Philosophy Now Forum

Bertrand Russell argued that the time spent working by an average person should be drastically reduced, work being an overrated virtue. Paul Western believes that ‘idleness’ is still not valued highly enough.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/29/More ... r_Idleness

It sounds like there's confusion between the quantity versus quality of work. Busy work is stupid, yes, but merely being idle doesn't fix that. That leads to bipolar thinking where you jump from working too hard to not working at all. It jumps from being overheated to being lazy.

The real key is balance where people work smart instead of working hard. The goal is to work efficiently for a purpose so you can celebrate what you're working for after the fact. Merely being idle doesn't necessarily make things efficient, nor does it entail celebration.

Ultimately, the argument fails from equating correlation to causation by substituting quantitative work versus idleness for qualitative balance. Maybe it's getting something wrong on purpose as a rhetorical device to persuade those who equate correlation to causation despite how it's illogical? That way, it shows them the ridiculousness of their illogical attitude.

It shouldn't work though. Those who equate correlation to causation will just call their critics lazy for not being willing to do busy work.

Years ago I read a book, "The Theory of the Leisure Class". In it the author attributed the development of culture and art to the existence of leisure and the ability of those who can enjoy significant leisure time to devote to learning and the development of knowledge and art. In this light the absence of leisure time meant the stagnation of society and the lack of development of the "Finer Things of Life".

thedoc wrote:Years ago I read a book, "The Theory of the Leisure Class". In it the author attributed the development of culture and art to the existence of leisure and the ability of those who can enjoy significant leisure time to devote to learning and the development of knowledge and art. In this light the absence of leisure time meant the stagnation of society and the lack of development of the "Finer Things of Life".

Yes, that's very valuable. As the saying goes, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."

However, leisure time and idle time aren't the same, nor is all leisure necessarily the same.

Idle time involves doing nothing whereas leisure involves doing something.

Likewise, merely doing something isn't necessarily doing something cultured. Some good historical examples of this are the art nouveau, fin de siecle, and Weimar culture movements which preceded the rise of fascism. When romanticism takes a dark turn of sheer destructive chaotic force to represent the expression of emotion, it just becomes a mess instead of representing style. Some might argue the same thing about postmodernism today in terms of mass media, pop culture, consumerism which anti-intellectually socially alienates people from relating with each other due to cliques that form cults of personality.

Furthermore, the representation of style needs to be economically supported. If we focus too much on leisure time, then there won't be the work required for leisure to exist. Likewise, the representation of style needs to psychologically motivate economic support. If the style at hand doesn't motivate people to be productive, then again, there won't be the work required for leisure to exist.

Balance is key. We can't simply broadcast what's "cool" in society and still expect sustainability.