What is the highest order of man? (What's better Social or Anti-social)?

Question

Confuscious said, that the highest order of man is a social one. Could he be wrong? Can a person be in a better enviornment for creativity and growth on his own, like Theroux? (A rural lifestyle, in a vacuum, not social)

Answer 1

I have my wife and children. That's it. No real friends to speak of. But without friends it gives me more time with my family and more time to draw.

Trying to master detail in some pictures with friends around. It's next to impossible.

Most of the people I hear in public that could be friends end up complaining about their jobs, wives, kids, and life in general. I'd rather be anti-social than be around whiners all day. For this reason, I have no emotional or mood issues.

Answer 2

Being alone is an impossibility except for some cranky elements in the society. Even in the animal kingdom, some species live in groups and some more alone to some extent. Every animal species has some kind of social structure. Hence, you cannot think of mankind being liberated from a social structure.

Answer 3

Well-consider that to be antisocial by psychological diagnosis terms generally puts you in the same category as psychopaths. A social person is one who consdiers others (but does not have to actively engage them) and does not deviate from society in extreme ways(but can challenge it in order to further growth).  He is talking about a person who wants to better not only themselves but also society. People can push the limits and be civilly disobedient and still be social. Social and antisocial are not necessarily opposites if you consider it in these terms.

Answer 4

social has its positives and negatives

as does anti social

however anti social is less explored as a positive thing

as "isolation" "anti - social" are words that are seen as negative not positive....

likewise being social hasnt been fully explored as a negative thing either

as for "highest order of man"

sounds like one has to know the meaning of life to answer that one

any answer is pure speculation

Answer 5

its better to be social as confusciuos says than be grumpy moody lonely with no friends

Answer 6

seemingly the answer must almost certainly be social. First there is the simple issue that the least social of humans, the feral children, have shown in past studies to be underdeveloped in comparison to the children who are socialized in some capacity.

Likewise, once someone is socialized its pretty hard to undo that socialization making the anti-social as youve termed it person, probably not of as high of an order, as it cannot trump the socialization process, whereas socialization seems to take the individual beyond the capacities of a feral individual.

Also your Thoreau bit isnt quite accurate. Though he is seen as a person who removed himself from society, it isnt entirely true, as its incredibly difficult to completely escape the bonds society brings. After all, who made Thoreau's axe? He most likely did not..

Answer 7

I think it's a mix of the two and actually go hand in hand.  Me personally, I enjoy having time to myself.  Like to write and do lots of creative things.  Wouldn't call it too anti-social, but I guess I need my solitude.  I think it's a great way to find out who you are and hone your skills.  But there comes a time, when you do harness those qualities by yourself, then you can go out into the world or to your friends.  Share things with them and at those moments, then it all comes together and is worth it.