Some of the were bullied. But some likely weren't. Not that you said otherwise. It's very complex, many factors involved, not least the kind of economic system we have of massive consumerism and try-and-you-get-it-all what with all these social media devices constantly engaging in non-stop competition and then you're not good enough and If I'm not good enough the others aren't either. Something like that. But many other factors we aren't privy to as well.

what is a phase (gothing out in black, piercing, etc.) and what is some real serious mental issues. Either way, I know it cannot help to have a pack engaged in dog-pilling on these kids. I hate packs. Even if the loner is an asshole who deserves to be ostracized. I like people who befriend the lonely who don't want to be alone, as well as those who stand up to the pack when they see them bullying. — James Riley

I can agree with that. Well, in a philosophy forum of all places, you're going to find a few pessimists. This is kind of the whole range of human thought, much of it inscrutable to us.

I'm similar-ish to you. Mine is more noise-reduction than anything else. My mind needs space to think, even if lots of the time it's navel-gazing. If I don't have that, I'm not living fully. Call it a quirk. :wink:

Mine is more noise-reduction than anything else. — Manuel

It's a noisy world and it's good to disconnect. For me, it's reconnecting with the non-human environment that brings the peace.

For me, it's reconnecting with the non-human environment that brings the peace. — James Riley

That's good too.

No.

And the distinction is moot, since I was clearly talking about loners, not merely the state of being alone.

A loner, by choice or otherwise, spends less time with other people than the norm. You, the self appointed arbiter of human merit, deems them to be failures. Good on you. I think you are a self important blowhard, but we each have our opinions.

The amount of time anyone spends absent the company of others obviously can vary, and the joys or trials or use of such time also vary. But there are healthy and unhealthy degrees of choosing to be alone, and healthy and unhealthy reasons for making the choices. Or in short there is healthy being alone and unhealthy being alone. The unhealthy usually are called loners. But the word also applies to those who are not alone and are healthy, but who prefer to avoid superficial contact, as one of us just above has observed.

Had you indicated an awareness of the distinction, I'd have refrained from comment. But you apparently insist on a definition of the term cleaned of any pathological import, which cleansing makes for ambiguity and nonsensical argument. To be pathologically alone, or a loner in that sense, I called a failure in a sense laid out twice above. Address that if you having anything substantive to add.

I do insist on such a definition. A loner voluntarily prefers solitude, for reasons you might consider healthy, unhealthy, and every gradation between. Where involuntary, "outcast" is more apt.

This is the denotation. Alongside this, there is a negative connotation of disapproval, distrust, and contempt. To call someone a loner is not to make a psychological diagnosis as you seem to believe. Rather, the word, beyond its denotation, is an act of social judgement. So far from understanding this distinction, you uncritically accept the social attitude as a given, reifying it as merely a reflection of the loner's failure and unhealth.

It is one of the roles of philosophy to disentangle these false "givens" from what is neutrally there. It is the role of junk philosophy to accept and bolster social consensus with half assed references to Aristotle and "Rogerian self actualization"

The loner as "outcast"? No, the outcast is alone. Were he a loner, no need to cast him out. But I take your point, by definition no loners are in any pathological state, and by Aristotelian standard presupposed happy, and by Rogerian standard, self-actualized. Which definition you insist on. Procrustean of you, just chop off a bit to make it fit.

And you attribute to me a characterizations I did not and do not make. It being not mine, the "contempt," & etc. must be yours. "Loner" is a descriptive term, not a diagnosis. Included is the possibility of pathology. And to be sure the term is also used as a warning.

From this I infer - no doubt incorrectly - that you're something of a loner, and a bit afraid of it, certainly defensive. And it would be nice if before you referred to something as half-assed, you first understood it.

Please try to read more carefully. I was contrasting "loner", whose condition is voluntary, with an "outcast" whose isn't.

But I take your point, by definition no loners are in any pathological state — tim wood

I hope to avoid ever making such a ridiculous claim. Loners prefer to be alone, that is really all there is to it.

And you attribute to me a characterizations I did not and do not make. It being not mine, the "contempt," & etc. must be yours. — tim wood

These are my takes on the connotations of the word. I think most would agree, at least in my (American South) culture. It is quite hard to believe someone hasn't internalized these connotations who makes the the whopper of a claim that:

I do not think there is any such thing as a "successful" loner. To be a loner is already to have failed at life in perhaps the most significant ways — tim wood

Guess I'm just being defensive.

From this I infer - no doubt incorrectly - that you're something of a loner, and a bit afraid of it, certainly defensive. — tim wood

I happily claim to be something of a loner, though I go through phases. There were times people might have called me one behind my back (it is not something you say to someone's face, unless you intend to denigrate).

It is quite hard to believe someone hasn't internalized these connotations who makes the the whopper of a claim that:
I do not think there is any such thing as a "successful" loner. To be a loner is already to have failed at life in perhaps the most significant ways
— tim wood
Guess I'm just being defensive. — hypericin

If you knew a little Aristotle and a little Rogers, you'd have got the qualification. Nothing to be defensive about. As to calling someone a loner, why not, if the usage appropriate? But for most boys and girls and men and women, sociability is a shibboleth of sorts. If you can't do it or consistently chose not to, then something's wrong, and him or her not a good candidate to be social with.

Edit: I would be surprised if most here were not to some degree loners.