|
THE
USE OF FREE TIME
by Mortimer J. Adler. Ph.D.
Question:
The increased leisure time
that is a result of the shorter work week presents
modern Americans with a difficult problem: How are
they to fill the workless hours? Didn't the ruling
classes of ancient societies become weak and
degenerate through too much leisure time? I wonder
if leisure is a good or a bad thing for most
people. Isn't a man's work more important than his
leisure in building his character?
Dr. Adler's
Answer: Before I answer your question,
let me clear up one point about the use of words.
Like so many people today, you speak of "leisure
time" when what you really mean is free time--time
free from the work you have to do to earn a
living.
Free for what? Leisure is one answer to that
question, but most Americans today who give that
answer mean play, amusement, recreation, even
sleep. My old friend Aristotle means the very
opposite of all these things. Of all the great
writers of the past, he is the one who can give us
the best advice about the problem of leisure in our
society today. And there is no question that it is
a serious problem now and will become an even more
serious problem in the years ahead as the work week
approaches thirty and twenty-five hours.
Leaving play or amusements aside for the moment,
Aristotle distinguishes between two kinds of
serious activity in which men can engage. One is
labor, toil, or business--the kind of work which
produces wealth and earns a man's subsistence. The
other he refers to as 'leisure activities"--the
kind of work which produces not the goods of the
body, not the comforts and conveniences of life,
but the goods of the spirit or of civilization.
These include all the liberal arts and sciences,
and all the institutions of the state and of
religion.
Like labor, toil, or business, leisure is hard
work, in the sense of a tiring activity. Men need
play or recreation to remove the fatigues of
leisure as much as they do to refresh them from
toil. In order to avoid today's widespread
confusion of leisure with play, I recommend
speaking of "leisure work" and "subsistence work"
to indicate that both are serious activities, and
that the one is as far removed from play as the
other.
Aristotle, in considering these three parts of a
human life, places them in a certain order. Since
he feels that earning a living is for the sake of
being able to live well or lead a good life, he
says that business or toil is for the sake of
leisure. Business or toil is merely utilitarian. It
is necessary but, in and of itself, it does not
enrich or ennoble a human life. Leisure, in
contrast, consists in all those virtuous activities
by which a man grows morally, intellectually, and
spiritually. It is that which makes a life worth
living.
From Aristotle's point of view, those who have
enough property so that they do not have to work
for a living are the most fortunate of men. All
their waking time is free. How should they spend
it? Aristotle's answer:
"Those who are in a position
which places them above toil have stewards who
attend to their households while they occupy
themselves with philosophy or politics." In
other words, a virtuous man who has plenty of free
time devotes himself to the arts and sciences and
to public affairs.
As for play or amusement, Aristotle acknowledges
that, like sleep, it has some biological utility:
it provides relaxation and refreshment; it washes
away the fatigues and tensions caused by
work--subsistence work or leisure work. Hence, just
as toil is for the sake of leisure, so play is for
the sake of both toil and leisure. Aristotle
writes:
"We should introduce
amusements only at suitable times, and they should
be our medicines, for the emotion they create in
the soul is relaxation, and from the pleasure we
obtain rest . . . To exert oneself and work for the
sake of amusement seems silly and utterly childish.
But to amuse oneself in order that one may exert
oneself seems right."
Now let me rephrase the question you asked, as
follows: "Is it good for a society to have much
free time?" The answer is that it depends entirely
on how men who have ample free time use it. If they
use it, as so many Americans do today, in aimless
play, passive forms of amusement, and desperate
measures to kill the time that hangs heavy on their
hands, then it obviously is not good for them or
for society. It can only lead to degeneracy and
corruption. But if people use their free time to
develop their faculties, to grow mentally, and to
participate in society and culture, then the more
free time they have, the better.
Of course, there is a great difference between
the problem of leisure in Aristotle's day and in
ours. In his day only a small segment of society
formed the "leisure class," that is, men with
enough property to have free time for leisure. The
rest were slaves or toilers. But in our society all
of us who work for a living also belong to the
"leisure class." We all have plenty of time free
for leisure, if we would only use it for that
purpose.
Will we? That's the most serious problem our
society has to face. In my opinion, we can
successfully check the trend toward mindless and
passive time-killing indulgences only if genuinely
liberal schooling prepares the young for the
liberal pursuits of leisure in adult life. In
addition, such things as the great ideas and great
books seminars for adults may help them to use
their free time in the right way, for continued
learning in adult life is one of the best examples
of leisure activity.
Enrich
Your Life With a Philosophy Book...
Enrich
Your Life With a Philosophy
Magazine...
Academy
Showcase
Specials
|
|
|
|
|
|