-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Everything we pay for is leisure
- Thread starter nnmartin
- Start date
Hevenly Heathen
Seeker
Leisure is not defined as pleasure. One can experience pleasure during activities of leisure, but leisure itself is not pleasure.
Peace of mind is a state of mind. It is something one grants themselves through will.
Distractions, not leisure. Perhaps even meditation, but not leisure.
You are trying to equate segments of time to feelings of pleasure.
- If I am injured during my leisure time, I am in pain. Does this then cancel out my time of leisure and institute a different state of time?
- If I am able to attain a peaceful state of mind while going about my duties, this is supposed to be leisure and not self control?
Leisure is free, all of the time. You can spend money on activities or hobbies during leisure time, but segments of time don't cost a thing.
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
In Martin's view it is because pleasure is a form of mental leisure.
Freedom from stress and negativity even if for a fleeting moment.
You can pay for peace of mind as well though.
It institutes a different quality of time.
That depends on whether you can genuinely call your mind state to be pleasurable - acceptable endurance is more likely though.
It sounds like Buddhist mind control.
You need to pay in advance to be able to enjoy these segments of time.
Hevenly Heathen
Seeker
-Freedom from stress -- even without pleasure -- I will acknowledge as leisure. But pleasure does not constitute leisure.
-You can't pay for peace of mind, that always needs to come from within. Nothing outside of the self can reassure the self unless the self accepts it, which in turn comes from the self.
-Quality of time does not constitute leisure, just as pleasure does not equate to leisure.
-Again, leisure does not mean pleasure or vice versa. And it isn't mind control, it's simple meditation. Peaceful also does not equate to pleasureable.
-If you need to pay at all for times of pleasure, you need to rethink your life.
I can see where we both agree that freedom from duties equates to leisure. But I don't think you can convince many that pleasure is leisure, again: it is a state of mind where leisure is measured by time.
-You can't pay for peace of mind, that always needs to come from within. Nothing outside of the self can reassure the self unless the self accepts it, which in turn comes from the self.
-Quality of time does not constitute leisure, just as pleasure does not equate to leisure.
-Again, leisure does not mean pleasure or vice versa. And it isn't mind control, it's simple meditation. Peaceful also does not equate to pleasureable.
-If you need to pay at all for times of pleasure, you need to rethink your life.
I can see where we both agree that freedom from duties equates to leisure. But I don't think you can convince many that pleasure is leisure, again: it is a state of mind where leisure is measured by time.
No, not always. To clarify, I am thinking of an experience I had once, when I was down in Africa with my parents. I happen to be a vegetarian, so I dont have as much alternatives as someone who is not. In any case, basically when I went out to swim or something we would buy take away. Unfortunately I could only eat one thing (dont know the name in English). At first I enjoyed it but eventually I grew quite tired of it. However, I had to eat it or starve and I chose to eat it. So I didnt buy it for leisure, I bought it not to starve.
Draka
Wonder Woman
You have children, you must buy milk, fruits and vegetables, foods with protein, and several other things to keep your children healthy. If your children are not healthy and do not get proper nutrition then they can become sick and possibly die. It is a requirement for you to properly nourish them and the taste of such foods does not matter. If these things are not done you will lose your children one way or another. Preserving the life of your children is not a "leisure" activity. Lack of providing proper nutrition for children can result in several different outcomes. Your child may become so sick as to require hospitalization. For which you will pay. Your child may subsequently die. For which you will pay and will also suffer great grief. During any of this time the state may come in and take your children for neglect, which causes you to lose custody of your children. This will cause you much grief (and don't even try to pass off avoiding grief to be leisure), and may also result in your incarceration (and you do have leisure time while incarcerated so avoiding incarceration is not the same thing as avoiding loss of leisure).
nnmartin,
Are you trying to make the point that within our physical requirements for life (if left completely to our own devices -- meaning no other human contribution whatsoever to rely on) our entire personal existence would likely be consumed with the tasks of finding water, food, clothing and shelter (or making it, along with the tools to make it) -- all on our own? And... that since we can pay for those things, it is not necessary for us to directly produce (from nature) those very items for ourselves.
It seems to me that you may be trying to make the point that we really do all need each other and contribute to the well being and standard of living for each other, even in the easily overlooked ways. I am not sure if that is really where you are going.
I can see use of the word leisure from the perspective that anything that I can pay for, that contributes to my survival, is something for I have exchanged money for in order to relieve myself from time on the hunt/work for the necessities of survival. In that regard, the exchange of energy (or effort) needed for me to earn enough money to buy drinkable water for a day, compared to the amount of effort that would be required for me find and purify water with only naturally occuring (non purchased) items and my own skill, does result in a personal profit for me of energy/time, realized in some savings in the amount of time/energy that would be needed for me to find/produce water to drink. I can then spend that time/energy in another area of physical survival matters (or an area that may not be directly related to physical survival) -- which could be considered leisure from the concerns of producing water.
Is that were you are going with this thread?
Are you trying to make the point that within our physical requirements for life (if left completely to our own devices -- meaning no other human contribution whatsoever to rely on) our entire personal existence would likely be consumed with the tasks of finding water, food, clothing and shelter (or making it, along with the tools to make it) -- all on our own? And... that since we can pay for those things, it is not necessary for us to directly produce (from nature) those very items for ourselves.
It seems to me that you may be trying to make the point that we really do all need each other and contribute to the well being and standard of living for each other, even in the easily overlooked ways. I am not sure if that is really where you are going.
I can see use of the word leisure from the perspective that anything that I can pay for, that contributes to my survival, is something for I have exchanged money for in order to relieve myself from time on the hunt/work for the necessities of survival. In that regard, the exchange of energy (or effort) needed for me to earn enough money to buy drinkable water for a day, compared to the amount of effort that would be required for me find and purify water with only naturally occuring (non purchased) items and my own skill, does result in a personal profit for me of energy/time, realized in some savings in the amount of time/energy that would be needed for me to find/produce water to drink. I can then spend that time/energy in another area of physical survival matters (or an area that may not be directly related to physical survival) -- which could be considered leisure from the concerns of producing water.
Is that were you are going with this thread?
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
That's quite close to the mark but of course it's not just about survival. When we pay for something it is also a convenience.
People who have enough money often have chefs,cleaners, servants etc.. and every kind of modern convenience imaginable - in fact if you had so much money you could virtually end up motionless in a massage chair until you turned into a grotesque blob of meat - but with every whim attended to by another of course.
Some people may go down this route, but others would more likely prefer to be active.
In which case they would want more and more with the aim of subjecting everyone to their will in Dictatorial fashion.
This is the inherent evil within man that needs to be destroyed.
People who have enough money often have chefs,cleaners, servants etc.. and every kind of modern convenience imaginable - in fact if you had so much money you could virtually end up motionless in a massage chair until you turned into a grotesque blob of meat - but with every whim attended to by another of course.
Some people may go down this route, but others would more likely prefer to be active.
In which case they would want more and more with the aim of subjecting everyone to their will in Dictatorial fashion.
This is the inherent evil within man that needs to be destroyed.
Last edited:
Draka
Wonder Woman
Currency is just a means of trade. just because we can pay for something doesn't make it leisure, as the currency is our trade means.
Joe grows vegetables, Sue chops down trees, and Carl filters and produces clean drinking water. They all need the products the others put out through their hard work in order to survive. So they trade with each other in order to get what they need to provide the basic living necessities. In most of society though, it is not a straight trade across as all products are not often produced within the same community. So currency comes in. Joe takes his vegetables to a market where someone pays him currency to get some food to sustain them...not leisure. He then takes the money he earned for his hard work and goes to the lumber store to buy lumber to work on his house to ensure his shelter. How is any of that leisure just because currency is involved when currency is merely a means of trade. Work goes in to earning money, money must be put towards others' work as a means of gaining basic living necessities. None of that denotes leisure.
Joe grows vegetables, Sue chops down trees, and Carl filters and produces clean drinking water. They all need the products the others put out through their hard work in order to survive. So they trade with each other in order to get what they need to provide the basic living necessities. In most of society though, it is not a straight trade across as all products are not often produced within the same community. So currency comes in. Joe takes his vegetables to a market where someone pays him currency to get some food to sustain them...not leisure. He then takes the money he earned for his hard work and goes to the lumber store to buy lumber to work on his house to ensure his shelter. How is any of that leisure just because currency is involved when currency is merely a means of trade. Work goes in to earning money, money must be put towards others' work as a means of gaining basic living necessities. None of that denotes leisure.
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
Once we elevate ourselves above the most basic level of subsistence then trade does become of form of leisure though.
None of us actually need to live in 4 bedroomed houses or have tv, car, washing machine etc.. but we do so because it makes life more comfortable.
We prefer a car to the public bus but don't actually need it, so it comes under the term leisure.
Why would they call an SUV a Sports Utility Vehicle in the first place knowing that virtually nobody uses these vehicles for sports anyway. And why are many public sports facilities called 'leisure centres'?
it is because these activities are substitutions for the hunter gatherer within us - so we pay to do this natural action by going to the gym or playing tennis instead.
None of us actually need to live in 4 bedroomed houses or have tv, car, washing machine etc.. but we do so because it makes life more comfortable.
We prefer a car to the public bus but don't actually need it, so it comes under the term leisure.
Why would they call an SUV a Sports Utility Vehicle in the first place knowing that virtually nobody uses these vehicles for sports anyway. And why are many public sports facilities called 'leisure centres'?
it is because these activities are substitutions for the hunter gatherer within us - so we pay to do this natural action by going to the gym or playing tennis instead.
Draka
Wonder Woman
Well, that settles that, you don't know the meaning of the word leisure. A car is not a form of leisure, it can be considered a luxury. Food, on the other hand, is a necessity. Junk food is a luxury, but water and basics like bread and milk and fruit can well be considered necessity for without them you become malnourished. Eating food out of hunger is a necessity, and while it may be done during leisure time, it doesn't make it any less necessary to do, no matter when it is done.
Hevenly Heathen
Seeker
I think what most people have a problem with is your unyeilding and unwillingness to view the grey.
-I live in a house with not enough space for my family. We also have 'modern conveniences' because we must work longer and harder to keep up and have less time to manually labor for leisure time.
-I have no public transit, and I have to climb 3000 plus feet to get to where my job is located. Without a vehicle which can make it through the nights it snows 3 feet in 5 hours, I lose my job and my income to take care of my family
-Any sports I do participate in are on the rare days off I am not playing catch-up to the chores at home
-I do agree that activities replace the hunter/gatherer in us. But it's filling a basic instinct, and not leisure in itself, or pleasure; though those activities are carried out when we have leisure to do so.
I disagree.
I believe that the use of some form of currency allows for civilization to exist. It is a good tool if properly used -- meaning if used to support the overall well-being of life. Money only takes a negative turn when one forms into an extreme goal where it is all that matters and one justifies unscrupulous behavior within the pursuit or application of it.
OK? So are you taking the position that living within a state of grim, meager subsitence, where your only focus is survival is somehow more noble than having the time and means for joyful pursuits in your own life and providing that for others'? I have been in situations of extreme financial discomfort in my life, and I have also had joy and appreciation at that same time, even though I had worry as well. But, if I thought that state was some sort of top level goal of a place to stay (as in what I was supposed to want and do,) I would find that to be a sad perspective.
A simple shift in personal priorities may be in order. Simply because our standard of living is often above sole focus on survival issues, does not invalidate the right and value of people to have pleasure in their own life. I see is as encouraging, not cause for internal/philosophical grief. Many people keep their priorities in life in order, and simply view money within a reasonable perspective. Just because it's not everything doesn't mean it isn't worth something.
Actually, I do know people that need to live in a 4 bedroom house. Several, in fact. One in particular needs to live in a 4 bedroom house because after a 2nd marriage there was the need for more than 4 bedrooms due to combined familes. And, once those children were nearly grown and soon to be out of the house, this couple adopted 4 siblings that would not likely have been adopted, or if they were, would not have likely been adopted together.
I do not agree that your own view of what other people need is accurate. Other people may actually need more because they actually do more for others.
I can't agree with you here, either. There is no public transportation to get my husband to his various jobs. And, even if there were, I doubt that there is any public transportation on which he could, on a daily basis, carry a table saw, full tool box, ladder, etc. He actually needs a truck.
Again, there may very well be people that bought an SUV for status or some reason other than need. That's their business. But, how do you really know what type of various activities people you see going down the road actually use their vehicle for? Are they supposed to have different vehicles for a shopping trip or for going to dinner than they use for other things -- like work?
Many people live in physical surroundings where hunter/gathering activities would be really upsetting to their next door neighbors. The human condition changes over time. If you think that some previous state of living is better than the one we have now, what state of living is preferable? Do we throw everything out and go back to only using fire that can be started with sticks we find in the woods?
You mention the gym as a substitute for more natural activties. I agree that a decrease in the need for physical activity for survival has led people to seeing a benefit in replacing necessary physical activity with enjoyable physical activity. I don't really like to go to a gym for exercise. I prefer exercise that involves a change of scenery, or yoga/stretching type exercise. So, I don't go to a gym.
However, my husband goes to a gym. He is in construction and does intense physical work on a regular basis. He uses a gym, not to compensate for lack of physical exercise, but to work out various muscle groups that may need to be worked out in order to avoid injury. Since certain parts of a job often requires specific types of activity to be repeated throughout that same day, he will work out groups of muscles that are (I guess) what you might consider the opposite set of muscles. It also helps him to stay mentally/emotionally balanced. He may enjoy going to the gym. That is a plus. Do you really think that the fact that he enjoys it detracts from it simply because his physical survival is not directly related to the activity?
Me Myself
Back to my username
Well, a heck of a lot of what we pay for IS INDEED leasure.
And no, most of us don´t even need one bed. If we truly need beds, we´ve never come to built them, because we would have died as a species for us needing beds and not having them.
I think having less psychological needs is a definite plus, and living in the minimum to donate the rest to charities is more compasionate than not doing it.
That said. I don´t do it. I don´t even earn my own money yet though >_>
And no, most of us don´t even need one bed. If we truly need beds, we´ve never come to built them, because we would have died as a species for us needing beds and not having them.
I think having less psychological needs is a definite plus, and living in the minimum to donate the rest to charities is more compasionate than not doing it.
That said. I don´t do it. I don´t even earn my own money yet though >_>
.