Update

freedom.md

@@ -10,6 +10,8 @@ From the definition it can be deduced that **freedom can almost be equated with
 
 By the same reasoning we'll find that **[generalism](generalism.md) and self sufficiency** increase freedom because, once again, they decrease dependence and reliance on others, opening up more possibilities and becoming harder to enslave. If one can grow own food, he can still choose to work and buy food for money he makes, but he also has up his sleeve the option to stop working and make his own food if for example the employer starts to abuse him, force him to work more for less money etc. So just BEING self sufficient alone may force the employer to treat the employee better, seeing he HAS the card and could leave if treated badly; a specialized robot however has no other option than to accept whatever conditions the employer establishes -- he is a slave. This is why [capitalism](capitalism.md) pushes people towards specialization: specialization comes at the cost of abandoning generalism and self sufficiency, making the individual depend completely on the system, becoming slave and someone who will be very easily blackmailed -- if you don't do what the system wants, you won't get what you need to live.
 
+**Solitude** is associated with freedom too, and naturally so: not only does it help with becoming more self sufficient and less limited by other people (who naturally limit what we can do even just by their presence, removing some of our freedom), but most importantly it removes distraction, which helps meditation, attaining a more detached and objective view of reality, realizations of what is truly necessary and not. People such as Christopher Knight, who voluntarily spent 27 years in complete solitude, said it clearly: "I was absolutely free". A common folk doesn't have to go as far as spending several decades in absolute isolation, but probably everyone should go through shorter periods of solitude at least a few times a year.
+
 **In society it is impossible to have freedom while also safely ensuring it won't be abused at the same time.** You have to choose one or the other.
 
 **Freedom implies elimination of responsibility.** Beginners often erroneously think that freedom must come with responsibility, but investing about a minute of thinking reveals the opposite is in fact true. Responsibility implies punishment for bad decisions, even if the punishment is only internal (feeling bad about what one has done etc.) and a threat of punishment for some decision effectively removes the option, i.e. ad absurdum responsibility is like having a man pointing gun at you, saying "don't you dare do A, or else" -- you are not physically prevented from doing A, but the threat effectively makes you not be able to choose A, reducing freedom. The logic of "freedom with responsibility" therefore argues that for example people under oppressive totalitarian regimes have [freedom of speech](free_speech.md) because their mouth is not physically sewed shut to prevent them from speaking, they can really say anything they want, they just have to accept they will be executed along with their whole family if they say something bad.