What kind of moral/immoral actions can a person do when alone, isolated from others?

As you clearly explained previously this a deep topic to debate about. I guess (mathematically) it is impossible to make immoral actions when you are isolate since the moment you have zero relations with others. So, if I am alone and do not have connection with others, then I don't even have the opportunity to make immoral decisions towards others. I think the core component here is the inner thoughts of the isolated person. How would affect him the act of isolating himself from others? it reminds me more or less of Stanley Kubrick's film The Shinning where the main character went in craziness after a period of time (well this symbolic film it is a good debate itself).

the rising suicide rates.

This is one of the modern problems in Japan. They even created recently a new ministry to prevent suicides due to loneliness. It is even a paradox because Japan is a overcrowded country with 126,5 millions of people but somehow it looks like they do not promote social interaction and then tend to live alone.

my time spent alone is only beneficial to me (potentially) and to no one else

Then, I have to say you are in the right path. Expending time in just our beneficial purposes is one of the best things we can do. Time is something immaterial that can provides us some good or bad experiences. When you are using it for your own benefits you are not wasting it because in the long run will be so worthy for you. But imagine for a minute wasting your time helping others and then they do not valour it. I guess this is a waste of time to be honest...
I remember back in my days of university. My teacher of taxes told us having a boyfriend/girlfriend is not wasting time despite you can end up breaking up because you lived beautiful experiences too.
I was like meh if you end up breaking up with someone I guess you lost time in something despite you probably win a lot of experience.

The time you are spending off by yourself you could be contributing to community, either in terms of actual work and interaction, or even via solidarity.

This point is very important because it reflects what I wanted to argued previously. Sometimes spending time off by ourselves can also develop good or efficiency to others or the community itself. Probably because for some people this is the right path to concentrate and then developing their thoughts.
It reminds me about John Locke. He lived in a mansion in UK completely alone where he wrote An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. He gave to humanity a lot of wisdom despite he lived alone by self decision...

Who am I that I need to set myself apart from all others just to spend time with my self-absorption?

Probably some who gives up in social interactions and then wants to isolate. I guess the point is simple but Bakunin thought that this act is somehow selfish for all of those who don't try to live in communities
I guess we all have at least the right of decided if we want to self-imposed us the isolation right? Then we can argue if it is good or bad for whatever reasons

Bakunin never really gave a reason for why isolation is selfish

He literally did in the rest of his works or books. Bakunin in his first political days was socialist so probably he criticised loneliness as an act of selfishness because it reminds him about bourgeois or capitalism. the fact of not sharing your interests with others is a selfish act for Bakunin thought

So is he not selfish at this point?

I guess no. This is why I was trying to argue against Bakunin criteria. I think the simple act of living alone because some wants to it is not connected with political or economical beliefs. So this is why I say Bakunin was wrong when he estated a loneliness person is forced to be more sad than others when it is not necessarily to.

Some ppl only learned who Picasso was when they read a news article that told of one of his paintings selling for a record umpteen-million dollars. Culture becomes important when it generates money. I doubt they ever learned who Diogenes was. — Todd Martin

It generates money and then marketing. Picasso is more famous than Diogenes because there are a lot of commercial interests of rich people flowing around.
This exactly happens when we are speaking about other marketing culture stuff: Mona Lisa. We all know is a Da Vinci paint but it is not his best work... But somehow it provides a lot of marketing and money. It is easy to see around internet the image and "memes" about it.
I also bet, as you said, those don't even know who is Francisco de Goya and the "black paintings" which are one of the most important works in art history.

So yes... Sadly in nowadays an art work depends of how the dictatorship of social media give them the accurate reflection or marketing.

provide an answer to why isolation? Could it be a rejection of something? — Caldwell

It could be a rejection of everything around us. One person can decide to isolate himself because literally want to live alone with his ownthoughts. Simple.
For example. Imagine a researcher. He isolates himself in a library for one year without social interaction due to their investigation and studies.
Also another example. Imagine a person who has been retired and then buys a house in the middle of nowhere and wants to live alone with their own circumstances.

The fact here is, against Bakunin was saying, I tried to argument that despite there are a lot of causes which drive a person isolate himself, does not necessarily mean selfish or even "sadness" which is what Bakunin was questioning about.
I isolate myself because I want to. I don't even have to express a clear cause to do it.

The hypocrisy of the left making itself present!

I think Bakunin was somehow misunderstood back in the day. Probably he started being communist or socialist but he ended up not believing in anything at all. I guess this is why his friendship with Marx ended. It is interesting despite his studies about working class or other leftist stuff he established the real enemy is the politics with the State. Thus, developing anarchism.
He also defended the idea of European United States without politics. What a pradox! Today exists Euopean Union but Russia is not part of it, hmm...

We are the only conscious living in universe because we do not reach the accurate technology to demonstrate the contrary yet. I think saying humanity is the only evidence life in Universe is somehow flat and it should be better considering it more general/open to debate deeply or at least as a theory like Big Bang and the born of Universe.
This reminds me about Drake's equation written back in 1961 theorising which are the possibilities of other lives in the Universe apart from ours.

The Drake equation is:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone);
and

R∗ = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space

It is interesting this theory which makes us questioning if it is worthy or not discover if we are alone or not in this vast universe.

you can not grow and evolve into God’s image — SteveMinjares

What if I don’t want to. It is not a human task evolve to God’s image

I want to be free but with more limits in we know in the West as “modern society” I would sound totalitarian but in important things as voting or internet access should not be accessible for everyone.
When these are free and easy to join they end up being flawed. Here in Spain you can vote with just 18 years old. I think it is not useful because a teenager doesn’t know how a State or government works so they will vote whatever they were taught to previously. I consider raise the age at 25 at least.
Internet era is the same and many powerful entities use it just to brainwash people with fake news. Social media as Twitter or Facebook have not a democratic criteria because do not put basic rules of “truths” neither transparency. It is free access so lit any kind of person can join and write whatever they want. It is dangerous and drives to misunderstandings.
I would say these are good inventions but somehow they need to be more restricted.

He made us in his image so by that logic we are inherently good by his grace. — SteveMinjares

Which image? We never seen that. So this is contradictory again when you wrote previously:

It is only define or real if you can observe it. — SteveMinjares

We cannot define God’s grace and image if we never observed it.

Why would someone isolate himself from the rest? — Caldwell

Probably because the subject does not believe in social interactions. I guess he thinks he will end up being hurt or disappointed. So he pretends isolate himself just to live with their own circumstances not depending from the rest. Imagine living alone in an island full of resources. Why not? This action is not necessarily selfish or bad if it is a personal decision.
This somehow breaks the theory of Karl Marx of human is a social animal and is forced to live in communities. So here opens a tangent in the debate about if we are free of living in our own or we are forced to live with others because this is how ever works.

Another (6):

1. If an object is sensible, it is divisible
2. My mind is not divisible
3. Therefore, my mind is not a sensible object — Bartricks

I would change “divisible” for tangible. All sensible objects are tangibles because we can use it or modified for our own desire respecting the laws of physics. Our mind is not tangible because is full of abstract criteria but it gives us the most powerful thing: awareness.
Can be awareness divisible as you stated? To be honest yes. Because we apply here cogito ergo sum rule. Since we are literally aware of our own mind we exist but imagine those who never had this thought. I guess we can apply here the divisible/tangible criteria because it will reflect us how aware we are about our mind.

Another (8):

1. No existing object has infinite parts
2. if any sensible object exists, it will have infinite parts (for it will be infinitely divisible)
3. Therefore, no sensible object exists
4. My mind exists
5. Therefore, my mind is not a sensible object — Bartricks

I don’t understand so much this one. Infinite is so relative in our vocabulary. I guess any objects do not have infinite parts because literally we don’t know what extent or integrated is infinite in our reality. Sometimes we use infinite just as trying to describe something we don’t know yet.
Therefore, if my mind has limits admitting there are “infinite” variables then my mind is so sensible to their changes.

Another (9):

1. My reason represents it to be possible for my mind to exist apart from any sensible thing
2. If my mind was a sensible thing, then it would not be possible for it to exist apart from any sensible thing
3. Therefore, my reason is representing my mind not to be a sensible object — Bartricks

I guess you mixed reason and mind. Reason provides us enter to the sensible/tangible world. When work the reason we can make the ideas of mind true. For example, building a pyramid was firstly an idea in someone’s mind. Later on, the architect put the reason to work and then build it. So this is literally sensible criteria.

The same goes with morality and reality. It is only define or real if you can observe it. — SteveMinjares

But then you also say:

And those who try to justify God’s existence based on the pain and suffering of our current reality is a form of a loaded question. Through my perspective, answering such a question if an answer exists is just catering to the individual's ego desiring to be superior in a reality that cannot be control by human beings. — SteveMinjares

This is the paradox about the debate. How can you say morality, reality, and physics only exists if we can observe it but then you believe in God so blindness? It is quite contradictory. You would believe or not of how Cosmos works with their laws from a empirical perspective saying it is only define or real if you can observe it.
How can we observe God? Why do you believe in it if you are not observing it?

I think happiness can exist without love. Considering this one so “subjective” and codependent because in love is needed to be loved to. But happiness can involves us in a lot of circumstances that makes us happy. For example, writing a novel and then you win a prize. This would make you happy for your own effort and knowledge but love is not here anyway...
Also while happiness is forced to drive us in good situations, love could be dangerous. Imagine being love with someone or something that ends up disappointing you for whatever reason.
So yes I guess they are different and can exist independently.

How do you feel about being a philosopher, perhaps even a futility affirming pessimist that there is a gratuitous and incomprehensible amount of suffering in the world that leads to a miserable state of affairs for others, that one must address as a good person or at least a person concerned with the good?

Is this something philosophy is most knowledgeable about or seemingly speaks about it as if it were a trite truth about living? — Shawn

I feel the same thought of always. Living is painful. Simple. We can not truly know how to be happy or at least finding a scenario with regular life as you said with the last pain possible. Remember that Aristotle in his writings about Ethics he proposed that the main goal of humanity is find happiness.
When you reach a society with happiness supposedly everything will work properly. But this is the hardest equation.
How can we be happy? It is difficult and somehow impossible because depends a lot of own personal beliefs and ideas. Also it is important point out that we live in a toxic generation where weirdly famous or influencers spread all over the network fake happiness. This is a big problem to the youngest. Because when a teenager see them and then see himself he gets frustrated to easy.
I think philosophy is clear here. We have to promote the act of knowledge and then each step will drive us to our goal. Thus, the happiness.
Nevertheless, sadly, this is not a task the governments are considering for. They are just there like in a jungle getting profits and spread depression to the youngest people. When I see politicians criticising each other with bad words it makes me sad because they show that they do not care at all about mutual consent or at least equal stability.

Perhaps Bakunin didn't appreciate, for whatever (ideological?) reasons, how much his bouts of "loneliness" had invigorized his promethean rages against the machine ... — 180 Proof

True. This point is interesting. Because back in time in his loneliness time he was somehow tired or frustrated of what is going around him. As you said, perhaps he was influenced so much by Karl Max because they were even friends. So probably he was so much focused in establishing communities of working class instead of being selfish and being alone in home

So, is it isolation that's being explained here? If so, I can see his point that voluntary isolation is selfish. — Caldwell

I think he was referring to isolation as an act of not sharing with others. As you said, I can hang out with friends o people but I can feel lonely. But at least I try go there and meeting people, in this context the problem is not me but the others who don’t respect me or don’t want to be me with me.
Bakunin (I guess) thought that those people who don’t want to be with anybody and also not interact at all so not making communities is somehow selfish. But I think we have to consider it in their political beliefs in terms that probably he compares a loneliness man with a capitalist/powerful man of the state, etc... that only wants keep his richness

Studies have repeatedly shown that the loneliness has little to do intro- or extroversion

True but somehow introverted people tend to go more loneliness than extroverted ones because it isnjust their nature. We can see it in the pandemic covid era. There were people who is hard for them stay a lot inside their homes while other do not care at all or are even more comfortable with themselves.
Also, yes, as you remarked we all ned have issues about external preoccupation. I guess this is another argument why Bakunin defended the selfishness practicing loneliness because somehow if we self-imposed us stay away of people we do not make other have expectations or whatever about us

Yes I already know that story. It is emotional and impacting. I remember an important scene where Christopher burned a few dollars as a metaphor of leaving the system. the decades he was living alone was difficult yes, but not impossible. I guess it is an interesting book where it shows the debate about if we are truly a social animal
Furthermore this story I also recommend to you another similar story called the history of Hayy Ibn Yaqzan here is the link of the free book: file:///C:/Users/javix/Desktop/Hayy%20empiricism.pdf/ http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/books/hayy.pdf where a little kid is raised in a savage island with a lot of antelopes ans then at the age of 49 years old he tells their experience when he meets civilisation for the first time.

This is what I was questioning about. I think there is no obligation to stay with others but it looks like for some researchers that somehow we are forced to interact and then build communities.
But no, I am agree with you I do not see anything immoral of being lonely.

Does Existence have any objective/universal meaning?". — SmartIdiot

It is meaningful since the importance for human knowledge. As Descartes said cogito ergo sum
Since the exactly moment we are available to think and therefore the stimulus of awareness provides us the situation that at least we literally exist. Probably all of our reality is fake and is meaningless but the existence of human themselves develop our consciousness.
The debate is open about if since the moment we exist how worthy our reality actually is.

I am agree with you. I think is difficult disentangle ideology or background experience to get an original about human nature. I guess the day we can do this we will turn back to prehistory time where nothing about this was that important or complex for humans as today.

When you see the Spanish flag you think: "Hm, whose flag is that?" :joke: — SophistiCat

Lol :rofl: well I don’t care if the people don’t recognise it because I will always show the flag of my city instead. Madrid! Spain is full of regionalism. It looks like it has countries inside itself.

[img]http://

Love is a serious mental disease.

- Plato.

Love is a madness
- Socrates.

I guess it depends which philosophers we are talking about. Those from romanticism would write and speak a lot of it but in the most of philosophy branches there are just a few philosophers taking about love.
For my personal opinion philosophy is supposedly a path to find happiness. Probably for some people finding love is finding happiness at the end of the day

But sure, people do differ, and maybe you could question the validity of making these general claims about all of humanity like Bakunin does, based on his personal experiences alone. — ChatteringMonkey

I think these claims from Bakunin not only comes from his personal experience but their political ideology. He rejected all state or political system establishing the anarchism. Nevertheless, back in the time Bakunin was a friend of Marx and then this is why he thought the importance of promote communities (equalities) instead of loneliness (selfishness/capitalism).
Probably it could be a reflection of sociology or just a research he did.

Do you think the working class theory can be accepted if all and everyone is created in the same aspect in compare to the rest of the humans. Don't you think that the system of equality will work if someone is holding more than others, in terms of knowledge, mind and hardships that he has faced in his life span? — RBS

No. It won’t work the class work theory. If a quite perfect system as URSS fell down don’t expect this again in our lives. Why they ended? Because they turned out being the bourgeois one. If you have all the power in your own hand it is difficult have solidarity or at least trying to. Keep in my mind that sadly there are people who don’t want give an effort in life. They have laziness by nature. Others are not capable to do things probably for their illness, etc... so in this context we see clearly we are different from each other by nature. The problem here is that there are people who take a lot of advantage from this.

What if we have totally forgotten our existence and trying to reinvent it with what we think should be? — RBS

I don’t know how can be but I defend at least will be dangerous and savage. Like the nature around us. When a cheetah has to kill an antelope to survive

People are too comfortable offending people, an the same people are too sensitive to receive. — Tharealist

Yes because we humans tend to different us from each other through different labels. It is weird but people do this. When we see or visit a country with customs so different from us surprise a lot. If you are a person with culture you will try to understand it and learn more about it. If you are ignorant you will criticise or underrated it.

I think we are, and I think if you want, you could come up with evidence for this, such as stats for loneliness being an indicator for shorter lifespans and unhappiness etc... Bakunin feels alone and unhappy because of it, it's hard to argue with that. It is what it is.

I guess the question for me now personally is not whether we need social relations and communities, I think we do — ChatteringMonkey

Agree. We just do social relationships and communities because we literally need it. This is our reality. It is interesting why scientific researchers says we tend to be more unhappy if we want to live alone. Well it depends a lot of the person we are talking about. Sometimes we have that period of life with sadnesses and incomprehension. Some people go to their friends but imagine you don’t have any. We can say here go to a therapist or psychologist but somehow those people prefer to live alone or at least apart from social interaction.
Nevertheless, as you said, it is quite impossible make this practice in a long run because we are forced to interact with others. It looks like our mind is asking for this. But in this point I still disagree that introvert o more “lonely” people don’t need to be selfish at all.

If you really want to find a flaw in it, I suppose you should be focusing on the implicit indifference. — TheMadFool

It is true that I did not see it that way. As you perfectly explained it before if I isolate myself because I want it is quite selfish because I don’t make good things to others neither the ability of sharing the life experience with others. Since I understand the difference I guess it is not selfishness at all because there are people who self-imposed live alone but make good actions to others.
Also some people’s dreams is literally live the last days in a house hidden in the forest without socialising. I think it is respectful when someone wanted to make this step in their lives.

There's a fair amount of pacifism in the US that clashes with flag waving, which is often associated with military action. — frank

Agree. But this is just another character inside of American nationality/customs symbolism
I guess all the pacifists and hippies movement criticised the flag of US because is one of the most powerful military countries all over the world. Nevertheless, this is not needed to be included of what is the actual means of the flag. If it has 50 stars I guess it is because of the representation of all the states.
What we can say apart from this is just personal beliefs or opinions.

Why is it that nationality talk and Nationalism in particular is so easily acceptable, and race talk and Racism is so difficult and unacceptable? — unenlightened

Nationality (supposedly) is made about people’s customs,heritage, history, religion and ideas. The flag is just propaganda and easy symbolism. Nevertheless, it depends a lot which country we are talking about... here in Spain most of the people hate the Spanish national flag. Some say it is fascist, homophobic, racist or mustiness. So it is interesting as you said why some flags are more tolerated than others or at least respected. When you go to Catalonia there are people who burn the Spanish flag. Personally I don’t get frustrated but others get annoyed. I guess being a spaniard goes further than a flag.
Also I guess it is very important here the social marketing. Apparently the UK flag which represents the British nationality doesn’t trigger a lot of people not like the nazi or URSS flag for a lot of reasons.
I remember one day I saw the following advertisement:

When you see the UK flag you think about Big Ben
When you see the American flag you think about hamburgers or big cars
When you see the Spanish flag you think about that bigot who hates gay people

Hmm... bad propaganda.

The essay itself is interesting. You can find a copy here. — Wayfarer

Thank you for sharing it with me. I am going to check it out.

Furthermore in The Basic Laws of Arithmetic he says that 'the laws of truth are authoritative because of their timelessness: "[the laws of truth] are boundary stones set in an eternal foundation, which our thought can overflow, but never displace. It is because of this, that they authority for our thought if it would attain to truth — Tyler Burge, Frege on Knowing the Third Realm

@Wayfarer

This point is interesting. I understand now what Frege is trying to tell us. I like that characteristic of “timelessness” and so he is somehow right too despite Berkeley theories.
If some statements made by the humankind understanding or investigating the nature or reality are so efficient that literally are passing through the centuries without doubt of their existence probably is due to they are true.

For example: 1 + 1 = 2. Why? Because I count it as an act with my fingers. We can argue here if 1 + 1 equals to zero or infinite. But the law of truth or primary attribute that equals to 2 doesn’t need to drive to error. Despite of Berkeley criticism about not purifying at all the nature around us.

Also, being poor means living on the edge of small disasters which can happen at any time. One's life is precarious. Constant threat makes one more cautious, more likely to respond well to political promises of "the good old days" when people imagined life was better. — Bitter Crank

True. We live in an era where a huge number of citizens use their income just to pay the house and bills. Around a 50 or 60 % of the salary is attached to a precarious life. It is sad because it looks like reading philosophy or going to theatres is the modern privilege.
I wish one day we can change this context. It remembers somehow the past times in Rome with slaves. It sounds like a metaphor

Where did we go wrong. What was the starting point of humans to get this much in trouble where if they were created with a humble nature. — RBS

Competitiveness. This what Marx was rejecting back in the time. Remember that Karl Marx was so opposed against the idea of State and he wanted to establish a system a working class. Probably trying to get something different of what we are used to.
Nevertheless, this reflects how the human nature is selfish by nature. It is impossible getting an equality system because always there will be someone who will break it.

they are just happy to be noticed and to adopt the belief that following this politician will make their futures better than they are at the present. — Experi

You perfectly explained it here. A clever governor is who makes advantage of those who are not admitted in high society. It is a social paradox because the low paid jobs will do anything but give their lives to promote the leviathan despite probably they will end up abandoned by the State.
This is why it is filthy how governments take advantage from so ignorant people.

I'm curious then how you characterize the "ignorant people with low paid jobs" you mentioned. You talk about them rather harshly but what differentiates you and other enlightened people from them?

We live in the capitlism era. This means having money or at least a decent salary can provide you enter in the culture circle (books, theaters, universities, etc...)
Imagine having a low paid job like 700 euros or even less per month working in a boring job that nobody wants but the low qualification ones. When these citizens come back home they do not have time to question anything because their time is wasted (sadly) paying the bills. So when these populists politicians randomly appear in their lives is like a resurrection. They start not feeling that bad despite their mediocrity.

note: It is true that there are people with high income whose behaviour is similar to those. This situation is even worse

So I'm not really sure, other than that you seem to have a much more pessimistic view of society than I do. Am I right to say that you see politicians and the "ignorant people" as a puppeteer/puppet relationship? Politicians pull on the 'strings' of pathos to control the puppet that is those people. How do you prevent yourself from being one of the puppets, or know you aren't one?

I guess we live in different countries and this is why we have different perception of politicians. At least in my homeland they don't anything properly to do but divide the society and being corrupts.
You say how we can know we are not the puppet ones. Easy. When you are not the politician. Every politician is somehow a puppet. It is true that some of them can end up controlling a lot of power and that stuff... But they are not free at all to take their own decisions. It is impossible.
The leviathan is always observing from the shadows...