> That's a contradiction, humans are social animal and the rise of telecommunications and the internet is just the current technological advancement in that direction.
The whole notion of humans being "social animals" is a recent invention. (Even the notion of humans being just "animals" is about as young.) For most of human history, there has been an underlying impulse for humans to distance themselves from each other for periods of time. (Monasticism, colonization, and rural farming were the majority lifestyles until recently.) The only reason the contemplative lifestyle is being looked down upon nowadays is that we've simply run out of enough land to give everyone enough room to be so at the same time. Until we develop some means of overcoming the space distance barrier, we're stuck with each other.
I'm curious about what you mean by "recent". Aristotle considered man by nature a "political animal". Genesis states that "It is not good for man to be alone." To whom do you credit the idea that man is a "social animal"?
Aristotle has thought of himself as a "political" being, but he perceived the world and the meaning of "political" in a very different way from me and you.
I agree with you, but I think Aristotle's conception of man as a political animal all the more perceives contradiction in the quote, "I want to be human again. Even if that means isolating myself from the rest of you humans." Whereas we perhaps are inclined to see socializing as something good in its own right, Aristotle taught that the community of the city/polis has a higher aim: to fulfill the higher goal of man, to make men nobler, to make them more human.
For Aristotle, to be more virtuous was to be more human. Many virtues - patience, forgiveness, generosity, thankfulness, love, courage - are either best achieved, or only achieved, in community. Hence he reasoned that a full humanity requires a community, that therefore "man is a political animal".
Conceiving of the human as "social animal" rather than individualized monadic unit may be new, but the evidence for the human as socially constructed being is not. From our very first experience as infants we are engaged in social relationships with our primary care giver that lays the groundwork for who we will become. It can be said that it is impossible for any human to escape her community, for she <i>is</i>, in a sense, her community. See Heinz Kohut for more on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Kohut
This presents and interesting answer to the following:
>> That's a contradiction, humans are social animal and the rise of telecommunications and the internet is just the current technological advancement in that direction.
Sometimes one might need to get away from the buzz of the other's communication to listen to the community we carry around in our heads.
As for Monasticism: While a completely individual monastic lifestyle has been practiced, it is rare in the history of Western monasticism. Also, as I said above, an individual withdrawing from human contact does not mean she is not in "community." Medieval Christian monastic communities, for their part, were just that, "communities." Monks in these communities lived together and depended on one another for survival. And while they did feel the urge (maybe more properly understood as a 'call') to separate themselves from the community at large, they normally did not cloister their communities far away from urban population centers and were often an integral part of the Medieval economy.
Even the "Desert Fathers," one of the earliest forms of Christian Monasticism, though often viewed as making a radical break from their society, distanced themselves from society in general but not from all humans specifically. Furthermore, these communities depended heavily on links back to the community they had originated from for food, water, and the prayer they thought necessary to exist in the harsh climate of the dessert.
I would go so far as to say that Monasticism, though it does necessitate an intentional distancing of oneself from society at large, is actually a form of a radically <i>social</i> community not experienced by most humans. I think the same can be said about colonialists and rural farmers. Individuals in both of these groups can be said to depend heavily on support from the other for their survival.
Finally, urban existence can be a very lonely for many people. Industrialization and urbanization both create a feeling of what Max Weber termed "anomie." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie In the history of colonization especially, I would think one thing colonists sought to escape was not social interaction with other humans, but the felt sense of anomie created by living amongst too many humans at once in an oppressive environment. Seen this way, colonists, monks, and farmers all escape from environments hostile to the human "social animal" and arrive in an environment more suitable for the social interaction we cannot help but crave.
Footnote: I should add that I know there are rich traditions of monasticism other than Christian monasticism but I'm not qualified to speak on them.
The whole notion of humans being "social animals" is a recent invention. (Even the notion of humans being just "animals" is about as young.) For most of human history, there has been an underlying impulse for humans to distance themselves from each other for periods of time. (Monasticism, colonization, and rural farming were the majority lifestyles until recently.) The only reason the contemplative lifestyle is being looked down upon nowadays is that we've simply run out of enough land to give everyone enough room to be so at the same time. Until we develop some means of overcoming the space distance barrier, we're stuck with each other.