Readers of Philosocom, this is a translated article I wrote around 2015-2017 from my first book, Hermitericum, on a concept I have developed. It could be useful to those looking to venture deeper into the original verison of my philosophy, which was called back then Solitary Individualism, and later has changed to Rubinshteinic Individualism. Enjoy yourselves!
A central term in the Indie-Solitaire vocabulary is Solitarus (originally: Bdiduta). In order to understand the written in the Indie-Solitaire books, it is crucial to understand initially what solitarus means.
Before I shall begin, there is a basic need to distinguish between 3 types of seclusion, which are:
Loneliness. A state in which the individual is enslaved to their social nature, still suffers from them being alone due to this exact reason, and in difference to the individual which enjoyed their seclusion, the first one is actually enslaved to their seclusion because they view it as a problem which needs to be eliminated, instead of accepting it as a part of the human existence.
Solitude. A state which the individual finds quite positive and functional in the eyes of their personal experience, however not in the philosophical meaning of the word.
And finally, there is the state which the Indie-Solitaire ideology views as an intellectual and evolutionary ideal, which is Solitarus. Solitarus is the evolutionary step where the individual liberates themselves from the social nature, and instead develops a less dependent and more autonomous nature, called The Isolating Nature. On the contrary to the social nature, which dictates the individual for social recreation as a means for their survival, the isolating nature, a much rarer kind, calls the individual to seclude as much as they are available in order to ensure their intellectual survival. In difference to the existential, instrumental survival, [individualist] intellectual survival means to preserve and fulfill the higher needs of the mind (a.k.a abstract needs -such as wisdom, knowledge and overall satisfaction) through the company of one’s own.
Solitary Individualism views the isolating nature as a more “superior” nature more than its counterpart because it is less dependent on attachment to external entities such as friends, family and partners.
Achieving the state of solitarus does not mean to alienate the social environment. The simple idea is to prosper and function in the absence of social interactions, while being self-propelled. The Indie-Solitaire in no misanthrope, but a person which aspires to their own and to more independence and liberty, by seclusion, in addition to the wish to be in harmony with the external world. Due to increasing hatred, accusations and alienation in today’s globalized world, it may be no easy task.
According to a theoretical “hierarchy” of the concept of seclusion, there are three “classes” of people who are alone:
the individual who may just found themselves to be alone, or does not accept seclusion (or both) is called Initiative, because they have just experienced the state of their alone-ness. The initiate shall usually see their seclusion is something negative, since their social nature which rules upon them in a way that prevents the possibility to see seclusion as a “good” thing. Instead they view this concept as bad. A moralistic and dichotomous mindset, acquired by socialization, only contributes to this prevention of the concept’s positive aspect to be acknowledged by the initiative. The initiative may find themselves suffering when not together with other people, and it is probable to assume they will complain on the problems which are created due to their solitary condition and their dependence on the social nature’s unfulfilled urges, even if they look fine in general. They are yet to overcome what needs to overcome in order to earn intellectual/mental/philosophical profit in the depths of seclusion, and even, as the majority of humankind, the initiative shall attempt to run from their state of being back to the comforts of social interaction and recreation, for them to escape coping alone with seclusion’s void. Of course this is only the negative aspect of this initial experience, where the initiative suffers from loneliness. Thus, the non-average initiative may find themselves adjusting to their unknown seclusion and even may find pleasure and comfort they didn’t thought of as probable in such state.
After the initial experiences, the initiative shall find themselves as a Solitaire Initiative, a person which views their seclusion as an action they approve and sometimes justify. They may have yet to overcome the social nature, but in comparison to the fresh initiative, the solitaire initiative is more independent from the human urge for social interaction, and knows how to cope alone when they whether this seclusion is voluntary or inevitable for a time. They may still have a relative dependence on society regarding the higher needs of the mind (such as the need for emotional feedback, approval, attention and love), but it does not prevent them from evaluating seclusion with acceptance. It is possible to say that solitude (in its Indie-Solitaire meaning) in the eyes of the external world, may be the most balanced state since it is placed to the limit of the socially acceptable level of seclusion, and does not reach seclusion in its ideological (if not religious to some) aspect; an aspect which is central in the Indie-Solitaire’s mindset, as a man/woman of principles.
The final and philosophical state of solitarus is reached when the following conditions are fulfilled: the individual can provide their own higher needs (both emotional and intellectual) by themselves; when they accept and see seclusion as an inseparable part of their life; when they are in love with their existence (a.k.a feeling love when alone, not necessarily to a specific person or entity), and when they see themselves as loner/hermit/monk for everything. Only then they may be by themselves not only in material but in mind and intellect. Only then the solitaire-initiative evolves into a Spiritual Solitaire. And thus the individual had overcome their social nature in the name of bigger liberty.
The state of solitarus is the rarest between the three, while loneliness is the most common, and solitude is in the middle. The loneliness is bitter, desperate for a major dependence upon the company of man; the solitude grants the individual the capability to adjust to seclusion; the solitarus liberates, evolves the spiritual solitaire into a higher state of autonomy, individuality and seclusion, and through these values they may find a great source of meaning to their existence.
It is important to remember the following: there is no solitarus without seclusion. There is no solitude without loneliness, solitarus without loneliness and solitude without solitude. In order to reach the “good” there is the requirement to experience the “bad”, and in order to experience the “bad” it is needed to be aware of the “good”. In order to seclude there is a need to acknowledge society as a whole of misery and pleasure, and in order the be a truly social person there is to be aware of seclusion by its potential negativity and and potential of positivity. This is the harmony between the opposites, while no one can be fully existent without becoming aware of the possibility of the other. Even the greatest loner/hermit/monk may be aware of company, and even the most social person may be aware of seclusion. In my personal eyes, in order to actualize the notion of solitarus there is a need to be in harmony with the external world, A.K.A society, if not in practice than at least in mindset. In order to achieve that harmony there is a need to know serenity, and to know true serenity there is a need to seclude. The essence of solitarus is to combine it with the acknowledgement of togetherness. The co-existence of the needed and the wanted, the freedom with the awareness of enslavery, the individual and interpersonal acknowledgement.
There is also a need, however, be beware of society in this case. They may try, through preaching and persuasion to prevent you from seclusion the way and and extent you may wish, even if your free time may allow it. They may tell you things as “it is not healthy to be alone”, “it is bad to be alone”, “I care for your well-being because you are alone”. The social people, which may be the smashing majority of the world, even though the are aware of the concept of seclusion, most of them are found in a state of pre-experience, both due to the media, and both because their social prestige persuades them to be alone, even if there is no evil within it.
It is important to know that in order to seclude oneself “with all of their heart”, some things are needed to be given up, which are: the social nature, full dependence over other people’s guidance, accepted norms of belief and at times other people. Only when the bird had set free from the warmth of its brethren, it can fly freely to wherever it may wish. Just take note, that there may be no one to guide you in the darkness, and when you may find yourself extensively alone, perhaps you shall die alone as well. The solitarus is the price of liberty, maturity and autonomy; it is the essence of maturity in one’s mind, and the more you shall find thyself alone, the more you shall grow old internally. Isn’t it better to stay in youth?
Isn’t it better to be loved than to love? Isn’t it better to depend highly on other people than to find yourself secluded? I do not claim for nothing that the philosophy I offer to you are not for everyone to endure successfully and extensively. There are some which are too enslaved for them to try or even decrease their level of social submission and escapism, or perhaps they never acknowledge the fact that in any relationship there is a certain level of non-liberty, and limitation and of surrender. The choice to be alone is a choice of brave people, who dare to say “no” to their social nature, which is a product created by socialization.
Even the spiritual solitaire may find themselves feeling alienated. Even the popular and famous of all may find themselves lonely. I doubt if there was ever a human being who did not experienced negative seclusion at least once.