The first way would include a logical perspective and analysis of McCandless' actions, seeing it as a rude move and an idea of ​​freedom and exploration through the experiences of a young man. You might remember the concept of the typical “wild child” and use it as a defense to explain his actions. However, as a counterbalance to this perspective, there is the idea that McCandless went into freedom to serve as an indirect commentary on society and what it represents. This second way would include a spiritual/commentary perspective on freedom – instead of a logical perspective. McCandless denounces and rejects what he sees as material: money, objects, etc.: he chooses instead to go to the real world, before civilization, construction, cultivation. He goes into the desert, gains new experiences and meets new people. The connecting point in both perspectives of freedom would be the drive to obtain such an untouchable concept - in its purest form. Untouched and pristine, no matter how logical or illogical it may be