Solitude as the antidote to misanthropy
christopherketcham.com
christopherketcham.com
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.
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.
In reality, an actual hermit will more likely tend to be an antisocial misanthrope, rather than a caring neighbor.
It doesn’t talk about isolation either, which is distinct from solitude, even if the two at times resemble each other.
Instead it points out the opposite extreme. Solitude as a sharp contrast to the realities of city life that we often don’t pause to consider.
As a city dweller, I find myself doing the same things described by the author (minus the nakedness, but to each their own). I spend time away from others so that I can spend time with them.
This is more about finding balance than embracing any extreme or becoming a hermit.
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...
― Ramana Maharshi
— Ram Dass
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.
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.
"What the longest running study on happiness reveals"
I have extreme loneliness. Strong indications of social anxiety. Alexithymia challenges on top of that.
I have kind of run out of ideas how to fix this. Waldinger's point to not give up seems poignant but unclear what to do differently.
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?
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
Do you have an example? I’ve also found in-person interactions to be significantly better than what you’ll find in online communities.
In my experience, the Internet seems to magnify our worst tendencies, and brings out a side of people that they would not otherwise show in public.
The Internet was once the place you describe, but has rapidly decayed, and I’m intentionally spending less and less time using it as a result.
It is hard to give a concrete example; this is more of a general sentiment.
In my experience, the internet does not necessarily magnify the worst tendencies, but rather on the web people are more honest and direct than in the real life. In the real life, people love to present themselves in a "masked" and "fake" way: nice and polite on the surface, but in reality waiting for the next opportunity to double-cross you.
On the internet, there is much less discrepancy between their masking and their behaviour: if you only look at the surface, the web might seem more toxic, because there is less masking and sugar-coating (i.e. more honesty). But if you are willing to look beyond the surface both of the real world and the web, you'll see the opposite: more honesty and less unexpected double-crossing.
Thus: if you are the kind of person that can easily be deceived by people who are "masking", "acting" and "faking" in the real world, then I can understand why you might consider the web to be a little bit toxic. But if you are willing to look beyond the surface, it is completely the other way round.
There’s a huge difference between being blunt/honest and the kind of abusive bad faith toxicity oozing with ad hominem and all forms of logical fallacy that make up the average thread on popular social networks.
The difference I’m talking about is not just about politeness, but about people’s willingness to have a good faith conversation and to see the other participant as another human being vs. a faceless other/enemy who is apparently so evil that all manners of abusive language is considered justified.
This is especially prevalent in anything related to politics. In the real world, I know and can have decent conversations with people even when we firmly disagree. Is this just us putting on a mask? Maybe so. But the end result is a result where we usually come away understanding each other a bit better, even if we still disagree on policies.
The anger/hate filled dialogue version of this conversation that happens online gets no one anywhere. The utility of the online discussion is often close to zero, because everyone involved goes into rage mode at which point no one is hearing anyone.
And even if it’s true that the online version is just the unfiltered version, that isn’t a ringing endorsement. If anything, it highlights the issue that the medium degrades our ability to relate to the other people we interact with, and this is important considering all of our psychological machinery has evolved around in-person human interactions.
If everyone behaved the way they behave online in the real world, the real world would be a far more violent place.
There are a few places left (like this one) that still value good faith, especially in the face of disagreement. But this has all but disappeared with minor exceptions in the prevalent online communities. It’s one of the reasons Reddit is a place I only go for football these days, when at one time, it was my primary online social outlet. And don’t get me started on Facebook/Twitter.
For what it’s worth, I’m in my late 30s, and have been participating in internet communities since I was 12. This is a shift that was gradual at first, but has accelerated in the social media era.
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".
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)
As always, YMMV, but oftentimes, interaction is forced on you in cities and you can't get away from it.
You talk about being alone in your apartment. Many people don't have that luxury. Even though they "live alone", "interaction" is forced on them thanks to paper-thin walls and their neighbors going about their business – no need for them be obnoxious.
I'd argue not being able to get away from the unwanted noise, ever, is what drives people in cities mad.
So .. we can certainly reduce noise in the cities (yay for electric cars), but not eliminate it completely.
From what I hear, here in France, new construction [0] has to abide by noise insulation standards, which considers noise coming from both outside and neighbors. In Paris, there are very few such buildings, since it's mostly old stock. An '80's building is "new". I don't know what these standards are worth.
And the main issue is that outside clear-cut cases (say, being above a noisy bar), you can't tell beforehand how well insulated it is.
My current apartment was built well before these regulations came in effect. When I visited it several times, I was very happy: no noise to be heard. I could distinctly hear the clicking of my iPhone buttons. Now, I can tell when my upstairs neighbor sits down for lunch, since I can hear him dragging the chair on the floor. I also knows he gets up around 6 in the morning, since I can hear him take a piss. People taking the stairs going and coming from work also make a racket. Bonus points for people playing the piano.
Fortunately, this doesn't happen all day long without interruption, so there are periods of silence. But it's still bothering me when I try to focus (I work from home a lot).
Sure, as the other poster said, it's nice to be able to open a window, in which case nothing can stop the traffic noise. But this is something that can be inspected easily upfront: don't live on a busy street / around a "party" area.
---
[0] I don't remember the year that went into effect, but it's after 2000.
That is a problem in some places. In fact, I have never seen my neighbor but I do hear him occasionally at wrong hours.
I don't know if it's that much of a difference than some random wildlife waking you up in the wilderness. Would you feel like you lost your solitude? In my case I do feel annoyed and disturbed, but why should it make me feel like I am now not alone? No one is interacting with me, unless I take others going about their business as a personal attack for some reason, surely not their intent?
But yes I think your argument is sound (sorry couldn't help it), I hate noise and in fact bad soundproofing is why I want to move.
And if you want, you surely can easily find places in the wilderness, where you see no one.
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.
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.
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.
In French that would be "Far from your eyes, far from your heart", or "loin des yeux, loin du coeur".