Can you be happy alone on your own?

[osho]

I wonder whether we can or not when we have no one to specially take care of us. Some people have parents to take care of them; others have their spouses or boyfriends or girlfriends or some close relatives in their lives. Yet there are others who might have their close associates like friends and at times cyber-friends too in the age of the internet. Life living on without anybody to turn to or to feel at one with is uninteresting. It is my opinions and of course opinions vary. It is interesting to know how others loot this issue from their own experience in life.

[YesNo]

When I was younger (early 20s) I worked in forestry and would travel to different areas. Usually there was a small team in a camp but occasionally I would be alone for up to a week at a time between getting supplies from the town 10-30 miles away or a visit from my employer who would check the progress and quality of the thinning work I did. This was in the days before cell phones and computers and internet. I did have a nice Ford pickup truck with a camper on top. I actually preferred being alone to having a team around me. It was less complicated and I could focus on the work.

I can see why hermits might want live in the Himalayas. I don't think they get any closer to God as a result, but there are less distractions.

[cafolini]

I wonder whether we can or not when we have no one to specially take care of us. Some people have parents to take care of them; others have their spouses or boyfriends or girlfriends or some close relatives in their lives. Yet there are others who might have their close associates like friends and at times cyber-friends too in the age of the internet. Life living on without anybody to turn to or to feel at one with is uninteresting. It is my opinions and of course opinions vary. It is interesting to know how others loot this issue from their own experience in life.

But Osho, this is strictly philosophical babble. No fruit can grow out of it, since a-priori, the only way to be alone is in a grave or urn, where not even oblivion and the such can be considered.

[Eiseabhal]

I can't see anything philosophical in that question. Some people are so fractious, cantankerous and misanthropic that it is better they are alone. Others are alone through no fault of their own because of bereavement. Others are alone through the bad luck of life. People can learn to cope with being alone without actually enjoying it. The longer one is alone making decisions for oneself, the harder it becomes to adapt to the needs of another. So perversely those who most need company often end up as those least likely to obtain it. Independence is often praised but is more often in life simply making a virtue out of a necessity. Most of us work better as a team of two but some are too selfish even for that form of sharing. Does it really matter? To individuals definitely. To society? Maybe.

[cafolini]

I can't see anything philosophical in that question. Some people are so fractious, cantankerous and misanthropic that it is better they are alone. Others are alone through no fault of their own because of bereavement. Others are alone through the bad luck of life. People can learn to cope with being alone without actually enjoying it. The longer one is alone making decisions for oneself, the harder it becomes to adapt to the needs of another. So perversely those who most need company often end up as those least likely to obtain it. Independence is often praised but is more often in life simply making a virtue out of a necessity. Most of us work better as a team of two but some are too selfish even for that form of sharing. Does it really matter? To individuals definitely. To society? Maybe.

No one is alone and in particular those who you say need company the most would easily get it if that were the case. You have a con-flict there which babble wouldn't solve.

[cacian]

and the answer is no one cannot possibly achieve happiness on one's own.

[Volya]

and the answer is no one cannot possibly achiever happiness on one's own.

This is completely subjective. Some people like having others around, some people prefer solitude.

[MarkBastable]

and the answer is no one cannot possibly achiever happiness on one's own.

Speak for yourself (and whoever you're co-dependent with at the moment).

[cafolini]

Speak for yourself (and whoever you're co-dependent with at the moment).

Don't mess with Cacian when she's correct. No one lives in vaccuo.


This is completely subjective. Some people like having others around, some people prefer solitude.

Cacian is more objective in this one than you dare imagine.

[Shaman_Raman]

Cacian is more objective in this one than you dare imagine.


I suspect a spiritual undertone to this, which I respect. But my spirituality allows me to be comfortable alone, because in many ways I don't think I'm alone. However, I think the question posed in this thread is if we can find happiness without depending on fellow human beings to give it to us, which I would say yes. It's a dangerous road depending solely on others for happiness, because such people are usually insecure and lonely.

Scenario: You find a companion who rocks your world and you feel you can't live without. One day they do something to let you down, and suddenly that insecurity resurfaces. With some people, they'll constantly avoid the let downs because they'd rather settle short, than go back to being single or without a companion. Others will quickly throw the companionship out after a small offense, because the person they sat on a pedestal is no longer as noble as they believed, thus feeling betrayed.

I try to find a balance. I don't seek to live in solitude, but I also don't wish to always need someone around to feel good about myself. This allows me to end friendships with people who may be doing more damage than good, while not fearing having no one to talk to. But on the same note, were not in the jungle anymore. It's not every man for himself, but rather a need to show some good will toward others for survival.

[MarkBastable]

Don't mess with Cacian when she's correct.

When it happens, I shan't.

[cafolini]

I suspect a spiritual undertone to this, which I respect. But my spirituality allows me to be comfortable alone, because in many ways I don't think I'm alone. However, I think the question posed in this thread is if we can find happiness without depending on fellow human beings to give it to us, which I would say yes. It's a dangerous road depending solely on others for happiness, because such people are usually insecure and lonely.

Scenario: You find a companion who rocks your world and you feel you can't live without. One day they do something to let you down, and suddenly that insecurity resurfaces. With some people, they'll constantly avoid the let downs because they'd rather settle short, than go back to being single or without a companion. Others will quickly throw the companionship out after a small offense, because the person they sat on a pedestal is no longer as noble as they believed, thus feeling betrayed.

I try to find a balance. I don't seek to live in solitude, but I also don't wish to always need someone around to feel good about myself. This allows me to end friendships with people who may be doing more damage than good, while not fearing having no one to talk to. But on the same note, were not in the jungle anymore. It's not every man for himself, but rather a need to show some good will toward others for survival.

You are off the subject. Boring.

[blazeofglory]

Everyone has the capacity to be happy on his or her own. I know some saints living in the Himalayas without contact with people. That they are happy or not a different topic but they have the choice down to the valley to talk to people or have their company. This is a response to osho's question as to whether one can be happy without company. Notwithstanding this example I personally prefer to have friends to isolating myself from a world of people.

[cacian]

This is completely subjective. Some people like having others around, some people prefer solitude.

solitude is unnatural to humans even animals don't live in solitude. I suspect from time to time wanting to be alone for a bit is ok because one wants to unwind and think for themselves. To want to live on your own can be hard work mentally and physically because humans are biologically constructed to communicate and think and that means living with people and not apart from them.
The other issue is health and safety. Living on one own is unsafe in case something happens and no one will never know. Safety is indeed in numbers.


Everyone has the capacity to be happy on his or her own. I know some saints living in the Himalayas without contact with people. That they are happy or not a different topic but they have the choice down to the valley to talk to people or have their company. This is a response to osho's question as to whether one can be happy without company. Notwithstanding this example I personally prefer to have friends to isolating myself from a world of people.

Hi blazeglory nice to see around. How do you mean by saints? Is this part of a cult or ritual that living alone means sainthood?

[Volya]

solitude is unnatural to humans even animals don't live in solitude. I suspect from time to time wanting to be alone for a bit is ok because one wants to unwind and think for themselves. To want to live on your own can be hard work mentally and physically because humans are biologically constructed to communicate and think and that means living with people and not apart from them.
The other issue is health and safety. Living on one own is unsafe in case something happens and no one will never know. Safety is indeed in numbers.

This is simply not true, nor would it matter even if it were. Solitude is not 'unnatural', and even if it were, why would that mean you can't be happy in solitude?

[cacian]

This is simply not true, nor would it matter even if it were. Solitude is not 'unnatural', and even if it were, why would that mean you can't be happy in solitude?

Well Volya I thought about it and I see it this way:
happiness is an expression a form of being that transfers from one person to another. I am happy because I know I made someone happy. I am happy I see someone smile and I know that makes me happy. I am happy because someone tells me they are happy. happiness is a kind of feeling that is shared rather then owned.
Solitude does not communicate feelings and happiness does. when alone one is faced with a solemn silence a way of life that rings not bell of laughter and smile but more of a still unsounded environment. I cannot see how one can achieve happiness by being on their own.
Again this is my interpretation of things.
How do you interpret happiness?

[Volya]

Happiness varies depending on who you are. One persons idea of happiness could be very different to anothers.

[kasie]

You are off the subject. Boring.

Absolutely not - please re-read both the OP and Shaman's reply which is apposite, thoughtful and thought provoking.

[Shaman_Raman]

Absolutely not - please re-read both the OP and Shaman's reply which is apposite, thoughtful and thought provoking.

Thank you kassie, but it's okay. No one can be exalted to Cafolini in all his wisdom, so I chose not to respond anymore.

[tinybore]

and the answer is no one cannot possibly achieve happiness on one's own.

Doesn't matter if there's people near you or not, if you want to reach happiness. Once you realize everything and everyone is one, connected to each other one way or another, there is no possibility to be completely alone, even if you live in solitude :-)

Just my thought...

[Shaman_Raman]

Doesn't matter if there's people near you or not, if you want to reach happiness. Once you realize everything and everyone is one, connected to each other one way or another, there is no possibility to be completely alone, even if you live in solitude :-)

Just my thought...

It's post likes this that I wish the Admin would upload a "Like" button. Well said.

[cacian]

Doesn't matter if there's people near you or not, if you want to reach happiness. Once you realize everything and everyone is one, connected to each other one way or another, there is no possibility to be completely alone, even if you live in solitude :-)

Just my thought...

You said it. so to reach happiness one needs an abject a reason to want to reach it. if you are on your own living in solitude what reasons are there for happiness to be fulfilled? what would be the motives for one to want to reach out to be happy if one is living on their own? :)

[Volya]

You said it. so to reach happiness one needs an abject a reason to want to reach it. if you are on your own living in solitude what reasons are there for happiness to be fulfilled? what would be the motives for one to want to reach out to be happy if one is living on their own? :)

Possibly because it is quite nice to feel happy...?

[tinybore]

You said it. so to reach happiness one needs an abject a reason to want to reach it. if you are on your own living in solitude what reasons are there for happiness to be fulfilled? what would be the motives for one to want to reach out to be happy if one is living on their own? :)

Well, if you would be in the state as I mentioned, then you wouldn't feel loneliness nor the need to be around people. You'd see and feel the beauty of life itself, and that would be enough. That is not to say that you want to avoid people, it doesn't matter. I'm just saying you don't necessary need someone else to feel pure happiness. :-)

[soundofmusic]

I wonder whether we can or not when we have no one to specially take care of us. Some people have parents to take care of them; others have their spouses or boyfriends or girlfriends or some close relatives in their lives. Yet there are others who might have their close associates like friends and at times cyber-friends too in the age of the internet. Life living on without anybody to turn to or to feel at one with is uninteresting. It is my opinions and of course opinions vary. It is interesting to know how others loot this issue from their own experience in life.

Interesting thought, Osho. For myself, I find as I get older, I am fatigued by taking care of others needs; so while I would enjoy intimate companionship, I am reminded that it is a two-way street. When we become a friend, we have a debt to that person to be there for them: to always be interested and supportive. Many times, I find myself so preoccupied with friends, or in the day, lovers and husbands, that I lose myself. When that happens, I have to shut myself off, turn away from others conversations, their needs and be selfish for alittle while to restore myself.

[ennison]

No one is alone! Maybe not enough experience of life there. There are degrees of loneliness. I guess Alexander Selkirk had his parrots. Great conversation there.

[cacian]

This is simply not true, nor would it matter even if it were. Solitude is not 'unnatural', and even if it were, why would that mean you can't be happy in solitude?

I think one can be satisfied if not comfortable on their own for quite a while but safety is one measure that is not. When humans feel pressured they could not achieve happiness. Worries about one's comfort is unhappy.
The other thing is that when one lives on their own one does not communicate any more. In order for humans to understand that they are happy they need to hear it either through their actions or their voice telling others or someone telling them because they had noticed they looked or behaved happily. Humans like reassurances from other people to tell them that they are or look happy. Some people tend to not believe themselves because they lack that confidence about them and so people are a reliant to them. They need people around them to tell they are good or happy.
It is very hard to judge happiness when one lives in solitude because there is no communication about it.

if you look at the word 'solitude' it is often quoted with 'loneliness' which is a negative word.
take the definition of the word solitude:

'Solitude is a state of seclusion or isolation, i.e., lack of contact with people. It may stem from bad relationships, loss of loved ones, deliberate choice, infectious
It is littered with 'lack' 'bad' 'loss' 'isolation' these are all negative receptors to the word solitude.
take this next one:

the state of being or living alone; seclusion: to enjoy one's solitude
The expression 'to enjoy one's solitude' , it makes me think of the book 'A Hundred Years of Solitude/Marquez, means one is only happy when one is living in solitude. It does not necessarily mean one is happy within oneself.
It is a bit like saying I enjoy a game of card which means I am dependant on something else to make me happy. Happiness is not a codependency on something, it is not a contract between two things/people, it is a feeling from within. I am happy regardless of what I do and that is the essential of happiness. I do not need to go to the extreme of solitude to achieve it . I can be with people or without I can be reading or chatting I can be anywhere and everywhere and I am happy. To dependent on something to feel happy is not happiness it is needy and that is a totally different ball game.

[Eiseabhal]

To deny that people can be lonely is to fly in the face of real life and common sense. It is odd that Ennison mentioned Selkirk because I thought of the same fellow myself and these lines sprang to mind: Better dwell in the midst of alarms/ Than reign in this horrible place. But the same man who suffered from much loneliness said There's mercy in every place. So I suppose he was being philosophical/theological about it.

[MarkBastable]

Cacian, you took that definition from Wikipedia, which goes out of its way to distinguish between 'solitude' and 'loneliness', although you suggest one shouldn't.

About three lines below your selective quote, it says this:

A distinction has been made between solitude and loneliness. In this sense, these two words refer, respectively, to the joy and the pain of being alone

Perhaps, thinking you'd got the definition you wanted, you didn't read that far.

[Delta40]

On another forum I visit somebody has posted that a group she attended recommends in order to have a healthy balance you should have at least 7 interactions with people per day. It's such an over simplified equation and does not take into account the uniqueness of the individual. One can prescribe 5 fruit and veg but I fail to see how the same principle can be applied to social interactions, especially when it doesn't consider the context or quality of those interactions. For people who struggle with loneliness this raises the bar of perceived healthy living to the point where it becomes out of their reach and impossible to attain.

Saying hello to 7 shop assistants as opposed to having one friend over for coffee is a no brainer in my book but also allowing for the fact that solitude itself is not to be construed as a negative - the prescription is waffle.

[Darcy88]

I'm a profoundly lonely person and for me extreme loneliness is a state almost akin to death. But loneliness to me is not the mere absence of people, its the absence of a deep and meaningful connection to others. I can feel lonely in a group of people if for whatever reason I do not relate to them. Every so often in life you encounter someone who understands you, whose thoughts and passions near perfectly correspond to your own, so that there exists no barrier to friendship or love, just a beautifully effortless and harmonious transference of sympathy between yourself and them. Then they leave and you return to that state akin to death.

I'm happier alone than I am in the company of those I do not relate to, but for me to actually be truly happy I need to have the kind of friendship or romantic relationship which I describe above.

"Happiness is only real when shared."

[osho]

I think one can be happy without anybody or any socialization if one can make the most of what one is capable of, his potentials to the fullest and farthest. If one engages in writing a big novel like In remembrance of my Lost times written by Proust one needs plenty of time. I think these days few choose to write such mammoth books. People have to divide their times among different ends and persuasions, a little bit for watching TV, a little for attending parties, a little for dating and socializing, a little for traveling and the like and if one is disabled and cannot move physically one becomes confined within his room wherein he finds plenty of time to pursue things of his desires. In my case writing is one of the many different ends in life. I have to go to university, socialize, attend parties and earn a living. These are my priorities, though not preferences and then only I will have time for writing though nothing fascinates me more than writing in fact. Though I have little time for posting here but the amount of time I have matters greatly to me and herein I realize my real potentials in life.


I'm a profoundly lonely person and for me extreme loneliness is a state almost akin to death. But loneliness to me is not the mere absence of people, its the absence of a deep and meaningful connection to others. I can feel lonely in a group of people if for whatever reason I do not relate to them. Every so often in life you encounter someone who understands you, whose thoughts and passions near perfectly correspond to your own, so that there exists no barrier to friendship or love, just a beautifully effortless and harmonious transference of sympathy between yourself and them. Then they leave and you return to that state akin to death.

I'm happier alone than I am in the company of those I do not relate to, but for me to actually be truly happy I need to have the kind of friendship or romantic relationship which I describe above.

"Happiness is only real when shared."

I second your thought. Loneliness is a concept. Of course even in the crowd I feel forlornly lonely and even at times when I am alone, not anyone to talk to I can be accompanied. When someone of my heart writes to me and when I read her or his letters I find a company not less discernible than any who physically keep hold of me. It is a feeling. The feeling first must be in our heart and companionship if it is true transcends physical domains. Indeed I can really find the presence of my friend in her or his absence also. It is a state of mind, not a thing.

[cacian]

Cacian, you took that definition from Wikipedia, which goes out of its way to distinguish between 'solitude' and 'loneliness', although you suggest one shouldn't.

About three lines below your selective quote, it says this:

A distinction has been made between solitude and loneliness. In this sense, these two words refer, respectively, to the joy and the pain of being alone

Perhaps, thinking you'd got the definition you wanted, you didn't read that far.

Hi Mark and thank you for drawing my attention to it I did not read on that far.
I would say that loneliness is a state of mind in that someone can still feel isolated being with people. This is often seen in people who do have deep seated traumas and do not communicate easily with people because of it. They can be with people and be very reclusive at the same time. They either say nothing/not very much or when they do they are either unsociable in their manners or inadequate in their speech and the way they talk about things. There is a detachement of reality in their behaviour. I know one because I live with one.
Solitude however can relate to loneliness in that it can drive someone to feel isolated when with people. There is a sudden feel of inadequacy because one can no longer relate to what is around them anymore hence feeling lonely. Solitude is often the root cause to loneliness and can be very hard to shift because humans who are creatures of habits learn fast to adapt to certain environments the older they get and at the same time lose quickly the flexibility to adopt new changes. It is indeed the catch22.

[osho]

At times people confuse loneliness with aloneness. Aloneness keeps one always energetic and one needs it when a surge of inspiration sweeps through his mind. Creativity is not a social pursuit and one has to keep the rest of detractors away in the literary persuasion. I often crave for solitude, privacy so that I will not be detracted by any other ends in life and can meditate on some of the great truths I am interested to arrive at in life. Family, friends are always there coming in between myself and my creative ends and of course I have my own limitation and I cannot reach all my pursuits in life at the same time. That is why I want a life of seclusion at least once a year. History documents cases wherein creative ends or pursuits are mostly done in total seclusion. Socialization needs to be kept to a minimum if one purses the literary path.

[cacian]

At times people confuse loneliness with aloneness. Aloneness keeps one always energetic and one needs it when a surge of inspiration sweeps through his mind. Creativity is not a social pursuit and one has to keep the rest of detractors away in the literary persuasion. I often crave for solitude, privacy so that I will not be detracted by any other ends in life and can meditate on some of the great truths I am interested to arrive at in life. Family, friends are always there coming in between myself and my creative ends and of course I have my own limitation and I cannot reach all my pursuits in life at the same time. That is why I want a life of seclusion at least once a year. History documents cases wherein creative ends or pursuits are mostly done in total seclusion. Socialization needs to be kept to a minimum if one purses the literary path.

I am not sure I believe seclusion is key to creativity. I often wonder whether seclusion is running away from something, otherwise why do it.
I feel that I more inspired and inclined to create when in the company of people I like. The sound of Laughter and life in general is often a happy trigger for the mind to visualise creativity in its purest form. I find artwork created is seclusion rather obscure dark in tonish and lone standing.
Everything has its place and even art must and will need to fit within the environment in genera.l I like art that mingles and disappear harmoniously within life canvases. An art that stands out from the crowd always strike me as needy if not palpably intolerant to its viewer and wanting to shock disturb is ultimately the pleasure behind it however not without its misconception. Misreading art creative work falls short of brilliance in that it does not seem to smooth out the outlines of life like an anti-ageing cream but rather protrudes and makes the obvious more visible then the grotesque itself.

[chris_eriksson]

You are off the subject. Boring.

Here is someone who needs other people to be happy.

[Pensive]

I think I am happiest on my own.
That is when I don't have to share a room. :p
Otherwise, some human contact now and then is important.

[osho]

We nee someone at least to share and when shared happiness can multiply. Today therefore in this industrialized society most people cannot profit from close contact or intimacy. Of course when two are there in unison physically and emotionally that becomes a synergy and whole is therefore more powerful than their parts in seperation.

[Paulclem]

I think generalisations are meaningless. Some like to be alone. Others don't. Some like to be alone sometimes, others don't - and all the permutations on this.

[MarkBastable]

I think generalisations are meaningless.

What - all of them?

[Paulclem]

Yes..... every last one.

No - but lots of them. In particular this one. I should have put - generalisations like this... and excluded some statistical generalisations etc etc.

[Maria May]

I dream of living on my own when I grow up.I love being alone with my books,my guitar and my imagination ;)

[osho]

I dream of living on my own when I grow up.I love being alone with my books,my guitar and my imagination ;)

Then a dog and better if someone who can understand feelings. Dogs and cats can give a good company of friends and at times more reliable and loyal but if humans can give a true and loyal company this will enrich life incredibly

[Delta40]

Until last year I lived alone and I liked it since the world is just outside of my door so I don't see it as an issue. How wonderful to have the choice to open or close that door whenever I choose. As has been pointed out before, we're never truly alone anyway. I do resent the stigma of women living by themselves. Somebody threw some loose comments around earlier about not being able to share their world but also there's an undercurrent of failure to have succeeded in fulfilling one's destiny - get a husband and keep him but I don't want to sacrifice all this happiness to satisfy society!

[Ecurb]

...get a husband and keep him...

Have you tried putting him in a pumpkin shell, like Peter, Peter pumpkin eater did with his wife?

[Delta40]

Have you tried putting him in a pumpkin shell, like Peter, Peter pumpkin eater did with his wife?

lol. You've proved my point!

[tonywalt]

Most people who are alone or lonely would never actually admit it. I can count the people who do on one hand- just saying. People say what they want to people to hear and think.

I know alot of lonely and alone people, but damned if they will tell that to anyone.