What is leisure supposed to be for? How might we define or describe
leisure? Can activity that is related to a goal still be associated with
leisure? What is the difference between a goal directed activity and an
activity done for its own sake? Is there a goal of leisure? Is there such
a thing as too much leisure? Does leisure have to do with choice? What
do work and leisure have in common? Why do we not like to be bored?
Boredom: Facing the Self. . .
When people have too much leisure, they have to find ways to fill the time. What is the problem with having too much leisure? What is so dangerous about having too much time? We get Bored.
Is boredom "bad"? In Greek mythology, the detrimentality of boredom is illustrated in the demise of Argus. Zeus was having an affair with Io, and his wife Hera became suspicious. Zeus turned Io into a heifer to avoid the suspicion. Hera saw the heifer and asked Zeus to give it to her as a gift. She asked Argus to watch the heifer to make sure that Zeus stayed away. Zeus, sorry for Io's predicament, asked Hermes, the message bearer of the gods (from whom we get "hermeneutics," the art of interpretation), to find a way to kill the hundred-eyed monster. Hermes, innovative god that he was, told Argus stories in order to put him to sleep, and although Argus only slept with two eyes at any given time, the stories were so boring that all of his eyes went to sleep. There was no connexion between the stories; no beginning, no middle, and no end. The final eyes closed with the story about Pan's pursuit of the nymph Syrinx and how she was transformed into reeds by her friends to escape him and Pan made an instrument out of the reeds in order to possess her. As soon as Argus fell asleep, Hermes cut off his head. Argus had been bored to death.
We are affronted almost incessantly with series of constant images which are unrelated to one another. Are we being bored to death, too? We are giving up our notions of beginnings, middles, and ends; are we looking for a "thread" and trying to make connexions? Does the perpetual flow of fast images on television and elsewhere desensitize us, causing us to be bored with anything that does not have the same pace to it?
One way to deal with boredom is distractions. But then it seems that leisure is a means of evasion. What are we trying to avoid; why do we want to be distracted from boredom? Introspection: if one is left alone with one's Self for too long, one may be forced to face questions, the answers to which might reveal a void of self, or one may find a Self that one does not like. Work and leisure, then, may serve the same distractive function.
Do we feel guilty for being bored? If so, is it a culturally instilled guilt that implies that when we are doing nothing we are not doing what we are supposed to be doing (e.g., producing or consuming)?
Highlights from the Last Meeting. . .
Aristotle's conception of leisure was positive. The higher faculties of reason depended on the life of leisure--time to think. It was the leisurely class that defined humanity; they had the time to contemplate what humanity meant and the power to embody their ideas in the polis. They were doing this for everyone else, so that the entire community would benefit from what they did, rather than just for themselves.
What do we think that leisure is supposed to be for? Do we think of our free time as an opportunity to contribute to others? Is free time that we spend to do something contributive of more value than free time that we keep to ourselves?
What do we associate our identities with more, work or leisure? Where do we think that we find our Selves? Leisure seems to be where we find more of our Selves than at work. We may like our work and find satisfaction in it, but there is still some transcendence or aspect of identity that is not captured in the work. In our free time, we often practice our hobbies. Do we hope that they will become our work? Is it better not to make your job something that you like to do? Is something lost from the enjoyment when it becomes a responsibility that entails deadlines and duties? How might one go about choosing what to do for a living? There is a high degree of uncertainty in what you choose; the average person may change careers as many as seven times during their life.
How leisure is defined is largely dependent on how we define work. If we view work as obligation and determination, then there is a freedom involved in leisure that we see as antithetical to our work. Most people see leisure as freedom not to do anything; freedom not to be productive. What does our culture think that leisure is for?
The counterpoint to productivity would be consumption. We use leisure as recovery from the mind-numbing work (Wittgenstein, after giving his lectures, would go watch b-grade westerns to try to shut his mind off); to rest, travel, practice hobbies, or devote our leisure to making work easier or more profitable. We can work "at our leisure" and not be concerned with deadlines or obligatory pace. If we use our leisure to facilitate our work, then we are sacrificing our free time. We spend the money that we make while we are working to play games, be entertained, or participate in, or watch, sports.
Are we being inculcated by the culture in such a way as to think that we cannot enjoy our leisure without the proper "toys"? Through marketing and advertising, our "spontaneity" is planned. Our leisure is incorporated into the economy. How are we encouraged to spend our leisure? It doesn't cost any money to write a poem or to think.
The way that we spend our leisure time seems to be more physical than mental, as our work is more mental than physical. This used to be the other way around. Does this reversal indicate that there is a scale that we need to keep in balance? Do we somehow need to use our complete being, consisting of both physical and mental? Can we have one without the other?
How much effort are we willing to put into our leisure activities? Prior to the incorporation of modern conveniences into our lives, the activities of leisure required effort. Today's leisure seems to require less of the individual; it entails more of a passive than an active mode; leisure is something that is done for us rather than something that we do.
There are still those who get pleasure from writing poetry, thinking,
or other things that require effort, but as a whole, we seem to like things
to be easier.
Afterthought
By: Steve Coleman
During the last meeting a statement was made exhorting us not to throw the baby out with the bath water. The question was asked whether the "baby" represented philosophy. The reply was "yes," but upon much reflection, I think that the response should have been "no." Truth (upper case always--Truth) is the baby. The bath water needing to be thrown out is the current move of psychology and philosophy to determine what is true in the lower-case sense. . .also known as "facts." Lower case truth and facts are now part and parcel of the same thing. Let us bathe Truth in the dual lights of "Friend of Wisdom" and "Psyche" and leave the lower case truth to experimentation and manipulation. Rescue the perishing.
Next Meeting
Wednesday, April 9th
8:30 pm
Gamble Hall, Room 106
Our topic: cloning
Creating Clones
By: Jasper Humbert
Dolly, a-Finn Dorset ewe, doesn't look like a monumental achievement for science when first looked upon, nor can anything be seen that is particularly noticeable to the naked eye. She's not faster than a speeding bullet; she can't leap tall buildings in a single bound; and she doesn't glow in the dark. Dolly is a sheep that is genetically similar to every other sheep, except for one, and to that one Dolly is identical.
Dolly is not the result of mating between an ewe and a ram. Instead, she was cloned from a single cell taken from the udder of a six-year-old ewe. Contrary to popular belief, Dolly is not the first cloned lamb. A year before, the same scientists that cloned Dolly produced identical lambs called Megan and Morag. These sheep originated from different cells in the same embryo. What makes dolly so wondrous is that she is the first mammal ever created from the non-reproductive tissue of an adult mammal.
The process that the scientists used involved two cell types. First,
an immature unfertilized egg cell called an oocyte was extracted from the
ovary of an ewe. The chromosomes were then removed from this cell and only
a DNA-free cell remained. The other cell was taken from a mammary gland
of a Finn Dorset ewe. The cells were fused by bringing them together and
subjecting them to an electrical current. What was left was one new cell
that when allowed to grow and divide in a petri dish soon formed an early
embryo known as a blastocyst. This embryo was placed in Dolly's mother
and Dolly was born 5 months later.
Some Questions on Cloning. . .
Clones. Think about this idea for just one moment. Clones. It's the stuff of imagination, science fiction, and yes, horror. The concept of cloning has been a part of the world of entertainment for years and now it seems that the worlds of fantasy and imagination have taken root in reality.
Clones are the starting block for many of our greatest and most beloved science fiction stories. The Clone Wars, for example, from George Lucas' classic Star Wars, are the building blocks for the first trilogy, and they will play a major role in the next trilogy. Here the idea of clones is put in a more realistic light when two government parties begin to fight over the rights of clones. One group sees them as property; the other sees them as living beings. It is because of this conflict that the government of the Old Republic weakens and the sinister Senator Palapatine takes over the government and makes himself the Emperor.
Of course, cloning is not always made out to be a bad thing. In fact, in some cases it is looked at as beneficial to society. As long as you are not a clone. Case in point, Aldus Huxley's A Brave New World, in which clones are viewed as a subspecies, lesser than a true human. In some cases, clones and cloning are seen as a potential benefit to the scientific world. But it usually goes horribly wrong. Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park, for example, shows the wealth of knowledge and the innate terror in the concept of cloning because no matter what you do to control clones, the fact is what you create is a living being and will fight for its freedom.
In the history of comic books, clones have always been used as the monkey wrench that plays havoc with the lives of the heroes. In DC Comics' Tales From the Crypt, an aging millionaire clones himself so that he can live forever.
Unfortunately for him, his clone is just as greedy as he is, and kills him and replaces him in society. Marvel Comics' Spiderman was plagued by the clone of his lost love, Gwen Stacy, for years. And then later, by a clone of himself. Comic books use clones to make their heroes face mirror images of themselves to become more of a hero out of the struggle.
It seems to me that clones serve only two purposes in the entertainment
world. One is that of an oppressed species struggling for freedom; the
other is a creation of evil bent on destroying its creator and replacing
him. But whatever the category a clone fits into, it seems that through
the history of science fiction and fantasy entertainment the concept of
clones has always been in the forefront of the genre. From Star Wars
to the X- files, Talesfromthe Crypt to Spiderman,
and A Brave New World to Jurassic Park, Clones seem to be
surrounding us everywhere we look. Unfortunately, they all seem to took
the same.
Spring Quarter Meeting Schedule
8:30pm in Gamble Hall, room 106
April 9th, April 23rd, May 7th, May 21st
Deadlines for submissions to
The Philosopher's Stone:
April II th, April 25th
May 9th, May 23rd
Special Announcement
The deadline for submissions to the philosophical essay contest has been extended to April 9th. Please bring your submissions to The Thought Box, located in The Writing Center in Gamble Hall.