hello?

Presentation- how did it go!

I feel the presentation went smoothly, we said all that we set out to say, giving our little audience enough information for them to maybe stop condemning idleness, and categorizing it as being lazy. As Emma mentioned maybe we could have addressed the points that William brought up at the end of the presentation, maybe if we had more time. Thanks to everybody for great cooperation, thank heavens we had no organisation problems, and didn't really run after individuals. Well done to Emma and Helen on their fun and informative dialogue, a pleasure to listen to, a pat on the back for Ollie who even though was nervous about speaking,bottling that fear in very little time and addressed a subject he didn't believe in, (aren't you relieved you had the against part to point out?), and a round of applause for Andres for concluding the presentation and bringing it home for us, (we were sure you would). Overall, it was a good presentation, we had an interesting topic, that wasn't as vague as multiculturalism or violence in video games.

Gender- to live in the margin

Gender as a general statement is the word by which a person is defined as a member of society. Your gender is not directly connected with your sex, but rather your sexual preference. In a society who has become more open minded to people's gender, more so than they were 100 years ago, there still is inequality, a vague hatred towards gender choice as a whole. This hatred is brought on merely by people's indifference or even unknowing and misinformation. When Judith Butler speaks of transgressive performances (drag), she states "I don't think that if we were all more dragged out gender life would become more expansive and less restrictive.". Drag is a type of performativity not performance, and that's where gender is hazy.
"Why is it pregnancy by which that body gets defined?", that is how women are differentiated by men, due to their ability to bare children, they are of female gender. What do the women who are battling with a "norm that is regulating your (their) sex" by choosing not to have babies? Are they to just be pushed to side, and left in the margin of society, because they are not conforming to a norm? If society were to do this then most of society would be left in the margin, so much so that the margin will become the society, and the people left in the first society will become the margin. The choice to not have children does not convey women's inadequacy but a lifestyle choice.
Politicians conversing about 'gays in the military', when one senator says he knows very little about homosexuality, but then continues his talk with a 'homophobic diatribe', illustrating that he in fact has an aggressive relationship "to the homosexuality that of course he knows nothing about.". Ironic, how people's warped idea of homosexuality leads them to homophobia, when one says he has nothing to so with it, he clearly has a preoccupation with it.
"I survived lesbian feminism and still desire women.",is a very bold but strong statement to make, simply because every lesbian is conceived to be a raging 'feminist', an absolute hater of the male gender, when that simply is not true. Feminism does not go hand in hand with lesbianism. Both are two different notions, their only link that being women.
Coherent gender as it may be said, is compulsory heterosexuality. To be 'appropriately gendered' in a society, you must be heterosexual, only because it is coherent with the norms of the state. Everybody else who is not a compulsory heterosexual, are incoherent and absurd. Back in the margin they all go.

Three Part-Point of View

The onlooking elderly woman sitting in the clinic waiting room

Look at that girl over there, she ought to be ashamed of herself. Carrying that baby inside her and jacked up pm God knows what. Thought she could hide it, you can tell a coke addict a mile away. Look how she's shacking, you'd think its minus 20 degrees in here, its boiling hot, she's even taken her coat off. Look at those bruises on her arms where she couldn't find a vein. It's selfish how she isn't even caring about the baby. Atrocious, just hideous, they should have locked her up to clear her act up then the baby would have a chance at being normal. It's sure to be damaged, just like it's mother.

The Nurse

The pour girl, she's in a right mess. It's good that she came here when she had the chance, the least we can do is monitor her as well as the baby. We can't take her off the drugs now, that would be fatal for the baby and disastrous for the mother, but we can giver her supplements for it until the baby arrives. The pour girl can't do much about her problem now, but together with her cooperation and our support, the baby will have a better chance at survival.

The Pregnant Addict

Whens it my turn to see the Doctor? that Nurse said any minute now. Here i am sitting here, that old bat keeps on staring me, she should get her own life, and leave mine alone. That bleedingurse too, all she does is look at me. They think i don't know but i do. I can feel every body's eyes on me. And on my baby. They're worried about the kid. They think I'm not taking care of myself. Here i am, on my own, pour, baby on the way, and they worry. I'm the one who should be worrying. What i worry about is the coke. I need my next fix quick, i know the baby can take it, it's a fighter like me, it will be fine. I just need to get in the Doctor's office and get my next fix. I just have to, i can't fight the addiction now...

Which point of view are we to agree with or even sympathise with? The outsider, the general public who see this as a selfish act on the pregnant addict's behalf, or the nurse, the government employee who is more informed on how to deal with the pregnant addict's situation, or the pregnant addict herself? Who knows best in this situation? Almost all would dismiss the outsider and the pregnant addict and agree with the nurse, who knows what will happen to the baby in the two possible situations, if she were to stop the drug intake or continue it. Both situations have proven to be dangerous and even fatal for the child, however, in which situation is there a better survival rate? We know as the informed party, that the child will indefinitely be born with some problems, whether it be physical or mental, but which choice will even give the child to live? It isn't for certain, but the government prefers to supply the pregnant addicts with the drugs to feed their body with what it 'thinks it needs'. To take the person off the drug, is dangerous because her body will not know how to act or function, putting the baby in an even more risky position. To sum up, to take the drug away you are at risk of becoming a multiple killer, risking the addict and the child, give her the drug, again risking both lives, but are able to monitor them as such, or to be indifferent to whatever the addict does, keeping you with a clear conscience. The outside world needs to help addicts before it gets to this stage, but not only get involved when it's one of our family members' problem, remember, the next pregnant addict you come across could well in fact be the daughter of a long lost relative, or your best friend, or next dour neighbour, but that addict is now dead because you looked down your nose and read them their rights from the moral book and gave them a slap on the hand from society.

Multiculturalism...more than just a thought or two

As long as the Stranger remains foreign to the Other, the Other will not be racist towards the Stranger, for he is remaining other, while not being influenced by the Stranger. Racism is knowledge the Other has of the Stranger. All the while we thought racism was the Other's ignorance towards the Stranger's culture. In a multi-culturalist society what is better, knowledge or ignorance? The notion of distancing cultures from each other, is not only dated but incomprehensible at this point in time. Too many cultures coincide with each other for us to come and separate them. To know one's culture, is one step to culture acceptance but 10 steps to racial hatred. As one has knowledge of the Stranger's culture, one is able to distinct what they like or don't like about the culture in particular, while multiculturalism doesn't necessarily mean culture acceptance. Usually this distinction becomes very racial in the West, where people are culture accepting, and not racist. Ironic how the white man will be the coloured man's friend, until the point in time where a third party will commit a crime towards a member of the white man's family, who has no connection what so ever with the coloured man, the white man will throw all relations with that man out the window because it just so happens that the third party criminal was also a coloured man. This is very superficial and arrogant. A solution to this behaviour is an illusion we as a multi-culturalist society has left to grow and 'blossom' into serious political, religious and cultural problems. As Baudrillard stipulated "There's no solution to Foreignness, it is eternal and radical. It is not a matter of wanting to be that way. It simply is so."

Thinkers don't work, and workers don#t think....

"To do nothing at all is the most difficult thing in world, the most difficult and the most intellectual" Oscar Wilde

As the great Oscar Wilde stipulates in the above quote, to be idle, to do nothing at all is most difficult and most intellectual. Even when one thinks he or she is capable of doing nothing, they find that when they come to do so, they find themselves doing something. Intellectually speaking, when one has mastered the art of doing nothing, and can call himself an idle man, then so will the person go on to begin his pondering and intellectual thinking. While all the while doing nothing, his mind is over working the very possible answers to the daunting questions of life. With the help of idlers, we as a cosmos, have the answers to the many mysteries that kept us up late at night wondering, worrying about the meaning of life. As an old English proverb says "Thinkers don't work, and workers can't think", this sums up the above view that idlers are useful in their own dystopian "nothingnessful" existense., they aren't merely wasting precious work time, they are using this time doing precious thinking. Work and thought, do not go hand in hand. One has the thought, and the others carry out the work to bring the thought to life. As workers are incapable of such "academic and intellectual brain work" , they clock into the monotonous routine of work, their only thought is that the bad people are the ones who 'slack off'. Without the 'slackers' however, all be it a stereotypical heading to put over idlers, we as humans will be no different than mechanical sentients, controlled by the work ethic which has been impossed on us by the people or 'organisation' (the government is merely an organisation) to control us. Brain in a Vat.

Last Entry blog 5 Emma Skipp

Last Entry blog 5
Emma Skipp

I’d like to start by saying just how much I enjoyed this module, working towards the presentation was very interesting and I felt the presentation itself was both informative and lively.

I felt collectively we addressed the “Virtues of idleness” in a coherent manor, illustrating the “For” argument and the “Against “ argument, directly addressing the fundamental differences between being idle and being lazy. Through Katrina’s Introduction, myself and Helens’s dialogue, olli’s research and Andres conclusion I felt the whole presentation came together well and I hope it was enjoyed.

In response to the criticism put Forward by William at the end of the presentation, “what about chronic fatigue syndrome, ME or the “Yuppie disease?” perhaps this was something we did not address directly, our main aim was to discuss idleness as being a choice, admittedly I was unsure of how to respond to this statement, and in fact not sure if I understood it in the way in which it was meant, I’m presuming it was looking for a response to idleness being enforced on someone. I suppose the only thing to be said is, should you ask someone with this type of illness, they would probably choose not to have it, and in fact have the ability to be physically functioning. Therefore still choosing (if they could) to be idle or not. Our point as a group was that the validity of being idle lies in it being a conscious decision.

From the same exert by Tom Hodgkinson (Please see last blog with link, roughly halfway down the page) this is a very interesting and accurate statement about how we now view illness.

Being ill - nothing life-threatening, of course - should be welcomed as a pleasure in adult life, too, as a holiday from responsibility and burden. Indeed, it may be one of the few legitimate ways left to be idle. When ill, you can avoid those irksome tasks that make living such hard work. Dressing, for instance. You can pad around the house in your dressing gown like Sherlock Holmes, NoÎl Coward or our friend, that hero of laziness, Oblomov. When ill, you are the master. You do what you like. You can play your old Clash albums. Stare out of the window. Laugh inwardly at the sufferings of your co-workers. Looking a little deeper at the benefits of being ill, we may argue that the physical pain can lead to positive character development, that bodily suffering can improve the mind. "That which does not kill me makes me stronger," said Nietzsche.

The point I’m making by using this paragraph is that, yes, at times we all wallow about enjoying being “Ill” but to some degree we still choose. A cold wouldn’t physically stop you working (the flu might, notice the difference men!) however I’m sure at times we have all enjoyed a day of “Idleness” put down to being ill, but if that illness rendered you incapable of activity, at that point the decision would be forced upon you and would no longer be your choice.

To conclude I have decided to sign off on a lighter note and share with you a poem I wrote after one of Meena’s lectures, please read it as it’s intended, as a light hearted response to idleness I felt compelled to write in that moment.

06/11/08

Nothing really matters
Could that be what it’s all about?
Is that the lesson to be learnt?

You can’t take it with you –
My father always told me,
And Now I see he is quite right

What can we be sure of?
Perhaps nothing other than the heart,
One day stops beating
And we call it death

But we don’t understand it do we?
Can we conceive of an end?
Probably not.

Aesthetics are unimportant,
As much as striving for the impossible
Would it not be better?
To sleep when we want?
Eat when and what we desire?
Close our eyes when we are tired
That way we might feel more inspired.

Stay in when it’s cold outside
Watching the grey fall into night
And do “Voice over” for squirrels if we choose,

To be aimless.

"Idleness is a virtue?" Post 7 - My thoughts on presentation

Firstly I would like to sincerely thank all in my group. It was a great pleasure to work with you all on the preparation for our presentation.

I feel that the presentation itself went very well. Each point was argued with conviction and confidence. Variety was demonstrated via the ways in which these points were argued, for example mine and Emma's creative dialogue in comparison to Ollie's and Andre's necessary academic approach, and Katrina's interactive opening in which she highlighted the aims of our presentation and directly questioned the audience on their opinions and general perceptions of 'Idleness.'

I also felt we argued very well in defence of the criticisms put to the ideas we presented. They opposing arguments themselves were constructive and gave us the chance to elaborate and extend our original ideas. However, I do feel that the point raised concerning those suffering of a medical condition perhaps equating to 'laziness', not a valid ground for criticism in opposition to our argument.

We clearly stated, through our opening argument and creative dialogue between Emma and myself, that idleness had been accepted on our behalf, as a state of mind. I fail to see how medical conditions can equate to actual laziness, as we presented the condition of actual laziness to be as so through the choice made by the individual. I feel this quite a narrow minded perspective to adopt and an unnecessary point to make given the context of our presentation. I think the point made was an interesting one, but for separate discussion. I think to discuss whether the individual personal suffering from a given medical condition can equate to the lazy person, would be to explore quite a separate issue. It is therefore, in my opinion, an issue that has no place in the fabric of our debate.

I am happy with the overall presentation of our work. Idleness may be seen negatively by many, due to the demands placed upon us in the current Capitalist society in which we live. But I feel we challenged this accepted opinion very well, and fully achieved the aims we set out to accomplish.

Well done everyone!

In summary of our presentation. (Entry 6 by Oliver)

I would first like to start out by thanking the members of my group. It is often with a great deal of hesitation that I reluctantly venture into the task of preparing and eventually presenting a piece of work for the purpose of an assignment. It is not a natural process for me to voice my ideas concerning a particular philosophical subject via this vehicle (I find the task much easier and feel that I do myself far more justice when presentations are required in the field of social science, for some reason) so I sincerely thank my group members on this project who were a joy to work with and helped plan what I believe was ultimately a successful and well argued presentation.

I thought that we engaged in an adequate discussion concerning the potential of idleness being seen as a possible virtue. I also think that we offered enough evidence of critical analysis to perhaps dislodge some members of the audience's previously common sense held notions concerning the nature of idleness in relation to lazyness, as well as offering evidence to support the argument that idleness may well be seen in it's current negative societal light due to the demands placed upon individuals by the social and political cosmos we exist within. I believe that the presentation offered a logical route to the assumption it presented, as well as already defending itself against the one criticism that was offered during the questions that were raised at the end. This being the criticism that the argument presented did not allow for the circumstance of an individual being inactive due to a medical condition such as chronic fatique syndrome. I feel that the position had already been taken by the presenters, via the vehicle of Emma and Helen's dialogue, that idleness had been accepted on our behalf as a quality of mind that involves recognition on the individuals behalf that they indeed understand what they are doing when they are engaging in being idle and fully understand the benefits and disadvantages of the idleness they are participating in. As such, I do not feel that we would consider an individual renedered inactive by a medical condition as a sentient being choosing to be idle, and I do not believe there is valid ground for this criticism to stand in opposition against the stance offered by the presentation.

blog 3 with links

During this module I have been looking at some work by Thomas Hodgkinson, a couple of weeks ago I came across the following article , I wanted to share it with you because aside from it being relevant to our presentation I thought it was extremely humorous and well written, if not , at times, a little light hearted: I have used a few quotes to support our presentation;

http://www.rense.com/general56/thevirtueofidleness.htm
The Virtue of Idleness By Tom Hodgkinson
The Guardian
8-7-4

I wonder if that hard-working American rationalist and agent of industry Benjamin Franklin knew how much misery he would cause in the world when, back in 1757, high on puritanical zeal, he popularised and promoted the trite and patently untrue aphorism "early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise"?

I have included the above quote as a direct response to my first blog (and reply to Olli’s) I mentioned briefly some very loose scientific facts about getting up early, particularly in relation to getting up when it is still dark. Here I have decided to expand slightly on that point by providing you with a link about that particular subject:

http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37348

Although there is a lot of research on the subject indicating that getting up to sunlight (and not in darkness) helps regulates sleep patterns, this article is more concerned with the effects of not having enough sunlight and /or getting up in darkness, More reasons to spend longer in bed!

The next quote I have chosen to include in this blog Hodgcinson becomes rather animated about “The propaganda against oversleeping” he goes on to say that it is not a modern damnation but one that spans back over 2000 years to the bible;

“Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest”


As a response to the above he then quotes Paul Lafarge (son in law of Karl Marx) and socialist campaigner from his book “The right to be lazy” who wrote about God;
“After working for six days, he rests for all eternity”

A brilliant argument.

Andres' 5th Comment

Reflecting upon our presentation, I feel it went well. I think our aims of investigating whether idleness is a virtue, as introduced by Katarina, were reasonably well met. We offered arguments for concepts of idleness that we may indeed find virtuous, and extracted these from versions that we may find much more difficult to value, e.g. laziness (Helen and Emma). We offered arguments centring on the ways in which the vice of idleness may be captured in terms of its conceived effects upon both individual and societal advancement (Oliver). And finally, we delved to a more fundamental level, to take a look at what the prerequisites might be for the very possibility of holding idleness as a virtue (myself - Andres).

At the end of the presentation, I think we defended well against the attack made that the conclusion, from myself, contradicted the prior arguments for and against idleness as a virtue: the sense of our being free to choose to value or not value idleness is an illusion; an illusion that is only revealed as such through prolonged contemplation. But, whenever we step back out of that artificial mode - the philosopher's ivory tower - and into the reality, as it were, of our lived moral experience, it becomes just that - reality. And at the level of our moral reality, forged as it is by a plurality of moral traditions, we find ourselves compelled to articulate reasons for holding the values we do.

Presentation tomorrow.

I have drawn together a rough powerpoint presentation covering what I expect to be all parts of the presentation that we have discussed. I shall bring my computer with me tomorrow and then if anyone wants to change anything or add to it then we can do that in the morning.

I haven't got any feedback from anyone that we are meeting up earlier so I shall take it that we are still meeting outside mx006 at 10am.

Also, I have printed out a few copies of the obligatory hand in sheet that we must complete and hand in before we present. I will fill that in when we are all present tomorrow as we need to put references and quotes on there.

Meeting prior to presentation.

As has been pointed out to me by Andres, we will not be free to practice after 11am on thursday as we are expected in class to watch the other presentations. As such, does anyone have any objections to meeting outside mx006 at 9am? Otherwise, the previously agreed meeting time of 10am will only give us an hour to practice a presentation which we have never practiced together yet. Let me know your opinions on this. I know its rather early to meet up at that time but it may well be worth the sacrifice!

Andres' 4th Comment

Thus far nobody has mentioned hedonism as a possible way of conceiving idleness.

Whilst there is always the problem of agreeing on what counts and does not count as examples of hedonism, perhaps most of us would agree on what might be termed its more blatant forms: the millionaire carefree lifestyle entirely occupied by carnal pleasures - sex (with ever changing partners), luxurious foods, music, lavish surroundings - the picture we are often presented of the rock star and of the Hollywood portrayal of the sultan enjoying the delights of his harem.

While we of course often feel an initial sense of jealousy towards those with such lifestyles, we very often ultimately come to pity them as we see their lives as shallow, as lacking a certain quality of fulfilment. Now this is probably for a variety of reasons but, undoubtedly one of which is that we see them as devoid of a much more profound and subtle form of pleasure that we experience when we achieve something in the face of protracted adversity; when we display to ourselves the qualities of tenacity and resilience. Indeed it seems to be that much of the importance of such accomplishments to us lies in the very fact of their being so hard to reach.

And this all ties-up with Oliver's discussion of personal advancement and Helen and Emma's discussion regarding the sense of hard work earning us time to relax.

PERHAPS ONE OF YOU MAY LIKE TO INCORPORATE THESE IDEAS IN YOUR PRESENTATION - I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY FOR YOU TO DO SO.

Andres' 3rd Comment

In his posting "My Draft Presentation...", Oliver put forward an argument broadly to the effect that one should be able to value idleness, and be free to express one's valuing of it, with the proviso that it should not develop into an excessive form; firstly, because of the negative consequences for, presumably, oneself, others, institutions, etc.; and secondly, because we need to co-operate with others to survive - i.e. it is in the mutual interest for each to do his/her fair share - society would collapse if it were filled with extreme idlers (cf. "to cut its own throat", in Oliver's posting following my 2nd Comment and, reiterated by Helen in her "The hard worker..." posting)

There are some problems with these positions. They are consequentialist arguments. They suggest that the immorality of extreme idleness is entailed by the fact that it serves as an obstacle to the realization of some posited higher aim; for example, the maintenance of a productive society or, the individual's own, at least subconscious, desire for some sort of 'personal advancement.' But it does not at all seem the case that a given individual must be in possession of a value such as one of these: indeed, it has been central to the arguments of my first two comments that there can be no particular value, or way of seeing the world, that is necessarily universal. This leads me to the more serious problem with these consequentialist positions.

At the heart of my 2nd Comment was the argument that our lived moral experience does not fit well with this picture of moral truths being discovered through rational procedure. Instead, moral values are immediately apparent to us as true, as right. We experience them as intuitively right. And they come to be so for us because they are integral to the particular moral traditions in which we are embedded. They form the syntax, if you will, of our moral vocabulary: without which, just like regular linguistic syntax, we could not make sense of our environment. And so the values we see as right, as true, are entirely dependent upon the cultures into which we have become immersed.

In the furthering of this argument I cited Weber's thesis on the origins of the northern European value of diligence. In regard to which it must also be noted that this consequentialism seems manifest in the conclusion Oliver draws from Weber's work (in the "My Draft Presentation..." posting). One cannot derive from Weber's assertions that idleness has come to be seen as a vice in our society because it fails to further one of the ends of our society; namely, the maximization of capital. Rather, he argues the other way around: the capitalist social structure emerged as an unanticipated ramification of the vice of idleness becoming a part of the culture of the peoples of northern Europe. Moral values are not an emergent property of mature cultures; they are, in the strictest possible sense, the foundation of cultures: a culture is the manifestation of a value-system.

Nonetheless, Oliver brings up a very important point with regard to Tom Hodgkinson's identification of the de-humanizing constraints that a capitalist regime may impose. In light of the fact that there is competition for our affections, if you will (i.e. metaphorically speaking as, we do not, of course, choose the value-system we come to adopt), between rival cultures or moral perspectives, now, perhaps more than in any previous era (as I mentioned in my previous posting), new, partially contrived cultures may arise - contrived, that is, by those who stand to gain from the adoption of particular values by a particular population. I would also like to tentatively suggest that such new cultures are not able to 'hypnotize' the populace into internalizing radically new values; instead they succeed by adopting old values (by which, I mean values that candidates for induction into the new culture would already, in some way, be acquainted with), and utilize them to serve the interests of those who stand to gain. Let us take a striking example: Nazism. Nazism represents possibly the most horrifically extreme and successful example of this purposeful attempt to shape the moral viewpoint of a community, yet its unique character was constructed from very old ideals; those of patriotism and human progress. Thus it can be seen that it would very much be in the interests of those who stand to gain the most from the capitalist socio-economic structure to perpetuate and foster the vice of idleness through the various media of propaganda at their disposal. And so while I remain compelled by Weber's thesis on the origins of the northern European virtue of diligence, I think Oliver quite right to highlight the modern purposeful, exploitative utilization of this value with which we are so well-acquainted.

And this, of course, also connects up with Nietzsche's seminal view of the origins of moral values. Whilst, according to all I have been arguing for, he would seem to have been mistaken in his ideas concerning how we may break the shackles of communal moral dictates, he provided us with his brilliant insight that our moral world may, to some extent, have been contrived by those who obtain political and economic power over us.

And so our present-day obstacles to our valuing of idleness may result from both an organic, so to speak, development of moral tradition and vocabulary, and also from an artificial manipulation of our moral landscape.

Idle V's Lazy

Idle V’s Lazy

About Emma and Helen’s Dialogue in presentation

During this dialogue we are highlighting the differences in being lazy and being Idle. Hodgkinson states they are one in the same, and though I do agree with a lot of his ideas, I believe that being Idle and being Lazy are different. Here we are examining, through the use of characters and treating our work as a script, the fundamental differences. Put simply BeingIdle = being Contemplative, and being lazy = being ignorant.

Once we had written our monologues independently we broke them up into sections and “Cut and paste” them together providing us with a script to work from. By doing it in this way we felt it would support and emphasise the point. We have chosen to use characters to make it easy for the listener to relate and engage with the subject.

Reply to Oli's blog 2nd/12/08

Emma Skipp said...
In reply to Olli’s Post

I think Tom Hodgkinson is writing from a very privileged point of view, where he is in fact “able to be idle”.

I’m not sure I agree with his “Snoozing” theory, I personally would actively avoid waking up to thoughts of issues that are imposed upon me daily; my snoozing is purely for snoozing. However I can see his point in theory, the snoozing or contemplatitive time spent waking up is a far more civilised way to enter the day.

In western culture emphasis is continually being put on the importance of “Using out time well” our culture provides us with gadgets and gimmicks which enable us to “save time” thus allowing us to fill it with something else, to use this free time for something productive. We fail to see that being “idle” has its on productiveness. In fact I think as opposed to Hodgkinsons Ideas about waking up slowly it would be far more beneficial to have regular short “Idle rests” throughout the day, giving time to both the body and the mind to recuperate, reflect and relax before continuing with daily obligations, I believe that would make us achieve more and feel happier. Just look at some Eastern cultures, in China and Japan for example, in some factories they start the day with group Tai chi in an effort to give to the workers to enable them to give more to the company.

By nature I think we are probably quite idle, given the choice (to use Hodgkinsons example) most people would stay in bed as opposed to going to work, however I also think part of human nature is its constant want to do more, see more and experience more so we realise in order to do what we want there are things eg working for money we have to do.
He talks about “unnatural and unhealthy rising” this statement I do agree with in parts, for example if we take the winter months in England we see that people do not enjoy getting up in the dark and then coming home in the dark, I think this is unnatural. According to science we must wake up to daylight (and preferably sunlight) to enable our bodies to produce and regulate serotonin, essential for mood stabilising and generally health. Vitamin D is produced from sunlight, and also essential to our general well being so it is no wonder that animals hibernate during this cold and hostile period. I think as humans we could also have our own form of hibernation, that sees people only getting up when its daylight.

However I do agree with your (Olli) sentiment, we must consider what/who allows us to wake up late etc, to understand and (dare I say) even care about our actions in relation to others.

Having not been in Thailand to experience it I realise that the following is just a response to what Olli has written: Perhaps we should consider a “needs must” attitude it is (or is it?) possible that people who live in different socio-economic cultures, different climates etc still have the same sense of idleness as we do?
Our culture dictates an certain attitude that points us down a road of expectations, we must be educated to gain qualification that can provide us with a good income resulting in a “Good life” , perhaps to someone who works the fields, that is relative to our notion of “needs must” working towards our goal. I am by no means comparing our lives to theirs , I couldn’t, but I’m trying to illustrate a point, they understand what they do daily is necessary to the immediate community and then eco structure of the country to a degree, however I’m sure they have time in which to be idle, and because of the difference in culture and environment, they are not as many modern things to distract them, therefore their “Free time” might actually be a lot better than ours, as we are always filling our with something else?

Just a thought. By the way, I really enjoyed my lie in today.
Emma x

02 December 2008 19:44

Draft for "I am the idle person"

Being Idle…………. I am the idle person

During the presentation we will illustrate through the “I am the lazy person V’s I am the idle person” monologue the differences between being Idle and being lazy. Presenting the idea that idleness is not just a virtue, but a necessity in our society.

I am the idle person, I totally understand and appreciate the time in which I am able to be idle. I am inspired by my own creativity that is given full reign whist I contemplate everything, and nothing.
I see life in our society as fast paced and therefore understand the importance and bask in any free time I can make for myself. I want to do, and achieve many things and I understand that in order to achieve these things I must, at times join this so called rat race, that is not to say however I am a slave to anyone. I chose to work and I also choose and see the importance in being idle. I actively make time, everyday for contemplation, to rationalise and to observe for these are the things that allow my brain to both recuperate and grow.
I do not believe it is something that can only be enjoyed by the privileged; it is something available to all of us, providing we structure our time efficiently.
I am driven by my passion, my recharged brain and soul that are fed from constructive rest. I am continually overwhelmed by what I can achieve if my mind and body work together from a peaceful and contemplative place. I find joy and wonder in everything I do and see, my brain and soul are engaged and inspired purely as a result of allowing myself to have guilt free, and necessary’ idle’ time. I continue to learn everyday and give thanks to the wonders of the world every time I sit and watch leaves fall placidly from the trees , for they are in no hurry and nor shall I be.

“The morality of work is the morality of slaves”

I do not see work as one being a slave to another, however I may actively seek work that is better suited to my disposition, work which, rather than enduring, I enjoy. Work which allows me my own time. My concern is not with material wealth or of possessions, therefore I do not require masses of ‘work induced, life sapping money’, I would always prefer time, or even the company of another who has experienced more of this’ kind’ of time than I have so far, someone whom I could learn from.

I positively enjoy my idleness, not to ever be confused with laziness as it is so often with this assuming and generally non questioning society, we are told you must work work, work, and when do we ask the right questions of this understood hypothesis? Like what are we really working for? And what could be learnt from actually not working constantly?
True idleness does not equate to laziness, I am the person inspired and the lazy person is the person ignorant and retired, redundant of motivation and inquisitiveness.

I despise the dictionary definition of the word idle “To waste or pass time” it is clear to me that these two things are worlds apart, wasting time is for the ignorant, passing time is for the contemplative.
I recognise the distinct difference, and understand the need for more appreciation in the true meaning of being idle.
I can be Idle when I choose to be and by the same token can choose to be active when needed.

In coming to the end of this discussion I must find a quiet and preferably beautiful place in which to sit and ponder it all. Perhaps my mind will take me on a magical journey as it did when I was a child, I will think about what I would like to eat and get quite lost in it for some time, until I look out of the window and notice the moon, not quite yet full.

"I am the lazy person"...rough draft for presentation

The indolent but agreeable condition of doing nothing

Laziness

I am the lazy person. I do not think positively and I do not think negatively; I simply squat in the dull and lifeless grey of my mind. I do not wait for anything and I do not want for anything. I take the gift of this thing we call life for granted. I do not reflect nor allow my thoughts to engage with the possible comings of the week or with the things that have come to pass. I am avoiding, at all costs, the prospect of work. I am not taking a break from anything that I have done or preparing myself for something that I will or must do. I don’t want to do anything, and therefore I do not do it. I do not wish to exert any effort into a particular task. I have no desire to rest now and then throw myself, body and soul, into the paces of work, be it of the mind or of the body. Neither interest me. I lack passion, enthusiasm and the desire for the engagement of my brain to another or to an external force that grips, inspires, and then brings me to a state of intense interest. Instead I simply find boredom in all things because I cannot apply myself to something productive or that which could develop and stretch my potential abilities. My potential alone does not concern me. It is unimportant; I do not think upon it as I cannot bring myself to face it and the numerous possibilities open to me. Instead, I sit with my back to all feasible situations that may demand something from my mind or spirit, selfishly happy with the poor condition in which my being rests.

“The morality of work is the morality of slaves.”

I may happen to lean over the desk of an absent friend to catch a glimpse of this sentence, free for my reading in an open book. But I do not think to break down the meaning of the word ‘work’, and consider the possible differences. Work, is a negative word, in every sense, and thus breeds negative feeling. I do not want the placid state in which I slouch to be disturbed. I wish to remain a lake, untouched and unmoving, no gentle breeze disturbing my waters as a damp and heavy mist rests forever on my surface. I therefore live in my potential’s vast shadow, and though visible, I ignore it. I do not “ask myself what makes me come alive, and then go and do that.” I do not question others, and I do not question myself. The drive within me to do so does not exist, and I cannot imagine that it exists in any other because I am not aware of any other soul's possible thoughts.

But, if I were to take a moment and consider my lazy condition, I think, (with some effort), that I would be able to define a clear difference between myself and the idle individual.

My friend arrives home from work, at six o clock in the evening. She looks at me, seated at the table, no different from the hour that she left but for a plate of empty food and a mound of untouched magazines and newspaper cuttings, pushed to the corner. She is exhausted, but her eyes are glittering with life, a sparkling love for this life, and a certain happiness to which I cannot relate. She puts away her things, removes her coat and sits in the seat opposite.
“I am glad to be home” she says, and rests her feet against my lap. She is happy then to simply talk with me, about nothing in particular, without a thought to anything that she has done during her day. One might think that, at this point, she is ‘being lazy’ with me. But her ‘doing nothing’ springs from a certain need to do so. I do not need to do so.
I can see that she has worked hard, and has thus earned the right to sit in the ‘agreeable condition of doing nothing.’ I have, not earned this right.
She understands that to do so is a privilege, yet I do not.
I simply do not care, and do as I please without predetermining the possible consequences of this.
My friend has respect for the balance that hard work can give, and also for the acceptance that to simply sit and be, is enjoyable, because of the work done prior to doing so. I do not think to understand this, and furthermore disregard the idea that, to fully enjoy the one I must respect and appreciate the other. For me, life is lived in “the habit of resting before I (you) get tired......”

....But I would not entertain the possibility of exhausting myself on such a complex matter. My blatant ignorance to such things would not allow it.

And so I have nothing to do, because I cannot be bothered to do anything.
And in this constant state, I am happy to feel nothing more than the familiar numbness about my brain and hollowness within my heart.

Draft of my idleness presentation contribution

I have managed to arrive at an argument which (although I am still not entirely convinced by the merits of its arguments) seems to offer an argument against careless idling that will fit in with the presentation. It is still open to change...

Here it is:

Every day, our social interactions teach us that idleness is a vice. Indeed – “The devil makes work for idle hands”! Our boss at work chastises us for what he/she perceives as idleness. If we are late we are docked pay. If our productivity slows we receive a written warning. Ultimately, the boss’s perception of our idleness can result in our dismissal. At home, if we don’t wake early enough family members chastise our idleness. If we delay in walking the dog, put off a household chore, you guessed it! – WE ARE CHASTISED FOR OUR IDLENESS! Everywhere we turn we are inescapably reminded that our idleness is a sin, and that oppositely if we meet deadlines, if we work hard and assist society with appropriate timekeeping and speedy action – we will be rewarded! Indeed as Benjamin Franklin put it “Trouble springs from idleness, and grievous toil from needless ease”, and who are we to question one of the founding fathers of great American values? It’s no coincidence that the moralist and polymath so instrumental in laying the foundations for the system that now inescapably saturates our social cosmos has his face immortalized on the US $100 bill! His moral framework has played such an important role in keeping the capitalist ball rolling.

Max Weber recognized this in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. He identified a historical link between changes in culture and changes in economic and social systems. He identified the rise of the ascetic protestant ethic in conjunction with the modern capitalist ethic and their eventual coalescence into the capitalist cosmos that saturates our lives today. The religious justifications for avoiding idleness may have become less relevant but the message remains the same – if we are idle and if we do not rise early, labour usefully and contribute to the system appropriately we are of lesser use to the modern capitalist system than those who refrain from idleness. Tom Hodgkinson also highlights this argument in his book How to be Idle, launching an attack on the de-humanizing constraints that the western capitalist system places upon society in order to achieve its aims.

But what are the philosophical ramifications of being idle? I have looked at idleness from a political and social standpoint, and this has hopefully removed the issue from its previously commonsensical position in your considerations to a much more loosely anchored position of analysis. Are we perhaps being exploited and taken advantage of when we are denied our fundamentally human right to idle if we wish? Indeed, do we have the right to be idle?
The danger here is that an individual can become what I like to call anarchically idle. They can recognise the hitherto arguments that the system is placing irrational and exploitative constraints on their ability to idle and use this recognition in a negative way. Here we can use the example of societal ‘drop-outs’ and welfare system abusers. After a time this anarchic idleness turns into apathetic idleness. The idler is now at a stage where they no longer consider the consequences of their actions.

Sartre’s notion of freedom can help us in understanding the problem of this. If we are to argue that we are free to idle and do as we wish then so be it, but we must be aware of the consequences of our actions. Humanity has been here a lot longer than capitalism so can we really use capitalism as an excuse for us acting idle? We may well not agree with the capitalist conditions that condemn our idleness, but we are socially interactive children of history. Systems come and go with the epochs but our need to labour remains. We rely upon constant social co-reliance to survive and to idly renegade breaks our inescapable contract of productive interaction with those around us. What do we really achieve from becoming apathetically idle? Sure, we renegade against the order of things, renegade against the system. It gives us a brief but limited sense of satisfaction. No matter how much we idly rebel, don’t we always feel ultimately exploited and still downtrodden? Surely mindful positive worldly interaction is the most appropriate way to maximize ones opportunities in life.

Evolving my presentation ideas... (Entry 5 by Oliver)

Although I initially structured an argument against the notion of carefree idleness when I started writing on this blog, my continuous contemplation on the matter has now led me to what can better be described as a 'middle ground' as Helen has mentioned in her latest post. As such, now that I am approximately half way through planning my contribution to next weeks presentation, I cannot promise my argument will focus on the 'against idleness' part of the debate. I have always felt that work that is true and believed carries better than that which is faked and has no passion. Thus, my initial enquiries into the possible nature of idleness as a virtue have become somewhat more complex than my initial assumption recorded here - that of 'be idle if you wish but recognise the consequences'. That conclusion, heavily influenced by Sartre's thought, is often my initial point of reflection on any given topic. I have often found it a useful starting point for contemplation. However, upon further contemplation I usually recognize the fact that Sartre's notion of freedom, although useful in helping me deconstruct initially troublesome issues, often needs much further elaboration, influence and insight for me to continue in a purposeful direction. This is not condemning Sartre's notion of freedom as a philosophy, far from it. Indeed, I think that his philosophy is often not given the fair examination, free of common sense infiltration, that it (and indeed all) philosophies deserve.

I expect to finalize my presentation plan in the near future and if this is the case I feel that posting that here so that the rest of the group can view and comment on it is a worthy exercise. To post my current half evolved ideas would be a mismanagement of time and with slightly more contemplation I feel that I will be in a much better position to voice my opinion.

The hard worker is no wretch (continuing thoughts for presentation)

The individual who is idle, is a revolutionary. In the capitalist society in which we live - free enterprise- it is rare to find anybody set on simply being idle in their life. To say that the hard worker is a wretch however, I disagree with, and always will. I shall always favour the benefits of using ones mind, body and spirit to give back to society, and thus to oneself. For how else are we to earn money? And if we must earn money, we may as well strive to do so in a career in which we can thrive, develop and more importantly, enjoy. As Ollie claimed in his note in response to Andre's second post, to become a society orientated around the praise and continuous practice of idleness, would be to slit our own throats and destroy the foundation upon which our lives rest. It is important to understand the necessity of work, and of earning a living through a means we enjoy, so as to get the most out of life. It is also necessary to do so to appreciate the joy that being idle now and again can give. As I have said before, to appreciate one, is to understand and therefore appreciate the other.

“To be lazy means to be free, and not simply choosing between McDonald’s and Burger King or between a Volvo and a Saab. It means being free to live the life that we want to live, free of bosses, wages, commuting, consuming, debts. Being idle means having a good time, pleasure and joy. There’s a revolution that is brewing, and the wonderful thing is that you have to do absolutely nothing to take part.” - Tom Hodgkinson

While this seems ideal, it also seems rather stupid. If everyone were, one day, to fling their arms to the sky in protest, shout "Mercy hallelujah I am free" and never do a single moments work for the rest of their days, would mean the collapse of a highly established extremely accomplished and culturally rich society. Pockets of thinking would explode across the world, and situations depicted as in 'The Road' by Cormac McCarthy. surely would come to pass. Life would become a miserable disaster. As thinking creatures, grown and flourished through time, we need stability and we need structure. We need rules to obey, and rules to break. Without them there would be nothing to run from, and nothing to run to....what would be the point in this?

"Take your hour of daily boredom, doing nothing, looking out of the window or up at the ceiling. It’s your hour of air, like the hour that is conceded to those in prison. Teach your children about it. Explain to them that doing nothing, not having anyone to tell you what to do is important."

Why be bored when being idle? Why not use this time to simply reflect, spend time with a friend; simply sit and be with them and enjoy their company in silence. Instead of doing work, work that MUST be done, sit and read through an old journal, or some old letters or a book you haven't looked at since you were a child...idleness doesn't necessarily equals boredom in my eyes. Boredom is surely a negative thing, and encourages restlessness.... Restlessness can quickly become irritation, perhaps so much so that, in order to remove this uncomfortable feeling, it in turn forces us to do the 'work' we chose to avoid in the first place. If we used our idle time idling on something that interests us, I see no reason to be bored...

"Idleness is the father and mother of all the best ideas. It should be taught at school, like an hour of meditation. We are inside a mechanism that stops us from thinking. A moving walkway from the cradle to the grave.
Stop! Do it now: do nothing."

I do find this point extremely refreshing. While I find it a little extreme to label idleness 'the mother of all the best ideas' I can go along with the fact that it is, when appropriate, very good for the soul. We live in such a fast paced society, orientated around the prospect of making money, living fast and fitting in as much as possible, that it is necessary, (as much as work is necessary) to put time aside to relax and simply be. My main quibble with alot of the academic works I have researched and read on the topic of idleness however, is the lack of any 'middle ground' or 'balance.' I have yet to find a thinker or a philosopher that explores this and furthermore praises the hard work of the everyday man who enjoys living in a capitalist society, (rather a capitalist than a communist)and in turn has the right to be idle, as he appreciates the importance of earning a decent and honest living, and therefore understands that idleness as a privilege......

-A side note for the presentation I also maintain my opinion on the differences between idleness and laziness. While Hodgkinson uses both words in the same breath of the same context, I see them as two very different things. While both practicing the art of 'doing nothing' as I mentioned in an earlier post, one 'does nothing' with the understanding that their doing so is a great privilege, while the other does not. It is this that I will be exploring in our presentation. I will pick five main points that embody the mind of the lazy individual, and through the stark contrast to the idle person, will therefore help to highlight the benefits of thinking as the latter. (I will post a rough draft on a new blog shortly.) Emma will also write a section on 'idleness' and again, include five points in a detailed monologue, and through highlighting the good in the idle person, in turn highlight the negative results to the human coniditon as a result of being lazy.

Presentation two

Thanks for the presentation update Ollie. However mine and Emma's section of the presentation is not so much an exploration of the arguments for and against idleness, but an examination of the difference between Idleness and Laziness, through the means of a descriptive monologue. I will also work with Emma on an introduction to this sub-topic so that our section and what we intend to look at is outlined clearly to the rest of the class and to Meena. In essence, our section could be seen as a 'for' in the sense that it will, against the notion of laziness, place idleness in a good light and therefore speak for it. However we have not looked into preparing an 'against' argument. This may come naturally however with your section Ollie,(?) as you described in your previous note, you will be looking at the virtue in idleness but also speak of the negative effects this action can have if consequences etc are not considered? If you need to discuss this further don't hesitate to let me know! Likewise if anybody else in the group has any queries about my introduction and monologue to laziness in relation to idleness as a virtue, give me a shout.

I shall post a response shortly to the recent notes and ideas added.

Presentation update!

Just to confirm to everyone in case they don't already know, that our presentation is now confirmed for 12:00 on Thursday 11/12. After discussions via e-mail and in person with all members of the group, it seems to have been agreed that Katarina will focus on an introduction for the issue of idleness as a possible topic of philosophic interpretation, Emma and Helen will put forward arguments for and against the notion that idleness is a virtue and I will then put forward the theory that idleness can indeed be considered a virtue but we should at all times be mindful and open to its repercussions and implications. If Andres, in presenting his views on idleness which I have found most useful so far, could then try to draw some kind of conclusion on the issue then I believe we will have arrived at some kind of collective presentation with a certain amount of purpose and insight. If I am mistaken in these arrangements then please feel to let me know and we can rearrange the division of labour within the group accordingly.

Thanks, Oliver.

Analyzing Idleness further... (Entry 4 by Oliver)

It was with pleasure that I signed into this blog this afternoon, with my intentions for posting already premeditated, and read Andres 2nd post so far. It seems that contemplation upon the issue of idleness, and more fundamentally its perceived vice-like qualities within the moral status-quo of our modern society, has drawn him to comment on the possible role that the modern capitalist society may well have played in shaping its plight.

Furthermore, it was with even greater pleasure that I read his post further and noticed that he had highlighted Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism as a useful reference. I believe that this work, and similarly (but at certain junctures disagreeably) the work of Karl Marx, can offer us great insight into beginning to ascertain the true qualities of idleness. Indeed, as Weber's project so importantly also intended, to understand the present day qualities of idleness as a possible virtue it is important to first highlight its cultural and historical roots that have led us to today's general consensus that it is indeed ridden with vice-like implications.

Andres, fortunately, has relieved me of the duty of giving an introduction to The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, and I can therefore move forward and continue with analyzing any possible light this may shed on this cloudy issue. I really think that in highlighting modern capitalism as a possible source of influence concerning commonsense notions of idleness we are moving closer to being able to successfully gain insight into idleness as a possible virtue. The ascetic protestant influence that Weber highlighted as shaping our moral opinions considering labour and the subsequent coalescence with modern capitalist structure may no longer be so readily identifiable, but I believe it still saturates our Western moral conscience as much as it did in the 17th century. True, as a society we do indeed have more opportunity to enjoy the fruits of our labour than the Calvinists did, but the sentiment remains the same. The religious justifications for working hard may have somewhat evaporated but the social justifications have not. If we are idle and we do not rise early, labour usefully and contribute to the system appropriately we are of lesser use to the modern capitalist system than those who are not idle. As Benjamin Franklin wrote “Trouble springs from idleness, and grievous toil from needless ease", and it is no coincidence that the modern capitalist system that he so influentially contributed in laying the foundations for, as moralist and polymath, is steadfast and agreed upon so many of his principles. These capitalist values - that it is our duty as men to work hard, refrain from the vice of idleness and accumulate capital - are so indelibly saturated throughout our 21st century culture that is of no surprise that idleness is perceived with such condemnation. We are born into a society where idleness is so counterproductive to its ultimate interests that it needs to be cast under a bad light. For modern capitalist society to collective look favourably upon idleness, and to cast it as a virtue, would be to cut its own throat.

Andres' 2nd Comment

I understand we have settled on the topic of the Virtues of Idleness from here on in. Whilst the material of my 1st Comment was aimed at the issue of Pregnant Addicts, I believe its central ideas are directly applicable to this subject also, as I now hope to demonstrate below.

The feeling that idleness is a vice runs deep in our culture. Most of us would seem to agree that the notion of idleness is bound-up with not only a sense of lack of productivity, but also with self-centredness, selfishness. At first glance its apparent immorality would seem perfectly explicable in terms of universalist theories (of which I made mention in my 1st Comment): surely only the most peculiar and contrived (and therefore essentially artificial) examples could be offered in which the execution of an idle way of life could actually be seen to contribute, for example, to the maximization of human happiness or, to result in the treatment of others as ends in themselves, and avoid their treatment as mere means. But, a most serious problem would seem to afflict the Kantian and Consequentialist, and similar theories that appeal to the concept of moral objectivity: they remain, despite innumerable attempts to develop their sophistication, gnawingly incapable of reflecting some of our most profound moral intuitions. Let us take an example: you are confronted with a madman who informs you that he is either going to murder a group of three innocent people or a different group of twenty innocent people. He states that YOU must decide which group he kills and, if you fail to choose, he will kill all the people in both groups. Now Jeremy Bentham would declare that the morally correct action to take is quite clear: you ought to choose to let the madman kill the group of three. And perhaps for some this would sit well with their moral sensibilities but, there is undoubtedly a large number of people for whom it certainly would not: for many of us, Bentham's suggestion would not represent a case of reasonably choosing the 'lesser of two evils;' for many of us, to sanction the murder of three people is morally indistinguishable from sanctioning the murder of twenty, or a million; for many of us, the madman's attempt to implicate us in all possible outcomes does not succeed; for many of us, to refuse to engage with the madman does not soil our hands with the blood of twenty-three people, but declines his invitation to step into his perverse moral world.

And so, despite the ubiquity of the sentiment that idleness is a deplorable characteristic, many of us are filled with nagging doubts over this supposed truism; and this is precisely what Helen, in her posting on Nov 14th, and Oliver, in his latest posting, are driving at with some of their reflections. If we are unable to rid ourselves of these doubts, just as we are unable to rid ourselves of the other incongruities between objective moral theories and our lived moral experience then, perhaps the sense that idleness is a vice (and also perhaps the attendant notion of the badness of being self-centred) has an alternative origin. If the arguments for its logical necessity indeed cannot be sustained then, perhaps its emergence in our culture has been contingent upon features therein. And this brings me back to some of the key ideas of my 1st Comment.

So, whence came this notion of the vice of idleness?

Interestingly, Oliver, in his latest posting, points towards the capitalist social structure as partly being responsible for the rejection of idleness as a virtue. Perhaps the most famous and compelling thesis to have addressed this subject is The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, by Max Weber (2001, Routledge: London). In this exceptionally influential work, which spans the disciplines of philosophy, sociology, history, theology and economics, Weber suggests that Puritanism, and in particular the sect of Calvinism, is the primary origin of the 'protestant work ethic'. In a nutshell, one of the central threads of his argument is that Puritanism's reaction against the unattainable elitism of Catholic monasticism (becoming a monk/nun is a realistic option for only the very few) resulted in the sanctification of ordinary plebeian life. Thus diligence in the role God had assigned you - your calling (compare the modern use of the word vocation) - was the primary method by which to glorify Him. Diligence went hand-in-hand with asceticism as, indulgence in luxuries was seen as a distraction from diligent application to one's calling. This also coupled -up with the Puritan doctrine of predestination - the notion that God has predetermined the fate of the soul of each person for either salvation or damnation. Hence the Puritan's successful display of extreme asceticism and diligence not only glorified God but, proved, as it were, both to himself and to on-lookers, that he indeed must be predestined for salvation (ibid., p.69), for only the electi are successful in their calling (cf. ibid.,p.105).

Thus evolved, Weber contends, a cardinal feature of the personality of the peoples of the countries in which Puritanism took root. And - which I find the most striking corroboration of his thesis - Weber illuminates the suggestion that the particular quality of these virtues of diligence and selflessness is far less apparent in the European countries that largely escaped the Puritan movement - broadly those to the south of the continent: indeed I am particularly drawn to his argument when I contrast English and Spanish personalities (the two cultural environments in which I have myself grown-up) in regard to attitudes towards idleness. It particularly strikes me in terms of concepts of masculinity: an English archetype of masculinity is the man who works a sixty-hour week to provide for his family; whilst this ethos is by no means absent in Spanish society, it does not at all have the same quality, and there is, in addition, an ethic that the man of the house should be made to feel comfortable: cooked good food, and afforded peace and quiet when he goes for a siesta.

So, if Weber's thesis is right, arguments against the possibility of idleness being considered a virtue would face a very serious challenge. And furthermore, this ties directly in to the conclusions I drew in my 1st Comment: we in the northern European cultures find it a great deal more challenging than those to the south, perhaps, to fully embrace the virtue of idleness as those Puritan doctrines have played a very major role in the shaping of our moral traditions and vocabularies. We assume ourselves free to choose whichever ideals we like but, this is but an illusion - an illusion forged by the fact that our moral consciousness is fabricated by the environments in which we are immersed from the moment of our birth. We think ourselves able to see the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, because the process by which our faculty of sight is brought about is not immediately apparent to us.

And so it might be asked: 'How could we have come to begin to challenge the prevailing moral tradition, if that is what we ineluctably take to be the moral truth?' Well, the answer may lie in the suggestion that we live, now, more than in any previous era, in a society exposed to competing moral traditions - globalization and multi-culturalism have undoubtedly played a very major role in this. The possibility that idleness may have intrinsic value; that we may consider it a virtue, is an idea that can genuinely engage us. For the Sixteenth Century English peasant, it is an idea that could not even have been rendered coherent to him, for it lies so far beyond the boundaries of his moral vocabulary.

In preparation for presentation...

Previously I have spoken in absolute favour of idleness and supported the importance of internal reflections made during ones period of 'doing nothing' in particular, possibly because I became incredibly excited at the prospect of something that we often see as a weakness, being labelled something of a strength. However, after reading Ollie's note (as below) on Tom Hodgkinson's book "How to be Idle" I must admit that my opinion has been altered somewhat. While I still maintain, what I believe to be the sometimes necessary act of choosing to be idle, I also agree with Ollie's note on the subject, that awareness of the potential results of our actions is necessary. We must understand that we are relying on the ‘labours of others’ to assist in our idleness, and it is from this thought that I have come to another conclusion and what I believe, to be the difference between idleness and laziness.
For me, the fundamental difference between the idle individual and the lazy is their full understanding of the effects their action may have, and secondly the full appreciation of this. While the idle person, is as so and appreciates the possible repercussions of this and, (possibly more importantly,) the fact that it is the hard work of others that allows them to do so, the lazy individual is ignorant to such appreciation. While both are selfish actions, as both are being done purely for the satisfaction of the individual, one is as so with far more integrity than the other .....

....The lazy soul does not appreciate the time spent dwelling on nothing in particular, does not use his or her time to reflect or to contemplate or to simply appreciate their own gentle breathing; they are not aware of how precious and valuable their time spent ‘idling’ is, whether as the idle individual understands and greatly values this moment (or two, or three?) entirely to themselves and with their own thoughts. The idle person does not waste this precious moment, but spends it developing within, and in a sense uses it to obtain a certain ‘clarity of mind’ and face the day, afternoon or evening ahead. The lazy person sits/lies motionless, unthinking and unaware of their beating heart, or moans perpetually of the supposed emptiness that surrounds them, seeming almost ungrateful for the simple gift of life, and what is more, does nothing whatsoever to better it. The idle person is as so in between a life rich with laughter, challenge and achievement. They understand the benefits of their idleness in its moment, but also the benefits of working hard and of passionate motivation , all a stark contrast to such resting. To appreciate one, the other must be appreciated also...idleness would not be as pleasurable a thing if done constantly, for it would lose its essence, its ‘point’ if you like, and therefore meaning. (If we had Christmas every day, it would no longer be a special occasion. I feel that the same thing can be said for idleness.)

I think that to be lazy, is to be constantly idle, and to be constantly idle is to lose all appreciation for what it is, in itself. If not understood for its quality, its quality is lost and the person too becomes lost in their constant selfish condition.

Idleness - being unable to rise... (Entry 3 by Oliver)

In preparation for our presentation, entitled 'Idleness is a virtue', I have begun to read Tom Hodgkinson's How to be Idle (2004). In his book, Hodgkinson, as I can ascertain thus far, sets about the task of displaying the virtues of idleness in a humorous manner, although at all times hinting at a serious undertone. He does this by denoting the 24 chapters of the book to the 24 hours of the day, and within each chapter examines the virtues of a particular 'idle quality' which is typical of that time of the day. Chapter 1, which 'begins at 8am' focuses on the idle quality of not been able to wake up. Hodgkinson shows us examples throughout history of respected academic figures and literary figures who have been notorious late risers, including (in no particular order) Louis Theroux, Dr. Johnson and Jerome K. Jerome. He then builds an argument that attacks the promptness obsessed culture of the western world, and furthermore insists that the time which one 'snoozes' in between waking-up and getting-up can be considered one of the most mentally productive periods of the day. During this 'snooze' period, or period of 'slumber', Hodgkinson insists that, rather than violently shirking ourselves from the blissful comfort of our duvets, we can slowly immerse our consciousness with the issues that need to be dealt with on that particular day and eventually enter the woken world of toils and troubles with greater clarity of mind.

I sympathise with Hodgkinson's stance that there are many vices and inconveniences of the western world. I am steadfastly unconvinced upon meditation on the matter that the merits of our materialistic capitalist system do indeed outweigh the downfalls, as we are so often led to believe. Likewise I consider the price we have paid for establishing a capitalist economy and pushing it upon the world is a high one, for we have abandoned many principles learnt through the epochs that contribute to a valued and 'good' life. What I cannot agree with, however, is the notion that Hodgkinson puts forward that indeed early rising is un-natural and un-healthy. My problem with an argument that one can wake whenever he wants without even considering the implications of his actions is that it is ignorantly non-self-sufficient. To link to my previous quote on this blog, concerning Sartre's take on freedom, I do agree that we are indeed free to be late risers if we wish, but we should understand the context of our actions. The only reason we can rise late from our slumber, if we wish to do so, is that we live in a socially reciprocal world and as such other people are providing services and means to assist our survival which provide an environment where we can indeed stay in bed until mid afternoon if we wish. Upon a recent trip to northern Thailand, where I spent some time staying in the the Acca villages of the hilltribe regions, the fundamental importance of early rising and it's unmistakable link with the rising and setting of the sun became apparent to me. In this village setting, where there is no mains electricity or water, and often not even roads to link the villages to the main infrastructure of the region, the people of the Acca tribes are self sufficient, especially concerning agriculture. When I was there, in August, the villagers woke at 5:00am when the sun rose and were in the fields and hills working their crops by 6:00am. This was an imperative procedure for their harvesting of crops for survival. At that time of year the sun starts to set at 4pm and if they decided they wanted to be late risers and get to the fields for crop harvesting at, say 11am, they would not guarantee themselves enough daylight hours to complete their work, thus - failing to provide sufficient produce for the village population and in a worse case scenario, leading to starvation.

What I am trying to demonstrate here is that these tribal peoples, closer to our fundamental natural consciousness than here in the western world, have no choice but to be early risers. The only reason we here in the west can afford to rise late is because somebody elsewhere is supplying our means of survival by waking and labouring when we do not. By all means have a lie-in tomorrow morning. Indeed who am I to tell you to do otherwise? My only request is that in doing so you consider the notion that it is not your fundamental right to do so and that you are relying on the labour of others to assist your idleness.

Defining the nature of Sartre's 'freedom'. (Entry 2 by Oliver)

I would first like to correct Andres by pointing out that Helen made the post concerning her thoughts on idleness, not myself. I unfortunately didn't atend that lecture and as such feel at this time insufficienly qualified to comment on that subject on this blog. I am currently researching philosophy on idleness, as that seems to be the topic that the status quo has voted for the presentation, but I haven't yet ascertained a solid opinion concerning the issue.

In tackling the main reason for this blog, a response to both Andres and Helen's posts thus far concerning the nature of idleness, I feel obliged to offer my understanding of what Sartre truly meant concerning freedom. Of the Sartre I have read, most notably Existentialsim and Humanism and Being and Nothingness, I understand that far from championing the nature of human freedom, Sartre was at times also condemning of its essential prescence in our lives. His intention, in my view, was to convince us that, in any given moment, in any given situation, we are CONDEMNED to choose. This sentiment is expressed fully in his most famous of quotes - "Man is condemened to be free". To highight an example: Even if a man is detained in a cell, against his own will, shackled at every limb and unable to even move a muscle, HE IS STILL FREE... Free (admittedly in this instance most probably in the condemnatory sense) to rationally deliberate his situation. For instance, he is free to be angry or free to be accepting of his situation, as dire as it may be. A usefull reference similar to this examlple is The Diving Bell and the Butterfly by Jean-Dominique Bauby. To draw this point to a close, I find it imperative that we take great care to never shirk the responsibilty of autonomy by freedom that is condemned upon us by nature of our existence as rationally deliberating beings.

I disagree with Sartre's philosophy on a number of points, but likewise I have to admit agreement on this issue. Even in the direst of situations, man IS CONDEMNED to be free. This freedom, or furthermore CONDEMNATION, to rationally deliberate and conceptualize is our defining characteristic as a species. It sets us apart from the animal kingdom in an unmistakeable way. I must say, however, that I agree steadfastly with most of Andres ponts in his post. I passionately believe, not only in the instance of pregnant addicts but in many fields of inquiry, that it is of imperitive concern to treat the situation and the people it involves on a subjective basis. This stance may seem ideological to its critics (and in admission it most probably could be criticised as so) but I believe there is nothing wrong with striving towards an ideology and seing how far it takes us. As such, I think that this probably qualifies my stance concerning the treatment of addicts, when using Iris Marion Young's filter, as in favour of the 'empowerment' approach.

I doubt that my hitherto investigation into Sartre's notion of freedom will shed fresh light on the issue of where to place the blame concerning the issue of pregnant addicts. Indeed, I wonder whether we should be even trying to appropriate blame at all? My intention here was simply to examine what Sartre truly determined to explain to us concerning his notion of freedom and how we shoud use it. We are free, by nature of our existence as rationally deliberating and conceptualizing beings, to choose our path of action within the constraints of our subjective situation at any given time - and we are condemned to be responsible for this freedom by the very nature of our being.

Presentation organisation...

Hi all,

I will put a post on here in the next few days debating the content of recent lectures on the module, but first a matter of importance...

If we are going to do our group presentation in week 12 (as I understand was agreed), then this leaves us with only 3 weeks preparation time, so we should probably get started in unison.

After myself, Helen and Katarina spoke in class today we agreed on the topic of 'Idleness is a virtue'. I also understand that Emma would prefer to do this topic also, so i guess by way of a vote that qualifies it as most popular choice. As such, if we meet up in class next week to discuss issues such as format and style etc, that would be great.

Concerning suggestions for reading, a book by Tom Hodgkinson entitled 'How to be Idle' deals with the subjct of Idleness as a virtue from many angles, specifically - historically, poetically and philosophicaly - and as such seems a good starting point to build an argument FOR Idlesness as a virtue.

Any more recommendations or comments are welcome...

Oliver.

Andres' 1st comment on Pregnant Addicts

Hi Everyone,

First of all, thanks for all the comments thus far. Thanks Oliver for your latest considered thoughts on the virtues of idleness, but I think I would struggle to sustain a dialogue of much substance on that topic, and I think we might as a group find it hard to fill 20 minutes of a presentation with it. On the other hand, as both you and Helen have thus far intimated, we may all find the subject of Policy Approaches to Pregnant Addicts (addressed in the article by I.M. Young) a good deal richer, so I'm now going to make my first comment on this:

Helen, in your first set of arguments, owing to your sympathies lying with the child rather than the mother, and your desire to make the mother's life comfortable only insofar as it is instrumental in the welfare of the child, you seem to be implying that the Punishment Approach, either in its Deterrence form or in its Retribution form, as long as the welfare of the child could be assured, would be the policy option you currently prefer; and this because you see the mother as fundamentally culpable for her actions.

In the first paragraph of your entry you say you doubt you will change your mind on the matter. This is such a wonderfully rich subject and I hope that some of the arguments I will offer may start to make you reconsider your position. Not on the basis of this posting alone, certainly not! But perhaps by the end of our dialogue and the presentation.

You are in some very esteemed company with your passionate belief that we all have the power to make our own decisions in life, or at least that we ought to have such a power. As you rightly mentioned, Satre is perhaps the most famous of the advocates of this position. Nonetheless, allow me to offer some potential problems that may confront this way of thinking.

The first and most obvious thing that might be said is that these people are addicts! - the very concept of addiction connotes some degree of powerlessness to behave otherwise. And in which case, what would ought to have the power to do otherwise actually mean? Will-power, especially in its most raw form - in relation to 'kicking' a habit for example - does seem to be an attribute that varies in strength from person to person; and so the question invites itself, how would one go about succeeding in willing that one had more will-power?!

Though one could argue that the addict should not have gotten herself into the process of developing a drug addiction, there are undoubtedly some (although admittedly a small minority) 'recreational' drugs that have such an intensely addictive quality that the user can be 'hooked' from the very first exposure - I believe the worst forms of 'crack' cocaine are amongst them. We all can make mistakes, and we tend to attenuate our feelings of blame towards those who fall off the rails just once, and maybe even twice - so then the crack cocaine addict who has another 'accident,' and gets pregnant may, perhaps, not be so worthy of our unmitigated reproach.

Having said all this however, I think this counter-argument is very much a side issue. The truly philosophically interesting matter concerns the broader question of Satre's radical conception of freedom:

Satre said: "It is ...senseless to think of complaining since nothing foreign has decided what we feel, what we live, or what we are" (Being and Nothingness). For Satre, a person who claims that she is forced into some particular action or form of behaviour is doing nothing other than refusing to recognize herself a free, as she truly is. So we are free, he would seemingly argue, to chose to do the right thing, to make the morally correct choices in life. If we do not make those morally correct choices then it is because we have chosen, either consciously or subconsciously, in that manner. Now a presupposition of this viewpoint, or at least a presupposition of it in its application to issues of culpability, is that we all have intellectual, or cognitive, if you will, access to moral truths: universal moral truths - moral truths that apply to all of us equally and which we all have the capacity to see. Now this is a very dubious suggestion indeed, I would be so bold as to argue. And if it is indeed a mistake; if we do indeed acquire our moral compasses in very different ways to that in which the Satrean would assert; if we do not each of us work out the right way to act by going through some sort of rational procedure to uncover it (compare the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill, and Kant's - of whom Satre was a great admirer - moral perspective) then the arguments for punishment based on free will are surely lost.

These universalist moral theories strike me as profoundly parochial and even perhaps at times deeply insensitive to the realities of the disparatenss of the forms of moral life that humans lead. To suggest for example that it is unequivocally and universally immoral for a Indian man to commit suicide, and thereby render his family without a bread-winner, in response to his deep sense of shame at his daughter's failure to marry the husband he had arranged for her, or perhaps for an ancient people such as the Aztecs to sacrifice a virgin girl in order to procure the good favour of the gods, is, whilst deeply disturbing to you and me, a profound mistake: these people do not act in such ways because they are fundamentally morally inferior to you and I; they do so because they have grown up in a very different moral tradition, with very different moral vocabularies. And so - AND HERE IS THE HEART OF MY ARGUMENT! - pregnant drug addicts who have grown up with parents, sisters, brothers, uncles, aunts who openly take drugs in front of them, who openly have endless processions of sexual partners come to the home, and with whom they engage in explicit sexual activity in front of them, who feed their babies a bottle of milk at the very same time as smoking dope or injecting heroine, have grown up with extremely different views of what constitutes normal behaviour, of what constitutes morally permissible, morally legitimate behaviour. And so Satre's radical conception of freedom is as deeply insensitive as it is thoroughly misguided. Thus to punish pregnant addicts on the basis of culpability is, on my view, a mistake.

In Praise of Idleness...

I would like to think it possible to praise idleness, for why do we consider it a sin? "The devil finds work for idle hands" is a commonly used phrase in society and speaks volumes I think, not about idleness itself, but about that upon which we place value. The individual who works hard, battling day after day with the grievances and frustrations of a quickly paced lifestyle, all determination and desperation to achieve a b or c, is considered above those who take something of a slower step in life. But why must we exhaust ourselves? Appreciation of form and art can be lost in the rush of life, so why not take the time to look around us, to examine the faces that pass us by instead of glimpsing only the blurry expressions of man or woman, heads bent hands shoved in pockets, desperate to reach their destination and oblivious to the world that surrounds them. To feel guilty for taking 'time out' if you will, is absurd, though we all feel this. It is as if such associations of feelings have been inbuilt into our systems; too long sitting down and simply reflecting urges us to 'do something productive...' Why is it not productive to just sit? Surely many things can be done whilst sitting? Reflection, for me, is possibly one of the most important things that a thinking human being can do, as it allows us to process our thoughts and take a firmer grip on the understanding of these thoughts. The longer we sit, the longer we can reflect and the longer we can reflect, the clearer our ideas will become. To understand ourselves and our desires and to begin to know who we are beneath all the complexities of the external, must lead to some sort of sublime happiness. One could argue that idleness and leisure should not be guilty pleasures, but simply pleasures in themselves. Though two different things, (idleness is simply 'doing nothing in particular' leisure can be seen as active,) they should both be as pleasurable as possible. With leisure, although supposedly attempting to relax, it would appear that we still should be doing something of worth, whilst spending as little unnecessary money as possible. Why? Why should I not leisurely spend as much money as I possibly can on things that I don’t particularly need if I have the means to do so? And why is it that afterwards I should feel guilty for ‘treating myself’ and work extra hard the next day doing as much unnecessary work as possible? This to me seems ridiculous, and I am overjoyed to find that a highly regarded academic and philosophical thinker agrees;


"What people who say such things forget, is that what man earns he usually spends and in spending he gives employment. As long as a man spends his income, he puts as much bread into peoples mouths in spending.." (Bertrand Russell 1932)

I have decided then that, to leisurely spend our money and then in turn, idly gaze at the items purchased, is a splendid thing.
Firstly it keeps the world moving, keeps money in peoples pockets (we only have to look at the current recession to find evidence of the problems that can occur when people tend to spend less,) and secondly encourages the fine and necessary art of idleness.

Sit now for a few minutes and take a listen to this song. Then afterwards, sit for a further few moments and think about the wonders of simply being able to do so.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2VByVSIhSpU