Hermits
I remember reading a fantasy story from my childhood. I don't remember the details too well, but there was this part about a guy who became a hermit. The idea was that he had become so advanced in his learning that he could no longer relate to the people around. They just didn’t understand what he was saying and he couldn’t find satisfaction in talking to them anymore so he retreated into solitude where he eventually became his own opponent and together they explored everything. Something like that.
I think this story (and others) had a hand in shaping my imagination of a hermit as a somewhat crazy, wise man in general. But is that accurate? Is it crazy to want constant solitude from other humans, or to create your own ideal, imaginary friend to argue with? Or, is it more like running away?
I think this story (and others) had a hand in shaping my imagination of a hermit as a somewhat crazy, wise man in general. But is that accurate? Is it crazy to want constant solitude from other humans, or to create your own ideal, imaginary friend to argue with? Or, is it more like running away?
Comments (18)
Not really. Although I certainly find solitude attractive and never seem to get enough of it. On the other hand i hear that total isolation from other humans makes people go crazy so it cant be that good... Ask a psychologist.
Perhaps becoming a hermit comes after experiencing worldly life but the questions above still stand.
Schopenhauer would say that becoming a hermit-ascetic would be the ultimate goal in purging the Will for good. It is the only road that leads to full denial of the Will. There are types of people (outliers) that can do this for years on end, perhaps their whole life, but I would imagine that human psychology is meant for some sort of human relations- many times in the form of deep bonds. To be cared for and to care for someone in return seems to be woven into the social fabric of the species and persists through most sociocultural models, so I'm sure that is something that was there from our species origin. With the social aspect of language, it most certainly was. But there is something romantic about the vision of the hermit who slowly purges desires to the point of some blissful state of non-attachment to the wheel of desire. If you limit your needs and wants, they do not have as much hold over you, is the thought there.
My take is that our actions stem from dissatisfaction, boredom, and survival (everything really falling under dissatisfaction). You must pick a mode of survival- whether gathering a few wild berries to sustain you or monetary exchange in the current economic global system. You must entertain yourself- whether that be through running around the park or meditating to purge your desires all together. What you cannot avoid is the fact that life presents itself to us, and we must take a stance on how to cope with it. There is no escape if one is still metabolically functioning, and our self-conscious areas of the brain are still at work, we are still making decisions, and having to deal with how we spend our time.
Hermit-ascetic life seems to require a lot of will power.
Yep, I would think so. I do not think Schop thought this was an easy task. It would take a lot of training by the ascetic practitioner over many years. I think the idea is that over time, the practices of asceticism become more effortless- the denying of wants and needs becomes less of a burden and more a relief as the "fat" of needless needs are trimmed. Eventually the practitioner confines needs and wants to very little and perhaps nothing at all. The will accepts existence itself, purely being is some sort of satisfaction in itself- there is no motives outside this state of purely seeing the world without intent.
It may be crazy, but it is also very common. In fact, most people talk to an ideal, imaginary friend. God. They find it helpful.
Many people held in solitary confinement for a long time (many years, sometimes) tend to deteriorate. But then, prisoners aren't in the hole as a voluntary act of solitude. Plus, it isn't quiet in solitary. Quite often there are other fairly deranged prisoners in nearby cells yelling and screaming. So, it's like being in an office where everyone listens to conservative talk radio.
It might interest you to know that in the early Buddhist texts, the Buddha is often referred to as 'the recluse, Gotama' ('recluse' being another term for 'hermit'.) Reclusion, the withdrawal from society, was and is valued in Indian culture, as 'society' represents 'the world' which is under the sway of 'the passions and emotions'.
Mind you I think in practice, it would be a very hard path to tread. 'You can run away but you can't hide from what's inside of you', saith Steely Dan.
I think it depends on the individual's sincerity. For example, even if I am the only human on the planet, I can still come to the realization, after some trial and error, that animals also feel pain, and so I should not hurt them.
So, do you think it would be crazy to create an imaginary debate partner?
I'm thinking more so in terms of dissatisfaction with the contributions of others around us. I think we've probably all been in situations where we know we really are correct in some position, and yet the people we talk to stubbornly refuse to see it. Or, maybe it's not about who is right and who is wrong, but rather that some topics can be complex or require a lot of flexibility; a lack of appreciation for those qualities in a debate can end up making one ask, "why bother?"
But what's the point of sharing ideas with people don't listen? When you're in quiet solitude there's really not much else to do but listen.
Listening to others is more important than others listening to you. We may be biased in our judgment and that usually requires hearing the other side which isn't possible in solitude.
As I said before, hermitic life is an after kinda thing - it can only be fruitful after you've seen the world.
Sure, but the context was "sharing ideas with others". Listening is important, but if you want to share an idea, at some point you have to explain the idea. What happens when people are either not interested in what you're sharing, or cannot (for whatever reason) appreciate what you are saying? I can imagine, if that happens often enough, it'd be pretty tempting to speak less and less.
Quoting TheMadFool
I think it's possible. An honest examination of the issues can lead to a variety of possible conclusions, some of which may be inconsistent with one another, even if you're the only person on earth.
Quoting TheMadFool
I think this gets back to one of my original questions; at what point does the hermetic life become a viable alternative?
It could be that your philosophy negates society and anything it has to offer. If that's the case, then your choice to be a hermit makes sense. That's what I meant when I said hermits need first socialize and gather information for analysis.
Anyway, overall, a hermit stands to lose from the lack of constructive criticism and the creative input of others.