Bit of a strawman innit? I mean, sure, VR could be seen as a way of "isolating people from each other and the world" in a sense. But in a different sense, at the exact same time, it could equally well connect people to each other and the world in ways that could not happen in meatspace. For example, if I have a buddy who lives in, oh I dunno, let's say Eritrea, and another buddy who lives in Belgium, and I live in the USA and we all want to meet up and hang out... economics, logistics, etc. would make it pretty hard for us to meet in meatspace. But as VR technology progresses, it could increasingly make it possible for us to have a shared virtual experience to replace the IRL experience that is cut off from us (by economics, logistics, etc).
And of course VR, from a gaming perspective, allows experiences that couldn't happen IRL because they are (so far as we know) impossible by the laws of physics or involve things that don't exist or haven't been invented yet, etc. But VR game mechanics that let you teleport instantly to a new place, or engage in combat with alien colonizers in the bowels of their starship, etc. could be wildly appealing to people who are into that sort of thing.
Why is this modality being pushed so hard?
Honestly, it sounds like you're looking for an argument more than asking for an answer. I'm close to neutral'ish on VR myself, so I don't really have a dog in this fight. But it seems to me that it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to see that there are at least some use-cases for VR tech that some people will find appealing. It might never be mainstream and "for everybody", but clearly some people want it.
Zuck is pushing it because they don't like Apple and other hardware vendors putting limitations on them in terms of privacy or anything else and figure if they own the next platform they can eliminate the middleman. Zuck doesn't have any other idea for "the next big thing." He's dragged Apple into releasing a product before it is ready, if it is ever ready as a mass consumer thing.