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.