The sun shines through the large half-moon windows. I’m in the middle of the second row, seated between my new classmates; it is the start of the semester. My motivation has yet to cease, and I listen intently as my teacher continues to ramble on and on about Darwin, evolution, natural selection:

In fact, before Darwin came up with the theory of evolution by natural selection, living species were most often regarded as fixed and unchanging. As you could see in the slides up here, the great philosopher and scientist, Aristotle, had first concluded that life forms could be arranged on a scale of increasing complexity. Humans were at the top, followed by mammals, birds…

The hierarchy of living species, also known as the Great Chain of Being, is a hierarchical classification system once used to divide living beings based on their capacity to rationalize and reason. I first learned about this concept in my ecology and evolution class last semester. Although we only briefly covered it, it suddenly came back to my mind while reading To Build A Fire by Jack London.

To Build a Fire follows a young man who travels alone through the Yukon forests, confident in his abilities to survive against the cold, despite the repeated warnings and signs of danger. Set in the late 1800s during the Klondike Gold Rush, a period marked by American nationalism and rugged individualism, the story addresses the belief in the “self-reliant man” and his ability to overpower nature. However, in the short story, London critiques these values by demonstrating how overconfidence and self-seclusion can lead to a loss of humanity. This relates back to Aristotle’s belief that humans are not only the superior being because of our ability to rationalize and reason, but also because we are “political animals,” creatures who thrive on social connections and in communities. Thus, Jack London explores how the protagonist’s downfall stems from prideful, ego-driven reasoning and extreme individualism. He further deconstructs Aristotle’s views by questioning the superiority of human beings. If humans lose what inherently makes them superior, where does that leave them, leave us, on this hierarchy?

To begin, Aristotle believes that humans stand above all other species because of our reasoning, which animals lack. According to the philosopher, humans, unlike animals, do not purely act out of instinct, but rather act and make choices through careful deliberation and reasoning. In the short story, the protagonist fully embodies this belief. From the start, he perceives himself as not only superior to animals, but to nature itself. This flaw is described as follows: “The trouble with him was that he was without imagination. He was quick and alert in the things of life, but only in the things, and not in the significances” (London 1). While the man may have been “quick” and “alert,” he is not imaginative and he lacks the ability to see the true dangers of the cold and of the environment. From his perspective, the temperatures are just numbers, the snow a simple challenge, the cold a fair nemesis, one he believes he could dominate with knowledge and the proper equipment. His ignorance and strong belief in human exceptionalism corrupt his rational judgment. He severely under estimates the deathly nature of the cold. Moreover, the man’s ego and confidence are evident in a flashback to a conversation with the old-timer. The old-timer advises the man to refrain from travelling in the Klondike once the temperature reaches fifty below. However, when the man recalls this moment, he thinks the opposite: “All a man had to do was to keep his head, and he was all right. Any man who was a man could travel” (7). The protagonist believes that all one needs to survive nature is rational thinking, “to keep his head” (7). Ironically, it is his own reasoning, twisted by arrogance and pride, that ultimately leads to his death. Through the protagonist’s flawed reasoning, London exposes how human intellect and rationale, when distorted, becomes a liability, causing both harm and isolation.

Furthermore, the man’s decision to ignore the old-timer and to travel alone reflects the concept of the rugged individual, a popular American ideal in the late 19th century. This philosophy encourages self-reliance and argues that a man can overcome any obstacle, without help from others. However, this isolation directly opposes Aristotle’s core belief that humans are social and political animals whose survival depends on community and connection. The man’s insistence on travelling alone highlights his lack of social bonds and represents a rejection of basic human nature. Before beginning his journey, he fails to “meditate upon his fragility as a creature of temperature, and upon man’s fragility in general” (1). This quote emphasizes his lack of self-awareness. By failing to recognize his own vulnerability and acknowledge the need for help from others, not only does the man sever his connection with humanity, but he in turn seals his fate. His solitary journey and death exemplify that humans are social creatures. We depend upon community. Thus, London criticizes the self-reliant hero by illustrating how the recognition of human dependency is the greatest strength humans can have for survival, while the greatest weakness can often be the rejection of their own humanity. To continue, the protagonist is not entirely alone in the Yukon. He is accompanied by his dog; however, he blatantly ignores the dog and its instincts. When the man leaves the fire, the dog stays and hesitates: “The dog was disappointed and yearned back toward the first [fire]” because it knew “that it was not good to walk abroad in such fearful cold” (5). The dog represents a being whose pure instinct is unclouded by flawed reasoning. While Aristotle considers animals inferior due to their lack of reason, in the short story, instinct proves to be more useful and important to survival. From the start, the dog is “depressed by the tremendous cold” as it recognizes that “it was no time for travelling” (2). The dog’s apprehension is not shared by the man, who fails to listen to his instincts. Thus, it is the dog, guided by primal instinct, who survives in the end. The dog’s instincts “told it a truer tale than was told by the man’s judgement” (2). Despite the dog being lower on The Great Chain, it is the one who survives, whereas the man does not, which suggests that instinct is superior to corrupted reasoning.

Finally, the man’s descent is complete when he becomes desperate and attempts to attack the dog for his carcass: “He got on his hands and knees and crawled toward the dog” (10). His behavior is animalistic; he pulls his mittens “by means of his teeth” (10). He is no longer rational, no longer the superior being. He imitates the dog but plainly lacks its intrinsic instincts. His arrogance and rejection of his own nature have not only cost him his life, but also his humanity. This reversal of roles can also be seen earlier when the man attempts to build a fire. As the man ceaselessly struggles, the dog “sat in the snow, its wolf-brush of a tail curled around warmly over its forefeet, its sharp wolf-ears pricked forward intently as it watched the man” (8). The dog remains still, adapted and comfortable, while the man, the supposed superior being, helplessly fiddles with sticks in an attempt to conquer the cold. The story reveals a reversal of power and position between humans and animals, and more specifically, the man’s fall from the top of the hierarchy.

In To Build a Fire, the protagonist’s death derives from distorted reasoning and a failure to embrace the social nature of humans. London suggests that survival relies on accepting the limits of human nature and the necessity of human connections. It is evident that human reasoning, when darkened by ego, pride and exceptionalism, can become our greatest weakness. It can lead us to becoming even lower than animals, becoming a being who not only lacks the ability to listen and to connect with their own instincts, but one who also ceases to connect with others.

Works Cited

London, Jack. “To Build a Fire.” The Youth’s Companion, 1902.