© 2019 Tomasio A. Rubinshtein, Philosopher

This website has been created by the Wix platform. Create a wix website as well.

On the Solitary Lifestyle and the Idea of Defeatism

Updated: Aug 25, 2019



A life of solitude, while controversial and unacceptable by few, are usually a life of peace and tranquility, should one develop, within their solitude, the mindset required for this usual-ity, as those that suffer from the product of their own counter-productive mindset, may not be aware of the potential blissful feeling of serenity-while-alone, a concept I have described as “Bdiduta”, translated as “Solitarus” in the Quadrilogy of the books of my native language.


Last year ago, a commenter have criticized an article of mine about solitude, as the equivalent of submitting to the power and the authority of the External World, a concept that they have titled as defeatism.




I will tell you now, by logic, why a solitary life isn’t necessarily an indication of defeatism, even if it could be at times, by giving you an example of a movie I just saw shortly ago, where the protagonist could’ve been saved from being defeated by the villain - by seclusion.I will tell you now, by logic, why a solitary life isn’t necessarily an indication of defeatism, even if it could be at times, by giving you an example of a movie I just saw shortly ago, where the protagonist could’ve been saved from being defeated by the villain - by seclusion.


The movie, while watching its first half, may likely give you the belief that the protagonist is, in fact, the villain, and the antagonist, as the hero. That is what we, by the media, learn to see the way of things, but since I don’t want to tell spoilers, I shall abstain from telling the movie’s name.



As the movie progresses, the opportunity of the hero to triumph over the villain, slowly but gradually becomes thin and thinner, as the villain, even if on the run, has the large support of the public by their side, by playing the victim, and indeed - why would anyone be of ill-will to someone whom they were told, that they are the victim, and the survivor of multiple dangers and other misfortunes?

Hence why the villain, by seeing a logical pattern unseen even by the hero at first, puts the hero into a state where they ultimately cannot escape, under the gazing eyes of a compassionate and admiring public. The image of one in the eyes of the public, after all, can largely affect one accepting or declining opportunities that might be very good for them, but could carry large disfavor in the eyes of the External World, even though these decisions are good for them individually, and even fatally, but could lead to dire consequences, even in a form of a “witch hunt” against them. Those who are largely seen as the victim, gain a persona that grants them safety from such “hunt”.


Now, I know it may sound very vague, but, perhaps, very clear, in the eyes of those who watched the movie and know which movie I’m talking about. Again - I abstain from spoilers in this forum.

But what I am trying to deliver is the following insight - one can save themselves their money, their time and their wellbeing - by optimally avoiding people and occasions where their chances of defeat are more significant than initially anticipated - one can absolutely win a war by avoiding it, while having less-to-no losses on their own side, than risking in finding oneself at war, and suffering from severe casualties, with a greatly-smaller chance of winning.


To find oneself defeated, after all, one must find themselves in war, but those who emerge victorious, don’t necessarily have to participate in it, in order to win against the enemy.

And now to apply this logic to the notion of solitude - those who choose peace over war by avoiding militant encounters, can easily triumph over the aggressors, simply by avoiding and/or disconnecting them from one’s life. Then - there would be less-to-no conflict, and in such cases, one cannot be defeated, because one didn’t fought in the first place, so how can one be defeated without being in an otherwise-evitable conflict?


By choosing a life of peaceful solitude, therefore, one isn’t necessarily found “guilty” in defeatism, because logic dictates that one cannot be defeated in situation they weren’t involved in.

One can be victorious, however, by winning peace, or in the continuation of it with minimal-to-no fighting with an aggressor, with solitude as an example of a method.

Going back to the example of the movie - even if the hero could never know the nature of their potential antagonist - if they wouldn’t interacted with them on the specific level of their relationship in the movie - they would defeat them by earning the preservation of the peaceful normality of their lives; winning through avoidance.


#article #insightful #solitude #contentofdepth

12 views