Perhaps you ‘ve heard of Schopenhauer’s cold porcupine/hedgehog dilemma. Therein the poor creatures, analogous to we shivering masses — in need of what society has to offer, huddle together for warmth. Of course, the pricks of proximity drive them again away from one another and so an equilibrium is reached where both cold and pricking are minimised. My reading of Schopenhauer finds the negative qualities given central roles — we do not find a good in society as good is merely the absence of bad, happiness the absence of suffering. And so, as the title Studies in Pessimism should warn the reader, goodness’ solidity is no match for the harshness of its more effective counterpart.
Having heard the parable before, I was surprised to find his intended point: not that it is best to find this equilibrium, but it is best to have an internal source of heat. What interests is the non-hopeful idealism this elicits, in myself at least. The goings-on of these pigs-with-spikes is of little immediate interest — it is to the pig of a different sort Schopenhauer beckons.
Ordinary people are sociable and complaisant just from the very opposite feeling;—to bear others’ company is easier for them than to bear their own…
…people are rendered sociable by their ability to endure solitude, that is to say, their own society.
–Our Relation to Ourselves
Here too he goes on to discuss people crowding together for warmth and to aver that this sociability which develops is not worth the condescension imposed on this singular person. “It may be said that a man’s sociability stands very nearly in inverse ratio to his intellectual value.”
Not so long ago, I would have agreed. I still wish to uphold the value of a cultivated solitude (for in a noisy, inter-networked world maintaining the state necessary for concentration is no small feat), but it must also be helpful to some portion of the others. It is not acceptable only to be a man apart, capable of self-produced warmth but not of diffusing such heat. In such a state the good which might be attained is lost — bottled up inside the (perhaps) happy but incommunicable soul. It is not enough that Socrates pursued the true path if the markers left behind cannot be followed. Surely not all (likely most) society is worthy of our time, but the good must be communicated else no lasting progress be effected.
In sum, solitude is not merely a worthy pastime and a potential joy but its benefits are insufferable if they are to never be offered (in some adjusted socialisation) to others who shiver as well.