Ah, you philosophers you!
When you have somebody waiting for you at home, solitude is a choice. When not, solitude is a rationalization
Mmmmm... not so sure.
When that someone is around, you can still have your own space when you need it - depending on the mental and spiritual security of the significant other - but that's a mental, temporary choice that is a million miles removed from when the choice is no longer an option.
But, some do actually enjoy the fact of being totally independent.
Others, such as myself, handle "induced independence" not by seeking a substitute (have you ever realised how common, in everything, is the role of the substitute in life?) but by accepting the new status quo for what it is: to the atheist, permanent; to me, temporary. A name for that is faith; not of religion, but of belief in a creator with purpose. If I turn out to have been dreaming, I shall never know, but in the meantime, it stays madness and permits the continuation of time. There is peace in solitude; the company of people with nothing worth listening to to say is everywhere - if you want to join in and become the same, that's a considered option, but it's not for me, just as the physical group ethic of photographic gatherings is not, either.
It is the beauty of LuLa: it's there when you feel a need to communicate on some matter, but you do not become beholden to reciprocal booze-ups, trips to watch football games and all manner of similar, social torture.
That is not rationalisation - I suggest it is a predisposition of character, trained early in the confines of institutions such as missionary-run boarding schools where survival depended on the rapid growth of an extremely strong shell. What a joy, escaping all that, and finding my "other" in the next establishment!
I find evidence of purpose in such events, as in several other career events that were, at the very least, accidental, but vastly important to the sequences of life.