3 ms·

That sounds pretty pleasurable. IIRC that second six months is the true classical definition of a life of leisure.

hoaw 8y ago
I have done similar things and it generally isn't. Or it is getting very hard to make it so. Western society has become much more hierarchical in recent years. It is harder and harder to find any "cracks in system" on a fundamental level. Even if you would consider leisure to be neutral, and not in need of meaning, most people aren't even starting from a neutral point. So if you do something else you end up being underprivileged rather than in leisure.
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  I think you misunderstand what I mean by classical definition of leisure. This kind of runs through it: https://www.academia.edu/17614838/Aristotle_Leisure_and_the_Good_State https://www.academia.edu/17614838/Aristotle_Leisure_and_the_... or https://blogs.harvard.edu/nobleleisure/aristotle-on-work-vs-leisure/ https://blogs.harvard.edu/nobleleisure/aristotle-on-work-vs-... Bonus material (wider in scope, though): http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html
  - hoaw 8y ago
    Not unlikely, which is why I wrote somewhat vaguely. Ironically I don't have time to read your resources at the moment. My point is that there just isn't that much room for other things these days. So many things, from a $5 coffee to housing, is based on the idea that everyone is working all the time. You can of course quit working, pay the same rent and lock yourself in a room trying to forget the outside world until you can't. But I am not sure that is a road to happiness either. I mean, many people can barely achieve "weekend glory" these days.
    - 52-6F-62 8y ago
      I think I get what you're saying, now. Sounds like more of a critique of North American/protestant work ethic coupled with our acclimating to convenience. I think that's probably a whole other subject to be tackled. Aristotle's core point above would be along the lines of: Relaxation (in order to) -> Work (in order to) -> Leisure (the goal, for its own sake) Leisure and relaxation being entirely different activities, or lack thereof. Maybe think of leisure in this case being the activity of passion/deep interest or communal good or else that might not come in returns that pay for any other aspect of your life directly. Work being the activity (that you may well enjoy enough, or have interest in) that pays for everything and allows you time and/or resources for leisure. Relaxation is what helps you essentially stay sane and healthy in order to follow through with the rest. So it seems like you aren't taking on peoples' ability for leisure, but NA society's values that prevent it [for most people].
      - hoaw 8y ago
        Right. I am saying that if you take time off you end up being at odds with much of society. You realize that many things, even leisure activities, now only exists in relation to work. And after not working for a while few of these things are exciting anymore. So I am not saying it isn't a good idea. Just that it is hard from a practical perspective. Which is why younger people who take sabbaticals often end up in e.g. Asia.
        52-6F-62 8y ago
        I don't think it needs to be that grand of a scale to fulfill the reasoning. OP's example was a fellow taking time off and exercising his other interests in electronics by learning and experimenting. Another example might be a hobby. A hobby is a great example of a leisure activity as its [usually] done completely for its own sake. For instance, a sheet metal worker who spends much of their time off work playing in an amateur cricket league [however unlikely and obscure an image that might be]. I don't think I understand, though, how you mean it puts anyone at odds with society. Could you elaborate?

hoaw 8y ago

I have done similar things and it generally isn't. Or it is getting very hard to make it so. Western society has become much more hierarchical in recent years. It is harder and harder to find any "cracks in system" on a fundamental level. Even if you would consider leisure to be neutral, and not in need of meaning, most people aren't even starting from a neutral point. So if you do something else you end up being underprivileged rather than in leisure.

52-6F-62 8y ago
I think you misunderstand what I mean by classical definition of leisure. This kind of runs through it: https://www.academia.edu/17614838/Aristotle_Leisure_and_the_Good_State https://www.academia.edu/17614838/Aristotle_Leisure_and_the_... or https://blogs.harvard.edu/nobleleisure/aristotle-on-work-vs-leisure/ https://blogs.harvard.edu/nobleleisure/aristotle-on-work-vs-... Bonus material (wider in scope, though): http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html
- hoaw 8y ago
  Not unlikely, which is why I wrote somewhat vaguely. Ironically I don't have time to read your resources at the moment. My point is that there just isn't that much room for other things these days. So many things, from a $5 coffee to housing, is based on the idea that everyone is working all the time. You can of course quit working, pay the same rent and lock yourself in a room trying to forget the outside world until you can't. But I am not sure that is a road to happiness either. I mean, many people can barely achieve "weekend glory" these days.
  - 52-6F-62 8y ago
    I think I get what you're saying, now. Sounds like more of a critique of North American/protestant work ethic coupled with our acclimating to convenience. I think that's probably a whole other subject to be tackled. Aristotle's core point above would be along the lines of: Relaxation (in order to) -> Work (in order to) -> Leisure (the goal, for its own sake) Leisure and relaxation being entirely different activities, or lack thereof. Maybe think of leisure in this case being the activity of passion/deep interest or communal good or else that might not come in returns that pay for any other aspect of your life directly. Work being the activity (that you may well enjoy enough, or have interest in) that pays for everything and allows you time and/or resources for leisure. Relaxation is what helps you essentially stay sane and healthy in order to follow through with the rest. So it seems like you aren't taking on peoples' ability for leisure, but NA society's values that prevent it [for most people].
    - hoaw 8y ago
      Right. I am saying that if you take time off you end up being at odds with much of society. You realize that many things, even leisure activities, now only exists in relation to work. And after not working for a while few of these things are exciting anymore. So I am not saying it isn't a good idea. Just that it is hard from a practical perspective. Which is why younger people who take sabbaticals often end up in e.g. Asia.
      - 52-6F-62 8y ago
        I don't think it needs to be that grand of a scale to fulfill the reasoning. OP's example was a fellow taking time off and exercising his other interests in electronics by learning and experimenting. Another example might be a hobby. A hobby is a great example of a leisure activity as its [usually] done completely for its own sake. For instance, a sheet metal worker who spends much of their time off work playing in an amateur cricket league [however unlikely and obscure an image that might be]. I don't think I understand, though, how you mean it puts anyone at odds with society. Could you elaborate?