Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
In order to find the answer, you must first identify the fundamental difference between humans and representatives of the rest of the animal and plant world. It is such that man is the only species on Earth that does not initially have an unambiguous future development. And it depends entirely on the environment.
For example, a cat, no matter where it is born, no matter how it is raised, will always remain a cat with embedded reflexes and instincts. The same goes for all animals, birds, fish, and insects.
But there are at least some variations of parenting. With plants, it is even tougher: what seed, fruit, sprout – such a plant will grow, without options.
With a person, this is not the case. There is no unambiguous development, except for physical development. There are cases of so-called “Mowgli children” raised by dogs, cats, or something else. All of them are not adaptable to life in human society, as they consider themselves dogs and cats, respectively… They can be trained, but they remain essentially animals. Deprived of human companionship from birth, an infant has no chance of becoming human, not even of speaking.
In fact, humans are the only species that can become anything (possibly anything). Depending on the situation.
I also think that only those who live in the forest and do not see people for years, feed and serve themselves-outside of society. And I locked myself at home and order pizza – this is make-believe)))
I think Aristotle says that a person is a social being, so an antisocial person is no longer a person. He claims that all things have their own purpose (purpose) and the qualities that they possess, they are obliged to this purpose. Sociality is an inherent quality of a person, the loss of this quality is the loss of humanity.
Nobody and nothing, for man is a social being. Without the society of people, there is no information that is useful for the subject's body, so the life of a neophyte “will turn “into a meaningless existence, because a person must have a human being.
The idea of the author of the question is not quite clear: what does he mean by “out of society”?
Complete distance from people, the lifestyle of Mowgli, Robinson, or Lykovs?
Self-withdrawal, like the Japanese hikikomori?
Or sociopathy and complete antisociality, contempt for all norms and laws, predatory parasitarianism?
Or maybe a state ABOVE society, like Tibetan gurus or yogis, a hermit healer and sage, to which a folk path is trampled through the swamp and there are more visitors a day than on my site?
All these categories can be considered as people outside of society, but it is quite clear that these are completely different people and types. And not just the beasts or the gods – who's not there!
And how can we look at monks and sectarians who live outside of a large general society, but at the same time create their own, colorful and unique one?…
There is not enough space to characterize all the varieties of people outside of society.
So who are we talking about in this question?
“A person outside of society is either a god or a beast“
In his statement, the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle raises the question of the importance of human interaction with society. This idea can be interpreted as follows: if a person is separated from society for some reason, he becomes a being completely alien to other people. At the same time, its alienness can go both in one direction ( the beast ) and in another ( God, the son of God, a New Creation, not of this world, not of this society)