognizes this, and knows he alone must create a new fire. When he does not succeed at starting a fire or killing the dog (985), the man does not curse the matches or the numbness or the dog, but realizes his failure. Similar to deciding where to build the fire, the man chooses running as his course of action, which exhausts him significantly (986). Had the fatigue killed him, the result would have been two consequential degrees from his decision, but the man actually accepts death, opting to ?take it decently? (987): the man makes a conscious choice to submit to sleep, having given up his will to live. 

Instead of the extreme cold, the men in ?The Open Boat? must face the succession of waves while at sea in a ?ten-foot dingey? (904), circumstances over which they have little control. Like the unpredictability of the waves, another variable the men must accept is the wind pattern: a collective dialogue asserts, ?We’ll get ashore all right…if this wind holds…if we don’t catch hell in the surf? (905), qualifying their success as independent from their efforts. Though the men feel doomed since no one from shore sees them, in actuality ?there was not a life-saving station within twenty miles in either direction? (909); they have certainly relinquished control over their outcome, as one man proclaims, ?Ah, now, we’re all right!? when they see a man on the beach. The shark (914) symbolizes the chance circumstances to which the men attribute their salvation or death, as it happens to swim near the boat at night, excluding the men from whether it will attack or leave. Transitioning from chance circumstance to fate as the dominant force on their well-being, the men ask, ?If I am going to be drowned, why…was I allowed to come thus far and contemplate sand and trees?? and ?If [Fate] has decided to drown me, why did she not do it in the beginning and save me all this trouble? (909). Cursing the concept of destiny, the men evoke the question of how their effectiveness is limited if they are intended to die at sea. The narrator reinforces the notion that the men’s survival efforts should not be futile by calling their potential deaths an ?abominable injustice? (914). Crane likely seeks to remind that our vitality is subject to our human abilities when the narrator notes, ?Perhaps an individual must consider his own death to be the final phenomenon of nature? (918); as this is consistent with the normal occurrences of waves and wind, the implication here is that the correspondent is going to die because he has left his natural habitat, and though human, he is still governed by the laws of the world. 

Find Out How UKEssays.com Can Help You!

Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.

View our academic writing services

Unlike the man in ?To Build a Fire,? these men fail to realize their personal responsibility since they comfort themselves with the cognitive dissonance of fate; the previous paragraph discusses examples of limitation and determinism only by ignoring the fundamental issue of the story. The narrator explains, ?The correspondent…watched the waves and wondered why he was there? (904): these men have chosen to go out to sea (for reasons unstated), to board the dingey, to oblige the captain, and to work cooperatively in hopes of surviving. Clearly each man can only hold himself responsible for the circumstances in which he finds himself, as while any man, particularly the captain, could have caused the sinking of the ship, each individual (indirectly or directly) chose to occupy the ship. For example, the men are weak because ?none had slept any time worth mentioning…and?they had also forgotten to eat heartily? (907) before leaving the ship; also, though the narrator claims, ?A bath-towel was by some weird chance in the boat,? (910) one of the men obviously brought it with him. During the narrative the men can also make free choices, such as whether to sleep or continue rowing (913), and when to try for the shore (918). Sartre would explain the men swimming for the shore simultaneously as their movement away from anxiety: each man has the freedom to choose when he should swim for the shore, which causes him anguish; by following the others, this man does not have to face the anxiety of his free choice. Though the correspondent thinks, ?Drowning must really be a comfortable arrangement, a cessation of hostilities accompanied by a large degree of relief,? (919) he decides to endure the pain of swimming and facilitate his survival; the oiler does not reach the shore as a result of ?swimming strongly and rapidly? (918), but he is no less responsible for his outcome than the correspondent. The contrast between the consequences of these men’s choices illustrates how every man is ultimately responsible for his life and death. 

Jean-Paul Sartre explains that since consciousness is not a thing, and therefore not affected by the laws that govern things, it is free. Because each shift in consciousness annihilates the past, we exist in the present free from our pasts; thus, we are not determined by our pasts, and can make free choices in the present. Crane writes, ?There was this comradeship that the correspondent, for instance, who had been taught to be cynical of men, knew even at this time was the best experience of his life? (907); here, the correspondent can choose not to be cynical since he is not determined by his previous self. Crane further indicates the men?s freedom with ?Shipwrecks are apropos of nothing? (907) : the men at sea have been rid of everything that had defined them, leaving them free to decide whether to live or die. This nothingness is also represented by London’s tundra; the proximity to the emptiness of space affirms that the man is presently independent of anything, including fellow humans, that would influence his decision regarding survival. Sartre would explain that this man dies stuck in a mode of pre-reflective consciousness because of his solitude: the man can not see his mortality until he imagines himself looking at his frozen body with his children (987). A similar irony is seen when Crane’s men curse the vision of those attending the fictitious life-saving station; saying, ?They must have seen us by now,? (909) the men do not see that they alone are responsible for their survival.