Greetings gentlemen, I have been thinking about this question, in one form or another, for quite some time already. I would highly appreciate input by any of you, for I deem this topic very important – and yet I did not manage to come up with many answers on my own. On the one hand, Evola (in his The Doctrine of Awakening and Ride the Tiger) powerfully advocates heroic loneliness and detachment, ultimate self-sufficiency, and inner abandonment of the world. Personally, I see a lot of wisdom in that. But on the other hand, I also wonder: what about friendship and companionship? Do those things hold any value for a traditional man? They probably did, in some civilizations. But if yes, then on what basis? After all, they hardly lead to "Awakening" or "Ultimate Liberation" (as would Evola the Buddhist rightly point out). If anything, they may lead to weakness (after all, if somebody needs friends - is that not a weakness already, and would giving in to that not only intensify it further? And if somebody does not need friends, then why have any?) Let me now quote Evola himself on the matter: "The Buddha recommended that two disciples should not take the same road. The essential point, in any case, was the absence of bonds and of the desire for company, a liking for solitude, a freedom. "Flee society as a heavy burden, seek solitude above all."' Having much to do, being busy with many things, avoiding solitude, living with people at home and in worldly surroundings—these are so many more "unfavourable conditions for the battle.” One who is not free from the bond of family—it is said in particular—may certainly go to heaven, but will not achieve awakening. "Let the ascetic be alone: it is enough that he has to fight with himself.” "Only of an ascetic who dwells alone, without company, is it to be expected that he will possess pleasure in renunciation, pleasure in solitude, pleasure in clam, pleasure in awakening, that he will possess this pleasure easily, without difficulty, without pain.''"