I have always had an introverted nature. As a child, I would immerse myself for hours reading a book or other solitary activity. When my parents sent me to my room for punishment, they found it didn't work as I would not be begging to come out.<p>But at different times of my life, I have been quite active socially. My college years especially were filled with social interactions that I grew to enjoy. It started out as friends and roommates dragging me to one thing or another, but after a while I instigated a lot of it.<p>But I naturally gravitated to a career in programming where I can spend 10 hours straight at the keyboard with almost no interaction. My hobby project is a major one that deals with a whole new way to manage data. It has consumed several years of my life as I spend a great deal of my 'free time' thinking about it, writing code, or optimizing something.<p>My introverted nature has affected my family life as I withdraw into my own little world. My wife sometimes wonders if I am depressed, unhappy, or stressed. Although I am perfectly content, I have to force myself to come out of my shell and interact much more with the wife and kids (and friends and neighbors). Many of my fellow programmers that I have worked with over the years also exhibit some of these tendencies.<p>I guess it is debatable whether this adds to or subtracts from actual creativity.
It’s kind of easy to take this extremely literally and pick it apart, which a lot of comments here are doing, but might be helpful to broaden what “solitude” means and maybe even read it as though it’s a bit allegorical. Also important to remember this was more than 100 years ago, and that he’s talking very specifically about how to write <i>poetry</i>. All the way through I felt like he could have been talking about social media.<p>Metaphorically, he seems to be saying (to me even more strongly than isolation): that motivation needs to be intrinsic, it should come from yourself and your own desires, not from others; and that you should practice your craft intensely and make sure the practice of writing poetry is free from interruptions or noise that cloud things. He may be naming the state of flow we all want using words for it that we’re not used to these days, along with a push for writers to set their own standards and not judge themselves by publishing metrics. These are fairly timeless and applicable ideas today, not to mention all of us programmers frequently dream of solitude and perhaps resent the fact that we almost never get it at work.
> Humans are fundamentally solitary. That is our nature<p>Amazing, every word of what that guy said is wrong.<p>Maybe he was actually talking about cats, that would make sense. But humans literally can't function outside of a society.
I am an artist, I sell at national fairs such Art Palm Springs, Art Market San Francisco, Scope Miami, L.A. Art Show and I have sold works in New York's Chelsea district. With the group of artists I know, and hang with, the introverts really put in the work and explore to the far reaches of an idea, and then they catalog it. Being an introvert does not give one a creative advantage, but in my experience, introverts have the patience to thoroughly explore without distraction or caring what others think. Extroverts in my experience, like myself, discover ideas via serendipity, collaboration, and asking for critiques.
I'm reminded of the book "iWoz" by you know, woz.<p>In it he said:<p><i>"Most inventors and engineers I’ve met are like me — they’re shy and they live in their heads. They’re almost like artists. In fact, the very best of them are artists. And artists work best alone — best outside of corporate environments, best where they can control an invention’s design without a lot of other people designing it for marketing or some other committee. I don’t believe anything really revolutionary has ever been invented by committee… I’m going to give you some advice that might be hard to take. That advice is: Work alone... Not on a committee. Not on a team."</i>
This is why I think the so-called loneliness epidemic is either overblown or does not exist. We see that as soon as people get some money and autonomy, what do they do? They isolate. People spend a huge premium, such as business or first class plane tickets, stadium box seating, vacation retreats, man caves, etc. to isolate from other people. There is no shortage of ways for humans to interact with other humans, yet we see people choose to isolate, like netflix or smart phones.
Incorrect - though for some, it seems to be their only access to productive creativity.<p>What about collaborative creativity? What about spontaneous creativity which is independent of environment? What about the kind of creativity that happens when a person goes into a very public place and sits alone and writes poetry... is that solitude?<p>I know some writers who are exactly as described in the interview. They cannot work if they are not alone. It makes sense. I know others who are almost the opposite - who need the presence of humanity to be creatively productive.<p>Methinks the calculus here is more complex than Rilke states.
<i>"Ask yourself at the darkest hour of the night: must I write? If your answer is yes, then you should redesign your life to align with this necessity."</i><p>This is really great practical advice. Decide what you must do. Remove the roadblocks and optimize to achieve your goal.<p><i>"You’re looking outside of yourself for the answers, and that’s the last place you’ll find them. The only way for you to move forward is to move inward."</i><p>If I can only find answers internally, then why the hell would I listen to you now? What if my internal voice tells me the only answers come from outside?<p><i>"Do not strive to uncover all of the answers right now. The answers can’t be given to you because you haven’t been able to live with them. What matters is to live everything. So live the questions for now. Perhaps then you will gradually, without noticing it, live your way into the answers, one distant day in the future."</i><p>So, "Wherever you go, there you are".
This seems very opinion based - I would say that it does sort of match my own experience, though. Being alone at the house (on those rare occasions) watching TV or browsing the internet doesn't inspire much creativity on my part. Taking the dog out for a long walk in the woods does - for me it's more the lack of distractions than it is the "solitude" part.
Agreed, glad to see it put so bluntly. I’d extend it to say that creativity requires solitude, but is bolstered and course corrected by interjections of collaboration.<p>For me, my creative project is writing a non-fiction book. YMMV, as a sibling comment about musician’s jam sessions indicates.
I enjoyed Cal Newport's point in Digital Minimalism, that "solitude is necessary to thrive as a human being."<p>In his book, Newport argues that modernity is at odds with solitude and talks about the disadvantages of solitude deprivation.
Creativity requires a frame of mind. For some, this frame realizes in the solitude. For others, it may be lo-fi music, a movie with mindless action and forgettable story, knitting, fishing, etc.<p>In personal experience, I thrive with interactions; sometimes less and sometimes more. Other people's ideas spark new perspectives and reveal the limits of my thought canvas. Solitude just makes me lonely and depressed.
Creativity is enhanced by social drinking and turning off your pre-frontal cortex<p><a href="https://theinterval.org/salon-talks/02022/jun/14/drinking-10000-years-intoxication-and-civilization" rel="nofollow">https://theinterval.org/salon-talks/02022/jun/14/drinking-10...</a>
It makes sense that creativity requires solitude. If you are constantly exposed to ideas from other people, your mind will become primed to popular ideas and your output will be more likely to be derivative.<p>My theory is this; when everyone in your group thinks alike and members are highly attuned to each others' sensibilities, they tend to be careful to not offend each other (and they tend to be good at it) - this means that more safe ideas and fewer risky (potentially offensive) ideas will propagate throughout the group. Over time, due to the low exposure to risky ideas, members of the group become accustomed to an increasingly higher degree of safety, which feeds into the vicious cycle of increasing sensitivity, intolerance, self-censorship and dullness.
Speaking as an arty type, it's not so much solitude that's required as <i>peace</i>.<p>And yes, having people around is generally peace-destroying. But not absolutely.
> Humans are fundamentally solitary. That is our nature<p>This quote is getting lots of criticism but if you think about it , then you will realize it’s true.<p>Humans are capable of a wide spectrum of social emotions but 99.9999% of interactions are small talk and collaborations based on an already established pattern and procedure.<p>We are extremely lonely because although we are surrounded by 8 billion beings like us we only get to unlock the really cool stuff with about a dozen of them (after we spent thousands of hours in their company)
I think the biggest issue presented is the idea of framing solitude as "authentic" and "external pressures" as 'fake'. This is very common nowadays.<p><i>"Turn inwards and get in touch with your authentic self. If you’re able to write something in this state, it won’t even occur to you to ask anyone whether your writing is good or not</i>"<p>I don't know of any person who writes and is not always aware of the quality of their own writing. Even if you write for yourself, you're still writing for an audience, even if that audience is in your head. It's always communication, imaginary or otherwise. there's no self without relationship to the other by the very definition of the term.<p>Even the tool you use for writing, language, is a means of communicating with others by its nature. A child raised in actual solitude can't even speak, let alone has something like an 'authentic self'.
What he’s exploring here is integration in preparation for creativity.<p>Humans kept in solitude can’t speak, can’t walk on two feet, and don’t make abstract symbols.<p>But temporarily it can allow you to escape the constant folding-back of social learning and move outside the bubble.<p>Also, and importantly, this is an all-male interaction.
I think generalizing on creativity is difficult. There can be incredible creative synergies when people work together. There can be impressive solo works.<p>A lot depends on the individual(s) in question, their background(s), and the type of endeavor.
> I care if other people like my work, because that’s the whole point of being a creator!<p>That thinking is completely wrong. You create something because you want that thing to exist in the world, not in order to be liked by people.
This is a really interesting format. Researching a historical figure then producing a
fictional interview with them is a very engaging way to communicate their ideas in a modern context.
Not at all. Creativity requires a base knowledge. To have a base knowledge on a topic you need practice from your mentor. Creativity doesn't happen from thin air.
It is said Shakespeare wrote in taverns because the lighting was free. The environment didn't matter to him, only the physical ability to read and write. I can't think of a better counterexample for a writer. Do whatever puts words on paper. There is an entire site dedicated to finding what works for you: <a href="https://famouswritingroutines.com/" rel="nofollow">https://famouswritingroutines.com/</a>
"if you’re going to create you’re going to create whether you work 16 hours a day in a coal mine or you’re going to create in a small room with 3 children while you’re on welfare, you’re going to create with part of your mind and your body blown away, you’re going to create blind crippled demented, you’re going to create with a cat crawling up your back while the whole city trembles in earthquake, bombardment, flood and fire"<p>-Bukowski
"Humans are fundamentally solitary. That is our nature."<p>Excuse me, neurologist/neuroscientist here. That's fundamentally wrong. We are social creatures.
If the pandemic taught me anything it was sitting alone in a room did not inspire me to 'look inward', 'find myself' and 'create'. I suspect this is a very individual thing that works for some people but not for others and turning it into a naval-guru-like prescription isn't that helpful.<p>DO your own thing...if sitting helps, sit. If moving helps, move.
Anecdotally, solitude is unhelpful when it comes to figuring out the context or direction of work. It sounds counterproductive, to get creative by burrowing oneself with solitude work, to produce results that cannot be understood or appreciated by other people.
The actual creative work might involve solitude (I do better with less distractions), but brainstorming sessions with other people are incredibly useful for finding new ideas and perspectives you'd have missed on your own.
Solitude is necessary, but not sufficient.<p>It does sound catchy and inspires introspection - focusing on a single word/quality/idea. As long as we know that that is the game being played here and don't take it literally.