4 ms·

Because nothing could be accomplished without avoiding constant distractions which comes from society. When Sartre said his famous "the hell is other people" he

Because nothing could be accomplished without avoiding constant distractions which comes from society. When Sartre said his famous "the hell is other people" he probably meant this too. Others, like Mishima, Rand, Nabokov, Hesse also emphasized if not loneliness but certain safe distance from so-called society. It is perfectly ok to be alone from all that socially constructed reality they created for themselves. Like Tibetans said "the hell is a not a place, but a consequence of behavior of inhabitants". So loneliness is required, at least it is more bearable and natiral condition for those who is labeled as by society as "introvert" or "autist" or other words they cannot understand. Introversion is an effect, not a cause, and with good books, like "Catcher" cited by OP one is never alone, and it is a better condition than being "social animal" before TV set, or with a bottle on the street.

auvrw 13y ago
or just view things as a spectrum rather than a two-state decision. even tibetan people who have to live in remote areas in order to farm can still get together with friends and race horses and so on every year. similarly, software development might require extended periods of focused time, but that doesn't mean you ought to be socially isolated all the time.
- dschiptsov 13y ago
  All generalizations are wrong, this one is no exception. Let's say that it is more correct for "individualism" centered Western cultures and makes less sense for "community" centerd cultures, such as Tibetan's and most of Asian's. I difenitely could survive without a bunch of selfish assholes, maintaining a minimal enough interaction with society, while in Tibet, where they live in clans of relatives and tribes, so you have to be part of your small, isolated community. But in a broad sense the idea to isolate oneself from pop-culture and media and construed by it shared social reality, to see things as they are (to very limited extent, of course) is good one, and all the good writers, like Pamuk or Marques told us how good it is.

auvrw 13y ago

or just view things as a spectrum rather than a two-state decision. even tibetan people who have to live in remote areas in order to farm can still get together with friends and race horses and so on every year. similarly, software development might require extended periods of focused time, but that doesn't mean you ought to be socially isolated all the time.

dschiptsov 13y ago
All generalizations are wrong, this one is no exception. Let's say that it is more correct for "individualism" centered Western cultures and makes less sense for "community" centerd cultures, such as Tibetan's and most of Asian's. I difenitely could survive without a bunch of selfish assholes, maintaining a minimal enough interaction with society, while in Tibet, where they live in clans of relatives and tribes, so you have to be part of your small, isolated community. But in a broad sense the idea to isolate oneself from pop-culture and media and construed by it shared social reality, to see things as they are (to very limited extent, of course) is good one, and all the good writers, like Pamuk or Marques told us how good it is.