An unpopular take on The Alpinist

Thank God (see what I did there) for post limits.

It should be pointed out to Eric, Ywan, etc that the general public regards any type of climbing as unnecessarily dangerous and irresponsible. In other words, people view you through the same lens that you see MAL. Put that in your judgmental, hypocritical, insufferable pipe and smoke it. 

Eric Marxwrote:

 I was a devout atheist for 28 years.

How exactly is one a devout atheist? 

Balewrote:

Thank God (see what I did there) for post limits.

It should be pointed out to Eric, Ywan, etc that the general public regards any type of climbing as unnecessarily dangerous and irresponsible. In other words, people view you through the same lens that you see MAL. Put that in your judgmental, hypocritical, insufferable pipe and smoke it. 

I think we can all agree that people who ride crotch rockets are much worse though. And at least we aren’t proximity BASE splatters.

I don't think it's disrespectful to talk about what you saw in that film and debate what message it sent. In the same way I think it's good to talk about Free Solo and the message it sends. People (especially young) are going to see films and be influenced by them. Highly capable risk takers will always attract our attention for better (it's a amazing to see what a motivated, talented, brave person can accomplish) or worse (for example, should be be glorifying risky behavior?). I think the best films are going to tackle this head on, because it's that dichotomy of risk vs. reward that is so interesting (which to me is a big part of what made Free Solo a great movie).

Tim B wrote:

I admittedly haven’t read all these, but I think I understand where the OP is coming from. I got into climbing a little bit and briefly when I was younger, then stopped. Had other things going on in life. Now I’m “middle aged” as they say (kids, etc) and have gotten back to it much more seriously, bordering on obsessively. With climbing (and other things), I often reflect that I’m very grateful I made it out of my teens and 20’s without any serious injuries and took good care of my body. Though I also admit, the bullets were fun to dodge and contributed to who I am now. But, I also see a lot of my peers held back by past mishaps. I very grateful that I can still train hard and don’t feel physically limited. There are a lot of good years to be lived, not just the first 25 or so and it’s sad to see someone you like/love/admire/relate to/whatever miss out on that. I think that’s all that was really meant.

I feel seen. (In the parlance of our times) There's a strong age correlation going on with how people view this topic. As expected. The older you are, the more you have lived and loved life since you were the age Marc died at, and realize how much Marc missed out on. Life doesn't end just because your hormones change and you hit your 30s. Marc had a good 50 or 60 or 70 years left to live and experience a human life, which is an incredible gift if you look at it right. 

If you're under say 30, you may be putting Marc on a pedestal and defending him because you identify with his youth and old people seem lame and cautious and forget what it's like to be young. Which is partially true! But we can admire what Marc achieved yet also question and discuss the decisions and motivations behind those achievements - aware of course that we don't really know what he was thinking - and that is not the same as disrespecting him. The number of comments here indicate his life and death are a topic we want to put energy into discussing.

Balewrote:

Thank God (see what I did there) for post limits.

It should be pointed out to Eric, Ywan, etc that the general public regards any type of climbing as unnecessarily dangerous and irresponsible. In other words, people view you through the same lens that you see MAL. Put that in your judgmental, hypocritical, insufferable pipe and smoke it. 

I get it. You want to be left alone to your bubble and not feel like there's any complex or thorny issues to grapple with. No one likes a fly in their favourite drink.  

But since you're being rather rude, I've got a few things to say:  

Self-righteous, hypocritical and judgemental: that's what your post sounds like. 

"The general public do regard any type of climbing as dangerous and irresponsible?" Really?  Thats your "gotcha" argument? Weak.

You came on a forum with a clearly headed discussion topic.  Perhaps stay out of the discussion if you don't like it.

I came looking for answers, not to be rude to other posters. If what I posted comes across as judgmental to you might want to try reading my posts again, slowly and calmly.

I came for a discussion about risks and motivations for taking risks.  I'm not saying anyone is a bad person, or that I am better than anyone. I never said that. And neither am I implying it. You managed to imagine that all by yourself. Maybe you should try being less judgemental.

If you cannot accept another person's very mild, very rational and very inoffensive viewpoint then you might be too sensistive for this forum. 

Put that in your pipe.

I’m pretty sure  it was John Yablonski who climbed a rte in J tree with the rope tied around his neck not Tobin Sorensen

Yabo also committed suicide I believe

Tobin died rope soloing a big Canadian N face ( anchor ripped most likely )

edit: I am wrong

Tobin it was

alpinist 47wrote:

I’m pretty sure  it was John Yablonski who climbed a rte in J tree with the rope tied around his neck not Tobin Sorensen

Yabo also committed suicide I believe

Tobin died rope soloing a bid Canadian N face ( anchor ripped most likely )

Nope....it was Tobin.

I sure miss him.

Ywan Cwrote:

…

Sorry dude, most of it was intended for Eric, though it’s a bit annoying when you quote your own walls of text. I still maintain that it’s a good discussion. Carry on. 

Balewrote:

Sorry dude, most of it was intended for Eric, though it’s a bit annoying when you quote your own walls of text. I still maintain that it’s a good discussion. Carry on. 

Ah, I was wondering how I managed to offend. This topic is deep.. it has people going.. but sometimes like being in bar brawl.. some chairs flying round..

Dean Rosnauwrote:

Nope....it was Tobin.

I sure miss him.

Thank you for clarifying 

Soloing the North Face of Alberta, where Tobin lost his life, was very much the equivalent of the types of climbs that MAL was doing.

50 /50

I think it was the presence of another that killed this exceptionally talented soloist.  

He most certainly fulfilled our mission upon the land and amused the gods.  Most every single one of us are boring as fuck.  

Eric Marxwrote:

Bill, you misinterpreted my defense. My defense is that prior to Jesus, no person claiming to actually be God brought this rule to other humans. Perhaps they were prophets of God, or other, because all religion is a calling to the single creator. But because Jesus said it, and Jesus is God we know it is definitively “God’s Rule.”

This isn't a defense either, rather a set of beliefs you have.  

And thank you for the invitation to hear more, but no thank you.  I've lived decades around folks whom I love who have similar beliefs.  It is enough.  :)  

Unsurprised to see the MP Moderators have turned their hand again about how dishonest and gross they are, by removing my post about the dishonest attack from MM, but keeping his up. Saw that coming a mile away. They don’t like people with conservative ideas who have (and continue to) represent sexual assault victims and put sexual predators in prison.

Thinking about this a bit more over the last day, I think a lot of the God-talk is particularly relevant to the fundamental divide on this issue. The base arguments on either side essentially boil down to either “do whatever you want with your life” or “there is a better way of living.” It’s an argument of the subjective vs. the objective. I know you’re thinking this is subjective vs. subjective but it isn’t. The objective moral order only comes from God, and not humans. Here’s why: There are examples of this that people have no problem agreeing on. I think we can all realize it is inherently good to give a beggar bread, and it is inherently bad to punch a baby. If 7 billion people said, “no no no, it actually is good to punch the baby and bad to give a beggar bread.” And only 1 person said, “…no…you guys, all 7 billion of you, are all wrong, I’m not punching the baby.” That one person would still be right. The moral order is not dependent on the number of people that believe in it, because the moral order is something which exists outside of humanity. Humans use our conscience to interpret the fabric of the moral order(which pre-existed the conscience), like our eyes interpret light which pre-existed the eye.

Here, you have a group of people saying, “die doing whatever makes you happy, screaming into the rocks at 120mph, profit off of mental illness, recklessly risk your life over and over, as long as it makes you happy.”

And you have another group, as somebody noted, usually separated by age, saying “this isn’t the way, there is more to life than this.” What they’re talking about, in a deeper sense, is that life is rich and precious and shouldn’t be recklessly and carelessly thrown away in the mountains. That idea aligns with the moral fabric. You can feel it in your heart, and then rationalize your way around it and pretend you didn’t feel it, but it remains true.  

Not MP Admin, I have a lurking feeling you may be some sort of Christian. Devout atheist is a joke I made up about my former self and seems like a non-sequitur. It’s kind of a play on the idea that if you aren’t worshipping the creator, you end up worshipping something else. Usually for an atheist it’s the altar of science, not realizing science and the creator are inextricably linked. All science is simply the process by which we develop a human understanding of a creation with rules that already exist.

Mark Pilate, I have to laugh, you used a lot of vague and very loosely understood Christian ideas(aren’t you an atheist?) to basically say “just shut up would ya.” If you read any of the Gospels, you’ll see Jesus wasn’t very nice, and he wasn’t very quiet. He was kind, which requires honesty, and essentially talked himself into the crucifixion. Giving an addict more drugs is “nice.” Telling them they are an addict and need to get it together is “kind.” One of those things doesn’t feel so good to hear if you are the addict in question. Shutting up and letting everything unfold isn’t a part of the Christian ethos, even if everything is a part of a greater plan and will unfold exactly as it should.

Bill Lawrywrote:

This isn't a defense either, rather a set of beliefs you have. 

We don’t have to keep on but I do want to say this statement could be used to disqualify anything anybody believes or knows about anything on any topic at all, no matter how well-informed, historically, or scientifically accurate. “I read this deep and rich history book about the assassination of Caesar.” “Well, you weren’t actually there so that’s just a set of beliefs you have.”

Eric Marxwrote:

Mark Pilate, I have to laugh, you used a lot of vague and very loosely understood Christian ideas(aren’t you an atheist?) to basically say “just shut up would ya.” If you read any of the Gospels, you’ll see Jesus wasn’t very nice, and he wasn’t very quiet. He was kind, which requires honesty, and essentially talked himself into the crucifixion. Giving an addict more drugs is “nice.” Telling them they are an addict and need to get it together is “kind.” One of those things doesn’t feel so good to hear if you are the addict in question. Shutting up and letting everything unfold isn’t a part of the Christian ethos, even if everything is a part of a greater plan and will unfold exactly as it should.

I have to laugh.  I would re-read your gospels.   You missed something.   JC was all about you improving you and your own relationship with God.  Not about you judging and “improving” others.   Also, if it did not occur to you, getting into other people’s shit that doesn’t concern you, violates the golden rule.  

Getting back on track and how this applies to MAL is simple.  MAL seemed to be mindfully seeking his own relationship with “God”.   We all should mindfully do the same.   Most likely that will not involve all of us soloing sketchy shit in the mountains. 

I don't seem to remember walls of rambling text from Eric before he went born again christian... same thing happened with that wings of steel guy... I see a pattern... 

Tell me that you are not here for the pop corn.

This is an interesting discussion.

As far as the artistic decision to "surprise" viewers with his death I think it is totally fine, though I knew he was dead so it didn't come as a shock (but I mean come on how could you be "shocked" if you paid attention to the movie at all). My interpretation is that they preserved the flow of time for the viewer, allowing the viewer to experience the trajectory of his life as those around him did.

As far as the judgements on him and the handwringing over how will we explain his behavior to children I think its all a bit overblown and speaks to the general discomfort and fear of death in our western culture. we have become very distanced from it, especially in America with funeral homes taking such a huge role in the process, many of us only ever actually see a dead body briefly in the controlled atmosphere of a funeral home. we have lost touch with the reality of it and do our best to ignore it and basically live our lives as if it won't happen to us. IMO death while incredibly painful to those loved ones left behind, is not an objectively "bad" thing. How could it be, as one of the few certainties of living?

I think judging the way someone else chooses to frame the inevitability of death, their comfort with that and their decisions around how they live their life in light of their perspective, especially someone you don't know is sort of foolish and self righteous. What right does anyone have to criticize behavior that doesn't harm others? Personally I would only judge someone for taking "excessive" risk if they had young children depending on them. But even then what is excessive risk? as has been said by some in the thread the entire endeavor of climbing is viewed as unnecessary excessive risk by many, especially alpinism, even in a traditional team style with a rope and protection. Just repeatedly putting yourself in an alpine environment massively raises your chances of dying due to many factors outside of your control. Let's not forget it seems most likely MAL was killed by weather.

no one knows why we are here, what the meaning of life or death is. Many never really think deeply about it, many let others do their thinking for them and pick up someone else's interpretation that has been handed down though time, while some come to their own conclusions about what it means to them, for me this latter path is admirable even if their conclusions don't match up perfectly with mine.

I would worry more about explaining the more commonplace and terrible human behavior of war to children than something as benign as seeking joy in connection to nature and owns own body.

For the record  Jesus did not invent the golden rule, Confucius wrote down the same concept hundreds of years earlier, and I'm pretty certain he wasn't the first to think of it. its a fairly obvious stance if one thinks about how to live a moral life. Anyone can say "I am god" or "this is gods word", that doesn't make it true even if many people believe them.