In the beginning of every semester, I ask my students why they watch movies. Many answers are thrown into the air but three things consistently emerge: entertainment, learning and relaxation. After careful prodding the students classify these three things under the general category of leisure. At first instance, it appears to make sense. Leisure, the students argue is their free time. And in this free time, they choose to watch movies to achieve the above three, things that they cannot afford to do while in school. And then I hurl Aristotle at them aided by his 20th century ally, Mortimer Adler.
After reading treatises form the two with a considerable amount of difficulty, the students are confronted with a dilemma. The two thinkers, one ancient the other contemporary, both dead, basically shattered student understanding of leisure and what it consists in. To the students, leisure is something that is supposed to relax the weary body and mind, tired from a long days toil. To Aristoltle, Adler and, allow me to now add, Vito Cruz, leisure does not necessarily attain relaxation, in fact it can even be as arduous and taxing as the occupation the students wish to escape from. Leisure is not meant to relax, say the three! Thus begins the long, difficult, but ultimately rewarding discussion of what leisure is and here I propose to elaborate on the ideas that I and my students contend with.
Leisure, the Philosopher says, is "the first principle of all action" and "the end of occupation." It is "accompanied by pleasure and happiness and enjoyment of life." The students agree with this. The reason being that they experience these things when engaging in their free time. I do not doubt that they do, but further inquiry reveals a misunderstanding of some of these ideas. First of all, most do not understand "first principle of all action" and "the end of occupation." And for this we turn to Adler who explains that leisure is the reason why people do things. It is the principle that move people to act. In relation to work, leisure is the goal a worker aims for. Leisure is the starting point and the terminus of occupation. Because it is and end, leisure is not necessary or useful. This basically rules out relaxation as a necessary condition for leisure. This conclusion proves perplexing to the students as shown in their stunned and puzzled faces. How can this be, when Aristotle himself equates leisure with amusement, which brings the relaxation?
Aristotle does bring amusement into the picture. The problem with the objection is that it is based on a erroneous understanding of a passage form the Politics. The students failed to understand that Aristotle was actually ruling out amusement as an activity done in leisure. The lines in question seek to clarify what people ought to do when at leisure. It then proceeds to explain that it should not consist in amusement. Otherwise amusement will be the end of life, which is absurd. "Why is this absurd?" asks one brave fellow. Because amusement and the relaxation it brings is necessary and leisure is not necessary, I answer.
The reply points back to the other assertion that stung the students: leisure is not necessary. The discussion naturally turns to a discussion of usefulness or practical necessity against nobleness or liberality. A discussion which will continue in a subsequent entry in the near future followed by an attempt to defend watching movies as properly belonging to leisurely activities.
Stay tuned!
After reading treatises form the two with a considerable amount of difficulty, the students are confronted with a dilemma. The two thinkers, one ancient the other contemporary, both dead, basically shattered student understanding of leisure and what it consists in. To the students, leisure is something that is supposed to relax the weary body and mind, tired from a long days toil. To Aristoltle, Adler and, allow me to now add, Vito Cruz, leisure does not necessarily attain relaxation, in fact it can even be as arduous and taxing as the occupation the students wish to escape from. Leisure is not meant to relax, say the three! Thus begins the long, difficult, but ultimately rewarding discussion of what leisure is and here I propose to elaborate on the ideas that I and my students contend with.
Leisure, the Philosopher says, is "the first principle of all action" and "the end of occupation." It is "accompanied by pleasure and happiness and enjoyment of life." The students agree with this. The reason being that they experience these things when engaging in their free time. I do not doubt that they do, but further inquiry reveals a misunderstanding of some of these ideas. First of all, most do not understand "first principle of all action" and "the end of occupation." And for this we turn to Adler who explains that leisure is the reason why people do things. It is the principle that move people to act. In relation to work, leisure is the goal a worker aims for. Leisure is the starting point and the terminus of occupation. Because it is and end, leisure is not necessary or useful. This basically rules out relaxation as a necessary condition for leisure. This conclusion proves perplexing to the students as shown in their stunned and puzzled faces. How can this be, when Aristotle himself equates leisure with amusement, which brings the relaxation?
Aristotle does bring amusement into the picture. The problem with the objection is that it is based on a erroneous understanding of a passage form the Politics. The students failed to understand that Aristotle was actually ruling out amusement as an activity done in leisure. The lines in question seek to clarify what people ought to do when at leisure. It then proceeds to explain that it should not consist in amusement. Otherwise amusement will be the end of life, which is absurd. "Why is this absurd?" asks one brave fellow. Because amusement and the relaxation it brings is necessary and leisure is not necessary, I answer.
The reply points back to the other assertion that stung the students: leisure is not necessary. The discussion naturally turns to a discussion of usefulness or practical necessity against nobleness or liberality. A discussion which will continue in a subsequent entry in the near future followed by an attempt to defend watching movies as properly belonging to leisurely activities.
Stay tuned!
No comments:
Post a Comment