Solitude as the antidote to misanthropy

https://www.christopherketcham.com/?p=441

by well_i_never • 3 years ago

50 55 3 years ago

jgtrosh• 3 years ago

This only talks of an overload of unknown people surrounding you in cities, but surely the www is for many a strong contributer to that sentiment as well.

elzbardico• 3 years ago

The internet is absolutely toxic. I can get surrounded by people in the real world with world views, political opinions and lifestyles completely different from mine in a bar, and yet be able to engage friendly, find common ground and so on. But meet the same people on social networks, and the misery is on with a vengeance.

aleph_minus_one2• 3 years ago

The internet is absolutely toxic. I can get surrounded by people in the real world with world views, political opinions and lifestyles completely different from mine in a bar, and yet be able to engage friendly, find common ground and so on. But meet the same people on social networks, and the misery is on with a vengeance.

My experience differs: yes, the internet is sometimes a quite toxic place, but the real world is far worse: what you decribe for a bar in a real world

"I can get surrounded by people in the real world with world views, political opinions and lifestyles completely different from mine in a bar, and yet be able to engage friendly"

rather fits my description of the internet. On the other hand, in the real world, this is not the case. Perhaps one important reason is that I have no social media account (in the narrower sense, since HN is of course also social media), so that I don't have one specific problem that you describe:

But meet the same people on social networks, and the misery is on with a vengeance.

Aeglaecia• 3 years ago

exposure to green and lack of screen time is better than drugs, but ill leave the slavering to the author ...

pizza234• 3 years ago

I think that being surrounded by your fellow man in a hive day after day, without hope of solitude, produces contempt and alienation, a feeling that the humans are interchangeable, that the surfeit of their numbers reduces their individual worth and meaning. In such a state of crowding, [...] a man of compassion is sickened because he is overwhelmed

This is highly individual. I actually think that generally, the opposite applies - if one isolate themselves, it's very easy for their mind to become an echo chamber; connecting with people often will moderate and shape one's thoughts.

codetrotter• 3 years ago

Staying alone for a very long time is probably unhealthy as well indeed.

But go for a two week long stay high up in the wild mountains and breathe the fresh air there alone by yourself or with just one or two of your closest friends or members of family, and I am convinced that you would feel that all war and all other man made problems of the world could be solved if everyone got to experience just a few days of this one-ness with nature that you are bound to feel in the fresh air of the mountains when you are there all by yourself with not a soul in sight in any direction.

pyinstallwoes• 3 years ago

To compare the monk vs the city-dweller. Hmm. I think I’ll go with monk.

lynx23• 3 years ago

This might work as long as I do not take anyone from my family along... In fact, everything would be better then staying two weeks with memebers of my family at a remote place. The more I think of it, the more I understand why this article is abou solitude.

bheadmaster• 3 years ago

all war and all other man made problems of the world could be solved if everyone got to experience just a few days of this one-ness with nature that you are bound to feel in the fresh air of the mountains when you are there all by yourself with not a soul in sight in any direction

Unless someone figured out that in order to keep the solutide in the mountains, they need to own the mountains, which leads to conflict and wars...

agumonkey• 3 years ago

True, it's matter of fit and balance. Having space to be alone if needed is very healthy. Constant friction kills. But total isolation can lead to misanthropy or other strange psychological effects. You need regular amounts of little benefiting interactions.

throwaway2904• 3 years ago

Some of the biggest misanthropes, bigots etc. I interacted with online live in remote villages or even precisely like described, in a house in middle of nature. They never even lived in a big city but they think it's bad, streets are full of shit, every other person you see is a criminal or swindler (and don't even mention immigrants) and so on.

The mistake of the author is thinking wilderness is required for solitude and being in a big city is not. Can't you be equally or more alone in a city? If I had enough interaction I can stay in my apartment or go for a walk in the nature nearby and nothing requires me to talk to anyone. After a while I want to get out meet a friend or just talk to a colleague again.

(But if you meet another person while alone in the middle of wilderness, try not talking to them... you may easily be considered rude even if you really just need a breather)

The author calls himself a "man of compassion" but the phrasing of this article says "I'm full of myself".

hutzlibu3• 3 years ago

"But if you meet another person while alone in the middle of wilderness, try not talking to them... you may easily be considered rude even if you really just need a breather"

Not my experience. Just nod and go on your way if you don't feel like talking. No person from the woods would be offended by this. (Unless it is their forest and they would like to know who wanders around their turf)

throwaway2904• 3 years ago

"Nod" is direct interaction/communication and explicit acknowledgement of another human-- the opposite of solitude and definitely not required in a big city.

trimethylpurine• 3 years ago

Some of the biggest misanthropes, bigots etc. I interacted with online live in remote villages

By "bigot," did you mean someone who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ?

It would be ironic if you did.

RoyalHenOil• 3 years ago

I live in a remote village in Australia (well, between two remote villages of some 200-250 people each), and I also grew up in one of the largest cities in the US.

This has not been my experience at all. For example, the people in the area I live now are far more LGBT-friendly, far more accepting of different religions or no religion, etc., than the people I grew up with. This is also reflected in their voting patterns (the area I live routinely votes more progressively than even the most progressive city in Australia).

At the same, they are much more reserved than the people I grew up with. They don't greet me (nor I them) unless we both look up and make eye contact, making it easy to duck your head and just be left alone when you're running errands. (I think this is a mental survival technique for rural areas, because you are constantly running into people you know, and you would lose your mind if you spoke to them all.)

And they never, ever make random conversation with strangers, whereas that was the norm where I grew up. They aren't unfriendly or unwelcoming; they just feel uncomfortable putting other people on the spot like that because it's not a part of the culture here.

I think you are exhibiting some unfounded biases against rural people -- like you have this stereotype of what they must all be like, and now you are unfairly applying that stereotype to people you've never met. It's ironic that bigotry is one of the traits you attribute to them.

I recommend going out into the world and meeting a greater variety of people who live very differently from you. It would help you recognize the shared humanity we all posses and let go of this bitter, insular instinct you have toward outsiders.

robertlagrant• 3 years ago

thinking wilderness is required for solitude and being in a big city is not. Can't you be equally or more alone in a city?

If you took the walls away, you'd find you're probably standing very close to some other people! You're not alone, any more than someone in a cube farm works in a very large private office.

throwaway2904• 3 years ago

If you took the walls away, you'd find you're probably standing very close to some other people! You're not alone, any more than someone in a cube farm works in a very large private office.

That's what the article gets wrong too. Whether you are in solitude is not a metric of "distance to the next person disregarding obstacles". I am much less likely to talk or acknowledge my neighbor than my friend a thousand miles away in another country or a nosy passer by on a trekking track. I don't even know what my neighbors look like.

monoscient• 3 years ago

"Solitude is in the mind of man. One might be in the thick of the world and maintain serenity of mind; such a one is in solitude. Another may stay in a forest, but still be unable to control his mind. He cannot be said to be in solitude. Solitude is a function of the mind. A man attached to desire cannot get solitude wherever he may be; a detached man is always in solitude."

― Ramana Maharshi

cnity• 3 years ago

"Everything in you that you don't need, you can let go of. You don't need loneliness, for you couldn't possibly be alone. You don't need greed, because you already have it all. You don't need doubt, because you already know."

— Ram Dass

dmje2• 3 years ago

As a possible “third way” I’d recommend people try a silent retreat.

You’re surrounded by people, and yet alone. And - in relation to the way you feel about those individuals around you - as brought up by this article - it’s a deeply profound experience in community and compassion.

I wrote about the experience here [0] in case anyone is interested.

[0] https://variousbits.net/2023/11/02/going-on-silent-retreat/

mlk• 3 years ago

I've done a couple of 10 days silent retreat doing vipassana meditation.

I honestly didn't want the retreats to ever end.

Both times when I returned to my normal life I felt extremely irritable, so that probably defeats the purpose.

dmje2• 3 years ago

Interesting! I feel very emotional and tender when I come back - definitely have to ease back into normal life!

a-french-anon3• 3 years ago

This man has a wife, lives in New York and talks about solitude like he knows more about it than the word's spelling. Lol.

Barrin92• 3 years ago

solitude, loneliness, and isolation are very different things. Isolation is physical separation, Solitude is conscious and voluntary self-reflection, and loneliness is the feeling of isolation. The last two can happen even if you have plenty of people around.

Loneliness despite company, especially in urban environments, has been one of the most popular topics in art & culture for like a hundred years for a reason.

brewtide• 3 years ago

Yup. In fact, veratasium just released a video discussing this a decent bit in the video linked below...

"What the longest running study on happiness reveals"

https://youtu.be/vSQjk9jKarg?si=k_zU_ua0VlQcpvJS

verisimi• 3 years ago

Funny. He's also a freelance writer. As such he can write about solitude - if he gets an article or two or even a book out his chit chat, perhaps become the guru of 'solitude' on talk shows..

I mean what's the difference between the real thing and a simulation of the real? Probs the simulation is better, especially if it pays the bills! Right?

ergonaught• 3 years ago

Your snide insults justify misanthropy. It is easy then to decide that being away from people who think and behave as you did, for example by pursuing solitude, may help prevent developing a misanthropic attitude. Even a strange person with a family and friends and a populated city environment can recognize that we need to get away from your way of being.

a-french-anon3• 3 years ago

Nice strawman you got there. No misanthropy in my post, just calling out someone who thinks being away from the hustle and bustle for a few days then returning home to a (presumably loving) wife is enough to know about the general effects of solitude.

My post was indeed a soundbite, but if I must post seriously, I think his observation is only valid for such "normal" people having something to return to.

falloutx• 3 years ago

Yeah, he needs atleast 12 years living on a farm doing subsistence farming while not seeing another human being, and then I will listen.

hnbad• 3 years ago

What the author describes as being around people actually sounds like social isolation: yes, NYC is full of people but the way the author describes it, they're all strangers. This isn't alienating, this is alienated.

Humans have evolved to live in small to moderately sized groups with close relationships and shared activities across the group like communal child rearing, food procurement, games and rituals. This also hinges on being able to make an impact on your surroundings and maintaining use-based ownership.

Contrast this with living in a megacity: outside your (rented) apartment the closest thing you get to ownership is public property which effectively is owned by noone while all private property is owned by someone else who is most likely a faceless corporation or a complete stranger to you. You are constantly surrounded by people but you don't know any of them and most people you will likely encounter too infrequently to form any lasting relationships with. They're all strangers or outsiders with goals at best irrelevant and at worst contrary to your own but they're also similarly isolated from each other so they don't even form a "foreign tribe" you can try to assimilate into - apart from a vague notion of "acting like you belong" by following the shallow social norms.

What the author describes as solitude on the other hand is the individualistic rebellion against this: carving out "your own" space in one that is unclaimed (or at least not inhabited and actively guarded against your temporary use of it). The interaction he describes is a lot more intimate - not because he was nude but because he was interacting with discrete people, not faceless members of a crowd.

Of course as others have pointed out this isn't lasting and "actual solitude" is a very different beast and can be equally harmful and alienating. So the answer is a collectivist rebellion: finding a "tribe", looking for peer groups to form closer bonds with over shared interests or experiences. Often this is what motivates people to move into suburbia where they of course often still experience the same isolation as everyone retreats into their family home due to the lack of horizontally organized communal spaces.

rambambram• 3 years ago

On the third day, I shed my clothes. For what seemed a very long time, I was naked in the depths of the earth a hundred miles from the nearest town. The nakedness, the plenitude of light, the soft warmth of the air, and the sense of illimitable freedom was erotic, and often I had stupendous erections, helped along by the memories of women I had known.

He writes very well and the article made me realize: I don't go to the forest to be alone, I go to the forest so I can better enjoy humanity afterwards.

If Christopher Ketcham is reading this: please fix your RSS feed.

28304283409234• 3 years ago

(2022)

ycombinete2• 3 years ago

As the saying goes, "Absence makes the heart grow fonder"

maximus-decimus• 3 years ago

I always find it hilarious how the French and the English have opposite expressions.

In French that would be "Far from your eyes, far from your heart", or "loin des yeux, loin du coeur".

hydrok9• 3 years ago

English also has "out of sight, out of mind"

ycombinete2• 3 years ago

Maybe the English saying was intended for the Normans

hnthrowaway03152• 3 years ago

Solitude is the only thing that keeps me sane from all other frustrations in the world. I have to push away requests of co-sleep from my son a couple of times every week but it worths it.

deemster• 3 years ago

"The cost of sanity in this society, is a certain level of alienation" - Terence McKenna

hnthrowaway03152• 3 years ago

It rings true. Maybe the best thing for me is sort of unorthodox relationship. But whatever, I'll manage.

Solitude as the antidote to misanthropy

Related Stories