What do you think?
Rate this book
Leisure: The Basis of Culture
One of the most important philosophy titles published in the twentieth century, Josef Pieper's Leisure: the Basis of Culture is more significant, even more crucial, today than it was when it first appeared fifty years ago. Pieper shows that the Greeks understood and valued leisure, as did the medieval Europeans. He points out that religion can be born only in leisure - a leisure that allows time for the contemplation of the nature of God. Leisure has been, and always will be, the first foundation of any culture.
He maintains that our bourgeois world of total labor has vanquished leisure, and issues a startling warning: Unless we regain the art of silence and insight, the ability for nonactivity, unless we substitute true leisure for our hectic amusements, we will destroy our culture - and ourselves.
These astonishing essays contradict all our pragmatic and puritanical conceptions about labor and leisure; Josef Pieper demolishes the twentieth-century cult of "work" as he predicts its destructive consequences.
He maintains that our bourgeois world of total labor has vanquished leisure, and issues a startling warning: Unless we regain the art of silence and insight, the ability for nonactivity, unless we substitute true leisure for our hectic amusements, we will destroy our culture - and ourselves.
These astonishing essays contradict all our pragmatic and puritanical conceptions about labor and leisure; Josef Pieper demolishes the twentieth-century cult of "work" as he predicts its destructive consequences.
160 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1948
About the author
Josef Pieper
128 books257 followersJosef Pieper was professor of philosophical anthropology at the University of Münster/Germany; he was a member of several academies and received numerous awards and distinctions, among them the International Balzan Prize for outstanding achievements in the field of humanities.
Pieper is among the most widely read philosophers of the 20th century. The main focus of his thought is the overcoming of cultural forms of secular totalitarianism and of its philosophical foundations through a rehabilitation of the Christian concept of man that is related to experience and action. Plato and Thomas Aquinas in particular were the inspiring sources of a constructive criticism of contemporary culture.
Pieper is among the most widely read philosophers of the 20th century. The main focus of his thought is the overcoming of cultural forms of secular totalitarianism and of its philosophical foundations through a rehabilitation of the Christian concept of man that is related to experience and action. Plato and Thomas Aquinas in particular were the inspiring sources of a constructive criticism of contemporary culture.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 377 reviews
April 28, 2017
The definitive analysis, and rebuke, of our society's obsession with productivity. Pieper explains why the inability to enjoy leisure is also closely related to sloth and despair. "One can only be bored if the spiritual power to be leisurely has been lost." Leisure is rooted in wonder, and therefore brings us a lasting joy that we cannot find in the mere temporary cessation of work ("vacation"). Pieper shows the perverse effects of thinking that something is better simply because it is harder, and offers a corrective that will prove salubrious to most anyone living in the 21st century. Highly recommended.
June 19, 2018
To do philosophy is to realize the naturally essential inclination of the human mind toward totality.
I often wonder why is Achilles always resting in The Iliad; at one point it almost feels like he is angry not with Agamemnon taking the slave girl but with Agamemnon denying his right to leisure. Josef Pieper gives leisure an interesting definition: "Leisure is the disposition of receptive understanding, of contemplative beholding, and immersion in the real." In other words, leisure is what prompts the non-active, purely receptive part of human knowing which transcends human laboring and gives births to what constitutes the "truly human". This definition does fit into what I understand as essentially Achilles: the involuntariness of his action and the harmony of his anger with the totality of nature. Achilles, emblematic of the aristocratic as opposed to the democratic or proletarian, denies the totalitarian claim of the world of work which is also the claim of Agamemnon.
Of course, Pieper's world (not to mention today's world) differs from Homer's. There are Plato, Jesus, Kant, Marx in between, and Pieper analyzes their impacts on the conception of leisure and work. This book is mostly a critique of what the totalitarian claim of work is doing to philosophy. Pieper argues that philosophers (or maybe everyone of us humans) should not see themselves as workers or social functionaries. "That which has its meaning and purpose in itself, that which is itself purpose, cannot be made the means for some other purpose, just as someone can not love a person 'for such and such' or 'in order to do such and such'!" When Karl Marx changes the essence of philosophy from interpreting the world to changing the world, he reduces philosophy to "intellectual work" with a certain social function, and denies philosophy its essential totality.
I often wonder why is Achilles always resting in The Iliad; at one point it almost feels like he is angry not with Agamemnon taking the slave girl but with Agamemnon denying his right to leisure. Josef Pieper gives leisure an interesting definition: "Leisure is the disposition of receptive understanding, of contemplative beholding, and immersion in the real." In other words, leisure is what prompts the non-active, purely receptive part of human knowing which transcends human laboring and gives births to what constitutes the "truly human". This definition does fit into what I understand as essentially Achilles: the involuntariness of his action and the harmony of his anger with the totality of nature. Achilles, emblematic of the aristocratic as opposed to the democratic or proletarian, denies the totalitarian claim of the world of work which is also the claim of Agamemnon.
Of course, Pieper's world (not to mention today's world) differs from Homer's. There are Plato, Jesus, Kant, Marx in between, and Pieper analyzes their impacts on the conception of leisure and work. This book is mostly a critique of what the totalitarian claim of work is doing to philosophy. Pieper argues that philosophers (or maybe everyone of us humans) should not see themselves as workers or social functionaries. "That which has its meaning and purpose in itself, that which is itself purpose, cannot be made the means for some other purpose, just as someone can not love a person 'for such and such' or 'in order to do such and such'!" When Karl Marx changes the essence of philosophy from interpreting the world to changing the world, he reduces philosophy to "intellectual work" with a certain social function, and denies philosophy its essential totality.
December 28, 2007
"Pieper's message to us is plain. The American democracy is not blissfully immune to the Western blight; we have in fact done our part in generating the totalitarian epidemic. The idolatry of the machine, the worship of mindless know-how, the infantile cult of youth and the common man--all this points to our peculiar leadership in the drift toward the slave society. "--from the 1952 NYT Book Review
A lovely, contrarian work of philosophy. Pieper watches how Socrates' prerequisite for philosophy (wonder) was replaced by Hegel's (doubt). Leisure, as he imagines it, is not idleness, but glad and sustaining astonishment.
A lovely, contrarian work of philosophy. Pieper watches how Socrates' prerequisite for philosophy (wonder) was replaced by Hegel's (doubt). Leisure, as he imagines it, is not idleness, but glad and sustaining astonishment.
May 8, 2020
Finally.
May 18, 2014
What an astounding little book, my first introduction to Josef Pieper, other than him being footnoted in other books I've read. The book, if you aren't familiar with it, is essentially two essays made up of a series of lectures and papers Pieper wrote. The first, "Leisure: The Basis of Culture" and the second, "The Philosophical Act" are both excellent and worthy reads. The two were written near to one another in time, so their themes play right into one another.
This is an important book to read for anyone interested in education, philosophy, theology, or culture. It really cannot be said any better than the quotations on the back of the book:
"This book is a gem. No other book its size will teach us so many true things about everything we need to know to understand what and why we are or about how to live a life worth living."
"This book goes a long way towards a lucid explanation of the present crisis in civilization . . . It should be read by anyone--and young people in particular--anxious to come to some conclusions about the nature of society."
If you've ever wondered why rest doesn't feel restful, you need this book.
If you've ever wondered why our culture feels so work-focused, you need this book.
If you've ever wondered why the idea that knowledge begins with doubt just sounds wrong, you need this book.
If you've ever wondered, then you are engaging in leisure and philosophy, and you need this book.
This is an important book to read for anyone interested in education, philosophy, theology, or culture. It really cannot be said any better than the quotations on the back of the book:
"This book is a gem. No other book its size will teach us so many true things about everything we need to know to understand what and why we are or about how to live a life worth living."
"This book goes a long way towards a lucid explanation of the present crisis in civilization . . . It should be read by anyone--and young people in particular--anxious to come to some conclusions about the nature of society."
If you've ever wondered why rest doesn't feel restful, you need this book.
If you've ever wondered why our culture feels so work-focused, you need this book.
If you've ever wondered why the idea that knowledge begins with doubt just sounds wrong, you need this book.
If you've ever wondered, then you are engaging in leisure and philosophy, and you need this book.
September 11, 2023
Beautiful, brilliant and oh-so-thought-provoking. This is one of those small little books that everyone should read (Christians most especially), because it has changed my thinking, so it might change yours too.
This one is staying on my shelf forever.
This one is staying on my shelf forever.
September 20, 2020
"Be at leisure - and know that I am God." - Psalm 45
Published in 1948, Leisure could not be any more relevant to the “Achievement Society” of 2020.
Leisure is the best kind of book - brief, dense but accessible, a secular academic work but deeply religious, and packed with gold.
I mean, TS Eliot wrote the introduction. You know it’s gonna be profound.
Pieper defines leisure as “not activity” and “not useful" [anti-utilitarian], a calm stillness that can only come from understanding who you are in relation to the totality of the universe.
Thus leisure begins and ends with God- it is “worshipful celebration". In the words of Aristotle: ”man cannot live this way insofar as he is man, but only insofar as something divine dwells in him.”
Leisure is set against both idleness and workaholicism since both stem from the same root cause: "he does not want to be what God wants him to be”, not living in agreement with God (or reality).
True leisure is the antidote to what ails our “total work” world (where we only have worth if we are getting things done).
Our common experience as moderns - boredom, anxiety, exhaustion, and despair - are all rooted in the "absence of leisure, for only someone who has lost the spiritual power to be at leisure can be bored. And then Despair, the sister of Restlessness, rears its hideous head.”
"Be at leisure - and know that I am God” is the antidote.
Leisure predates A Secular Age by 50 years, but is a helpful companion to Taylor. Pieper argues that (along with philosophy, love, death and poetry), leisure pierces the immanent frame, "the canopy that encloses the world of the…work–day," opening up transcendence.
Leisure is a book on:
- leisure and culture - this is essentially what makes us human
- an intro to Philosophy
- what it means to be human
- freedom
- the scourge of utilitarianism (a "widening of one’s existence beyond the realm of the 'merely useful,’")
- theology
- the contemplative life
- feasting and celebration
- the purpose of schools ("The name for the institutions of education and learning means ‘leisure'" - scholé)
- "the place and justification for the University” (it is NOT "mere career training.”)
- A critique (from the 1940’s!) of “the religion of work” and "today’s leisure–less culture of 'total work’” (Dr. Pieper calls workaholicism an almost "demonic power”). “The inhumanity of the total world of work: the final binding of man to the process of production, which is itself understood and proclaimed to be the intrinsically meaningful realization of human existence."
- Our inability to accept grace - Christianity is primarily "something given, something free of all debt, something undeserved, something not-achieved.” But our modern "over-emphasis on effort appears to be this: that man mistrusts everything that is without effort; that in good conscience he can own only what he himself has reached through painful effort; that he refuses to let himself be given anything."
Pro Tip: push through the really long, dense swerve into biological semantics -
It’s worth it (even if, like me, you have no idea what Dr Pieper is talking about for 10 pages!) to get to the good stuff at the end of the book.
Published in 1948, Leisure could not be any more relevant to the “Achievement Society” of 2020.
Leisure is the best kind of book - brief, dense but accessible, a secular academic work but deeply religious, and packed with gold.
I mean, TS Eliot wrote the introduction. You know it’s gonna be profound.
Pieper defines leisure as “not activity” and “not useful" [anti-utilitarian], a calm stillness that can only come from understanding who you are in relation to the totality of the universe.
Thus leisure begins and ends with God- it is “worshipful celebration". In the words of Aristotle: ”man cannot live this way insofar as he is man, but only insofar as something divine dwells in him.”
Leisure is set against both idleness and workaholicism since both stem from the same root cause: "he does not want to be what God wants him to be”, not living in agreement with God (or reality).
True leisure is the antidote to what ails our “total work” world (where we only have worth if we are getting things done).
Our common experience as moderns - boredom, anxiety, exhaustion, and despair - are all rooted in the "absence of leisure, for only someone who has lost the spiritual power to be at leisure can be bored. And then Despair, the sister of Restlessness, rears its hideous head.”
"Be at leisure - and know that I am God” is the antidote.
Leisure predates A Secular Age by 50 years, but is a helpful companion to Taylor. Pieper argues that (along with philosophy, love, death and poetry), leisure pierces the immanent frame, "the canopy that encloses the world of the…work–day," opening up transcendence.
Leisure is a book on:
- leisure and culture - this is essentially what makes us human
- an intro to Philosophy
- what it means to be human
- freedom
- the scourge of utilitarianism (a "widening of one’s existence beyond the realm of the 'merely useful,’")
- theology
- the contemplative life
- feasting and celebration
- the purpose of schools ("The name for the institutions of education and learning means ‘leisure'" - scholé)
- "the place and justification for the University” (it is NOT "mere career training.”)
- A critique (from the 1940’s!) of “the religion of work” and "today’s leisure–less culture of 'total work’” (Dr. Pieper calls workaholicism an almost "demonic power”). “The inhumanity of the total world of work: the final binding of man to the process of production, which is itself understood and proclaimed to be the intrinsically meaningful realization of human existence."
- Our inability to accept grace - Christianity is primarily "something given, something free of all debt, something undeserved, something not-achieved.” But our modern "over-emphasis on effort appears to be this: that man mistrusts everything that is without effort; that in good conscience he can own only what he himself has reached through painful effort; that he refuses to let himself be given anything."
Pro Tip: push through the really long, dense swerve into biological semantics -
"the biological life-purpose of the individual or the species, is called an ”environment” [Umvelt ] by Uexk¨ull (in distinction from a ”surrounding” [Umgebung ], and in distinction also, as we will later see, from a ”world” [Welt ]).
It’s worth it (even if, like me, you have no idea what Dr Pieper is talking about for 10 pages!) to get to the good stuff at the end of the book.
March 28, 2023
Acedia is the “despair from weakness” which Kierkegaard analyzed as the “despairing refusal to be oneself”
For leisure is a receptive attitude of mind, a contemplative attitude, and it is not only the occasion but also the capacity for steeping oneself in the whole of creation.
In leisure, man too celebrates the end of his work by allowing his inner eye to dwell for a while upon the reality of the Creation. He looks and he affirms: it is good.
Now we cannot conceive a more intense affirmation of the world than “praise of God”, praise of the Creator of this very world. This statement is generally received with a discomfort formed of many elements—I have often witnessed that. But its truth is irrefutable. The most festive festival it is possible to celebrate is divine worship. And there is no festival that does not draw its vitality from worship and that has not become a festival by virtue of its origin in worship.
A man who needs the unusual to make him “wonder” shows that he has lost the capacity to find the true answer to the wonder of being.
For leisure is a receptive attitude of mind, a contemplative attitude, and it is not only the occasion but also the capacity for steeping oneself in the whole of creation.
In leisure, man too celebrates the end of his work by allowing his inner eye to dwell for a while upon the reality of the Creation. He looks and he affirms: it is good.
Now we cannot conceive a more intense affirmation of the world than “praise of God”, praise of the Creator of this very world. This statement is generally received with a discomfort formed of many elements—I have often witnessed that. But its truth is irrefutable. The most festive festival it is possible to celebrate is divine worship. And there is no festival that does not draw its vitality from worship and that has not become a festival by virtue of its origin in worship.
A man who needs the unusual to make him “wonder” shows that he has lost the capacity to find the true answer to the wonder of being.
March 29, 2024
Really important book. Pieper does a great job at helping show the idolotry of productivity and the immense value of liesure (not idleness). For Pieper, liesure isn't scrolling on your phone; it's more like learning, enjoying, celebrating, and worshipping. It's the richest parts of life and what we were made for.
The version I read also had a second part where he developed his ideas further, and talked about philosophy (which requires liesuretime) and defined it as basically marveling at wonders and mysteries. Definitely also worth reading.
The version I read also had a second part where he developed his ideas further, and talked about philosophy (which requires liesuretime) and defined it as basically marveling at wonders and mysteries. Definitely also worth reading.
December 29, 2014
dense, loquacious, pragmatic
The Good: contains some real gems; socially relevant theme
The Bad : dense philosophical writing;
Pieper's book, Leisure:The Basis of Culture is about work and play, labor and leisure, the ultimate point/counter-point of our lives. The initial attraction of the book is based on the assumption that the concept of leisure can be discussed lucidly and without the erudite language that typically accompanies philosophical writings. This is a misconception, as the work could be classified into all the other dense, erudite writings of philosophy.
It's a philosophical work that is especially relevant for our day and age where a society divorced from God has enslaved us to insidious notions such as work for work's sake. This is because our current society views us as mere commodities, valued exclusively through what we can put out in our work. But a Christian society views a person's value as so much more than that. Pieper garrulously touches on all of these things in his elaboration on how society should view work, leisure, and celebrations in order to coincide with a theistic perspective.
One of the most important concepts touched upon in the book is the act of philosophizing itself. Pieper states:
"Whereas my thesis... is that the essence of 'philosophizing' is that it transcends the world of work. It is a thesis which comprehends the assertion of the theoretical character of philosophy and its freedom; it does not, of course, in any way deny or ignore the world of work, but it does affirm that a real philosophy is grounded in belief, that man's real wealth consists, not in satisfying his needs, not in becoming 'the master and owner of nature', but in seeing what is and the whole of what is, in seeing things not as useful or useless, serviceable or not, but simply as being. The basis of this conception of philosophy is the conviction that the greatness of man consists in his being capax universi."
Pieper has identified a critical deficiency in our society, which is a lack of philosophizing. Philosophy pierces through the dreary existence totally dominated by work in that it tells us that there is more to life than work; that there are actually truths in the world, and a God. It helps us break free of our purely proletariat purpose and lifestyle where our total value, meaning, and existence are based on labor, or as Pieper calls it "the workaday world."
To wrap-up the book, Pieper spends the last section talking about the relationship between philosophy and theology. Here, it takes him 20 pages to say what St. Augustine concisely said in six words: philosophy is the handmaiden of religion.
The book is a treasure hunt, where most of the time you’re reading, waiting for Pieper's argument to culminate in a robust moment of clarity. Fortunately, you do eventually reach these moments, making Leisure:The Basis of Culture a rewarding experience.
The Good: contains some real gems; socially relevant theme
The Bad : dense philosophical writing;
Pieper's book, Leisure:The Basis of Culture is about work and play, labor and leisure, the ultimate point/counter-point of our lives. The initial attraction of the book is based on the assumption that the concept of leisure can be discussed lucidly and without the erudite language that typically accompanies philosophical writings. This is a misconception, as the work could be classified into all the other dense, erudite writings of philosophy.
It's a philosophical work that is especially relevant for our day and age where a society divorced from God has enslaved us to insidious notions such as work for work's sake. This is because our current society views us as mere commodities, valued exclusively through what we can put out in our work. But a Christian society views a person's value as so much more than that. Pieper garrulously touches on all of these things in his elaboration on how society should view work, leisure, and celebrations in order to coincide with a theistic perspective.
One of the most important concepts touched upon in the book is the act of philosophizing itself. Pieper states:
"Whereas my thesis... is that the essence of 'philosophizing' is that it transcends the world of work. It is a thesis which comprehends the assertion of the theoretical character of philosophy and its freedom; it does not, of course, in any way deny or ignore the world of work, but it does affirm that a real philosophy is grounded in belief, that man's real wealth consists, not in satisfying his needs, not in becoming 'the master and owner of nature', but in seeing what is and the whole of what is, in seeing things not as useful or useless, serviceable or not, but simply as being. The basis of this conception of philosophy is the conviction that the greatness of man consists in his being capax universi."
Pieper has identified a critical deficiency in our society, which is a lack of philosophizing. Philosophy pierces through the dreary existence totally dominated by work in that it tells us that there is more to life than work; that there are actually truths in the world, and a God. It helps us break free of our purely proletariat purpose and lifestyle where our total value, meaning, and existence are based on labor, or as Pieper calls it "the workaday world."
To wrap-up the book, Pieper spends the last section talking about the relationship between philosophy and theology. Here, it takes him 20 pages to say what St. Augustine concisely said in six words: philosophy is the handmaiden of religion.
The book is a treasure hunt, where most of the time you’re reading, waiting for Pieper's argument to culminate in a robust moment of clarity. Fortunately, you do eventually reach these moments, making Leisure:The Basis of Culture a rewarding experience.
May 23, 2016
The background of "Leisure: The Basis on Culture" is almost as interesting as the book itself. It was published two years after World War II by Josef Pieper, a German philosopher. Germany had worked itself--and most of Europe, as well as a good portion of the rest of the globe--to death under a tyrannical regime. This book represents Germany and most of western society rejecting the mindless slavery of work for a true understanding of prosperity.
Pieper's strongest insight is that leisure is an act of celebration. He does not throw out that idea, but works out the relationship of leisure and celebration via religious argument and thinking. As a result, leisure has a kind of right or claim in the face of "total labor," a grim prospect for Europe under the yoke of fascism.
I believe the book is worth reading in part because the U.S. is struggling with the oppression of total labor. Indeed, a few conservative politicians are calling for the end of Saturday as a day off in the U.S. Under that totalitarian view, people are slaves for the wealthy.
For Pieper, leisure does not mean just free weekends, but something much bigger, which he identifies with education, culture and freedom. That's another point worth reflecting on in the light of contemporary society. For many, leisure means hitting the beach, going to a sporting event or something similar. Those are fun activities, but are they really leisure as it is supposed to be understood? My guess is that Pieper would probably say they are tiny elements in the totality of leisure.
It is wise not to go overboard in the opposite direction of true leisure. Pieper speaks of leisure as "effortless," that it represents "relaxation" and is "superior" to all other functions. Leisure should not be a struggle.
Pieper makes some other cogent arguments. People obsessed with work suffer from "inner impoverishment." Are societies focused on work like individuals and similarly degraded? Americans frequently mock Europeans for not having the same work ethic, but are we--I'm an American--expressing the poverty of our moral and spiritual development? It's a question worth asking.
"Leisure: The Basis of Culture" is worth reading for its rich insights. It confounds the attitude of endless drudgery, a by-product of capitalism and market society.
Pieper's strongest insight is that leisure is an act of celebration. He does not throw out that idea, but works out the relationship of leisure and celebration via religious argument and thinking. As a result, leisure has a kind of right or claim in the face of "total labor," a grim prospect for Europe under the yoke of fascism.
I believe the book is worth reading in part because the U.S. is struggling with the oppression of total labor. Indeed, a few conservative politicians are calling for the end of Saturday as a day off in the U.S. Under that totalitarian view, people are slaves for the wealthy.
For Pieper, leisure does not mean just free weekends, but something much bigger, which he identifies with education, culture and freedom. That's another point worth reflecting on in the light of contemporary society. For many, leisure means hitting the beach, going to a sporting event or something similar. Those are fun activities, but are they really leisure as it is supposed to be understood? My guess is that Pieper would probably say they are tiny elements in the totality of leisure.
It is wise not to go overboard in the opposite direction of true leisure. Pieper speaks of leisure as "effortless," that it represents "relaxation" and is "superior" to all other functions. Leisure should not be a struggle.
Pieper makes some other cogent arguments. People obsessed with work suffer from "inner impoverishment." Are societies focused on work like individuals and similarly degraded? Americans frequently mock Europeans for not having the same work ethic, but are we--I'm an American--expressing the poverty of our moral and spiritual development? It's a question worth asking.
"Leisure: The Basis of Culture" is worth reading for its rich insights. It confounds the attitude of endless drudgery, a by-product of capitalism and market society.
Read
July 24, 2011This book is actually two monographs. The first, from which the book's title is taken, laments the distinction made in modern (circa 1947 post-war Germany) between work that is "useful" and philosophy which is "useless". Pieper argues that the distinction is false: philosophizing (the subject of the next essay) is an essential part of human nature. Leisure is not snowboarding in the Rockies or yachting in the Caribbean. It is taking the time to contemplate Things As They Are. So what is philosophizing? Stepping out beyond the workaday world to contemplate "wonder". Pieper also asserts that eliminating religion cuts out the basis of culture or philosophizing. Not that religion/theology are the same or that it must be a Christian (Catholic) belief. But lack of belief in God empties out philosophy.
It is important to understand that Pieper stands in part in the tradition of the Romantic German Idealists. At least, epistemologically. Much of his argumentation is intuitive, and his discussion of "spirit" reminds me of Hegel. I find myself agreeing with many, if not most, of his definitions and assertions, but I find any grounds for such beliefs to be left as an exercise for the reader, or perhaps he considers these assertions to be self-evident from within. I would contrast Pieper with C. S. Lewis, who always searches for the grounds and justification for holding any belief, theologically, philosophically, or even matters of fact.
It is important to understand that Pieper stands in part in the tradition of the Romantic German Idealists. At least, epistemologically. Much of his argumentation is intuitive, and his discussion of "spirit" reminds me of Hegel. I find myself agreeing with many, if not most, of his definitions and assertions, but I find any grounds for such beliefs to be left as an exercise for the reader, or perhaps he considers these assertions to be self-evident from within. I would contrast Pieper with C. S. Lewis, who always searches for the grounds and justification for holding any belief, theologically, philosophically, or even matters of fact.
February 5, 2019
I can't stop talking about this book. Everyone should read this book. It's a response to life as total work culture. But a healthy culture flows from thoughtful intentionality. Pockets of stillness lead to better production and life with intrinsic purpose not predicated on more volume of products created.
Reading this books enforces how critical it is to protect oneself from being swept along by a culture that demands people serve its end - which in our world is consumption. Yet humans have a higher purpose only discovered through thoughtfulness and reflection. American leisure in general has one end: to regain energy to either consume or produce things others can consume. But healthy leisure is an end in itself.
End of rant.
Buy the book and let it marinate - it's slow going, but it's short, and it's worth it.
Reading this books enforces how critical it is to protect oneself from being swept along by a culture that demands people serve its end - which in our world is consumption. Yet humans have a higher purpose only discovered through thoughtfulness and reflection. American leisure in general has one end: to regain energy to either consume or produce things others can consume. But healthy leisure is an end in itself.
End of rant.
Buy the book and let it marinate - it's slow going, but it's short, and it's worth it.
January 13, 2024
I was quite taken with this book when I read it half a year ago. It felt momentous, the kind of book you somehow feel you've been waiting all your life for. It had a pleasant whiff of C.S. Lewis' nonfiction in places (especially where Pieper asks what type of world we want to build post WW2); although as a stylist Pieper is not nearly as lively as Lewis, he seems to take a similar approach as a thinker and may in fact be the subtler mind.
(Of course I await my husband's judgment as to whether anyone, other than Tolkien, could possibly be a subtler mind than Lewis.)
Six months later, I wish I remembered the book better! It's clearly something I should return to, along with other work by the same author (which is one of my reading goals for 2024).
I did not read "The Philosophical Act." I tried it and concluded that since it was so different from "Leisure: the Basis of Culture" I felt no desire or obligation to read it at the moment.
(Of course I await my husband's judgment as to whether anyone, other than Tolkien, could possibly be a subtler mind than Lewis.)
Six months later, I wish I remembered the book better! It's clearly something I should return to, along with other work by the same author (which is one of my reading goals for 2024).
I did not read "The Philosophical Act." I tried it and concluded that since it was so different from "Leisure: the Basis of Culture" I felt no desire or obligation to read it at the moment.
February 9, 2016
Piper explains how leisure is different from work. Leisure is not idleness, but a ceasing from work for productivity's sake in order to "affirm the universe" or to celebrate life. He pulls from Aristotle who says that leisure is the purpose of life and what makes life worth living. The author didn't emphasize this idea with the Christian tradition of the Sabbath (although the author is Christian), but the book helped me understand the purpose of the Sabbath. The second half is an essay on philosophy in general (and also very good).
April 5, 2015
Maybe 4.5 stars is more accurate. I didn't read The Philosophical Act, which comprises the last half of the edition I read. I led a Colloquium discussion on this book at Baylor University on Nov. 10, 2014.
My biggest criticism is Pieper's view of work. I'd like to know whether or not he views pre-lapsarian work as "practical" and "useful" (in a negative sense) as he views modern work.
My biggest criticism is Pieper's view of work. I'd like to know whether or not he views pre-lapsarian work as "practical" and "useful" (in a negative sense) as he views modern work.
October 8, 2019
An excellent example of conservative critical thinking--shows both its strengths (genuine willingness to attack both sides of the Cold War era; close attention to lived experience; no knee-jerk rejection of the past) and its weaknesses (unwilling to take the final step and reject that which causes the phenomena it so wonderfully criticizes).
The problem with Pieper argument should have been clear to him: you cannot say that leisure is identical with worship; and that 'worship is either something 'given'... or it does not exist at all,'; and that 'no one need expect a genuine religious worship... to arise on purely human foundations,'; and then argue that the decline in leisure is lamentable. If it's not up to us, we can't lament it. The alternative, of course, is that the decline in leisure/worship is caused by very humanly founded things like economic demands, and that the best way to encourage worship is to make worship an actual intellectual possibility for people. Aristotle was right, the good life requires leisure/worship. Aristotle meant that the only people who could 'worship' were 'free' of economic necessity. Conclusion: increase the number of people free of economic necessity, and you'll make worship more possible for more people. That's pretty easy to do. Pieper doesn't mention the possibility, because of that fear of human foundations.
The greatest intellectual shame of the twentieth century, and continuing into this one, is that people like Pieper never read people like Marcuse (and so never thought 'oh, hey, perhaps we can get what we want with a stronger social welfare state!', and that people who read Marcuse never read people like Pieper (and so never thought 'oh, hey! Perhaps just bonking everyone isn't the solution to our problems!'). If they could have corrected each other, we might have avoided a few potholes on our road to liberation/sanctification.
The problem with Pieper argument should have been clear to him: you cannot say that leisure is identical with worship; and that 'worship is either something 'given'... or it does not exist at all,'; and that 'no one need expect a genuine religious worship... to arise on purely human foundations,'; and then argue that the decline in leisure is lamentable. If it's not up to us, we can't lament it. The alternative, of course, is that the decline in leisure/worship is caused by very humanly founded things like economic demands, and that the best way to encourage worship is to make worship an actual intellectual possibility for people. Aristotle was right, the good life requires leisure/worship. Aristotle meant that the only people who could 'worship' were 'free' of economic necessity. Conclusion: increase the number of people free of economic necessity, and you'll make worship more possible for more people. That's pretty easy to do. Pieper doesn't mention the possibility, because of that fear of human foundations.
The greatest intellectual shame of the twentieth century, and continuing into this one, is that people like Pieper never read people like Marcuse (and so never thought 'oh, hey, perhaps we can get what we want with a stronger social welfare state!', and that people who read Marcuse never read people like Pieper (and so never thought 'oh, hey! Perhaps just bonking everyone isn't the solution to our problems!'). If they could have corrected each other, we might have avoided a few potholes on our road to liberation/sanctification.
September 26, 2019
Amazing, great book. His first essay is eye opening and confronting. I can highly recommend this book as it really inspired me to think about my life and what I value in it and why. The only downside is that he goes on to conclude that the Christian philosophy is the only philosophy worth your time, which is of course complete nonsense. I understand that this man is as influenced by his times and upbringing as anyone but I still wonder how someone with such clarity of vision and philosophy cannot see where he goes wrong. I just ignored the Christianity part but I probably missed some insights because of it.
But still, anyone should take the time to read this book.
But still, anyone should take the time to read this book.
March 3, 2022
A fantastic journey into the nature of philosophy and the importance of being aware of the world beyond your surroundings. It's written at an accessible level for the everyday thinker.
March 27, 2021
Stunning. Must read again.
December 21, 2022
I think this was my favorite book that I’ve read this year - two lectures by Josef Pieper that are pure gold. First, he develops the idea of Leisure, describing it as a receptive attitude of mind. The second lecture it about the act of philosophizing, and the human-ness of philosophy. I enjoyed the second one more than I expected to, and I’ll certainly be returning to this little book in a couple months, if only to read a few of many excellent passages.
July 31, 2015
The book is an excellent description of a modern-day Platonic perspective. The book has two essays (and an introduction by T.S. Eliot). In the first essay, “Leisure: The Basis of Culture,” Pieper distinguishes between the common man and the man of leisure. The former is the one who works, who does the menial things, who focuses on the practical to satisfy human need. The latter is free of all of this, and this is the meaning of “leisure.” But it is not a piddling leisure. Leisure allows man to devote himself to the higher, divine world, the world of Truth, Beauty and the Good. This is Plato’s world of Reality not appearance. It is a world that is received and apprehended in silence, not work. Leisure, Pieper writes, is the “basis for Divine worship” and this is, per the subtitle of this book, “the basis of culture.”*
The second essay, “The Philosophical Act,” carries the same themes forward. Philosophy is “free” when it is not tied to “useful knowledge” or to “aims and ends.” This is the origin of academic freedom (Plato’s Academy, “a genuine religious association” was the model, Pieper writes). Philosophical knowledge is unusable; it is a “liberal art.” Philosophy’s problem today is that it has become separate from its theological roots. True philosophy is to clear out the chaff from the world of appearance and to free the mind so that it can receive divine truths, “to look at reality purely receptively.” It is “to look upon the world as the creation of an absolute spirit, as something that deserves our reverence.” It is to see “the beatific vision” and to see the world “simply as being.” While the animal’s world is limited “because the essence of things is concealed from it,” and the common man is limited by his concerns about the “concrete world,” only the philosopher, the true philosopher, is free to grasp and see the universal and the infinite, the world of being, the world of spirit. Quoting from Aquinas, Pieper writes that, in short, ‘“the spiritual soul is capable of the infinite because it can grasp the universal.’”
Pieper plants his flag on the mountain top and stakes out the claim for Truth. If you don’t see this vision, it is because you are not a philosopher. If you are scientific, you’re stuck in a mundane world. True science is philosophy in Pieper’s sense. It is about Aristotle and his first cause. The philosopher’s scientific search is for a truth that leads him to the first cause – God Himself. Such knowledge Pieper writes is not arrogant at all. On the contrary, it is “a form of humility.” Since only God is perfect, we can only approach that perfection.
This is a soaring point of view. As well as any, Pieper describes a Platonic vision. To Pieper’s credit, he does not cloak or code his words or perspective. He is, at least, honest, even if one fundamentally disagrees. It would be interesting to examine the basis for such a perspective from the point of view of evolutionary science, i.e., did a mind designed for survival develop a capacity for the highest levels of abstraction that then could extend the need for survival into a divine world where we, as spirit, could survive our inevitable physical death?
*Quoting Plato from Theaetetus, this philosopher, as the articulator of divine visions, stands in contrast to common working men ‘“who do not even know how to wear their cloak like a gentleman, and still less how to prize the good life of gods and men in harmonious phrases.’”
The second essay, “The Philosophical Act,” carries the same themes forward. Philosophy is “free” when it is not tied to “useful knowledge” or to “aims and ends.” This is the origin of academic freedom (Plato’s Academy, “a genuine religious association” was the model, Pieper writes). Philosophical knowledge is unusable; it is a “liberal art.” Philosophy’s problem today is that it has become separate from its theological roots. True philosophy is to clear out the chaff from the world of appearance and to free the mind so that it can receive divine truths, “to look at reality purely receptively.” It is “to look upon the world as the creation of an absolute spirit, as something that deserves our reverence.” It is to see “the beatific vision” and to see the world “simply as being.” While the animal’s world is limited “because the essence of things is concealed from it,” and the common man is limited by his concerns about the “concrete world,” only the philosopher, the true philosopher, is free to grasp and see the universal and the infinite, the world of being, the world of spirit. Quoting from Aquinas, Pieper writes that, in short, ‘“the spiritual soul is capable of the infinite because it can grasp the universal.’”
Pieper plants his flag on the mountain top and stakes out the claim for Truth. If you don’t see this vision, it is because you are not a philosopher. If you are scientific, you’re stuck in a mundane world. True science is philosophy in Pieper’s sense. It is about Aristotle and his first cause. The philosopher’s scientific search is for a truth that leads him to the first cause – God Himself. Such knowledge Pieper writes is not arrogant at all. On the contrary, it is “a form of humility.” Since only God is perfect, we can only approach that perfection.
This is a soaring point of view. As well as any, Pieper describes a Platonic vision. To Pieper’s credit, he does not cloak or code his words or perspective. He is, at least, honest, even if one fundamentally disagrees. It would be interesting to examine the basis for such a perspective from the point of view of evolutionary science, i.e., did a mind designed for survival develop a capacity for the highest levels of abstraction that then could extend the need for survival into a divine world where we, as spirit, could survive our inevitable physical death?
*Quoting Plato from Theaetetus, this philosopher, as the articulator of divine visions, stands in contrast to common working men ‘“who do not even know how to wear their cloak like a gentleman, and still less how to prize the good life of gods and men in harmonious phrases.’”
December 26, 2015
Pieper offers many dazzling insights and important truths. Doubtless this is the sort of book that demands multiple readings to fully divulge its secrets. I took notes and reread portions as I went, and I still felt utterly overwhelmed at points--aware that I was seeing only a portion of what he intended to communicate.
The defects are not in the book itself, though, but rather in me as a reader. What is revelatory is the view of leisure (both passive and active reflection) as integral to humanity and culture. Pieper's argument probably needs to be made more strongly now than he made it seventy years ago: We misunderstand what "leisure" is. If we think of it as time off from work to recharge (i.e. be ready to go back to work) or totally passive, mindless self-entertainment, we miss the point. Work is a distinct aspect of human life, but philosophy and human inquiry are not really work. Moreover, leisure is time and activity to make us more human, not to rejuvenate us so that we can work again. In short, life is not all about work, though that is the direction the world was heading post-WWII when Pieper wrote this, and it is the course we have steadfastly followed since then.
The accompanying essay on philosophy is likewise profound and insightful, but somewhat hefty for the casual reader, despite Pieper's obvious attempts to limit and simplify his points. Here the crucial point is that wonder is the beginning of philosophy. What follows is that wherever wonder is found philosophy is taking place; the capacity to wonder in the midst of the workaday world allows for a fullness of humanity unattainable by those who simply see the world at face value. In addition, because philosophy is inextricably related to wonder, it can never provide ultimate answers. Pieper introduces theology as the immovable rock (supernatural revelation) in the flowing river of philosophy that changes the course of philosophic thought. While I probably would make a stronger case for theology as provider of ultimate answers, Pieper's point that theology is content with mystery is well-taken.
I wish I could have read this book under the tutelage of a learned scholar who could expound its points more fully than I was able to grasp on my own. Nevertheless, I am quite certain that it is the sort of book that seeps down into one's mind and soul, showing its influence in ways quite unexpected.
The defects are not in the book itself, though, but rather in me as a reader. What is revelatory is the view of leisure (both passive and active reflection) as integral to humanity and culture. Pieper's argument probably needs to be made more strongly now than he made it seventy years ago: We misunderstand what "leisure" is. If we think of it as time off from work to recharge (i.e. be ready to go back to work) or totally passive, mindless self-entertainment, we miss the point. Work is a distinct aspect of human life, but philosophy and human inquiry are not really work. Moreover, leisure is time and activity to make us more human, not to rejuvenate us so that we can work again. In short, life is not all about work, though that is the direction the world was heading post-WWII when Pieper wrote this, and it is the course we have steadfastly followed since then.
The accompanying essay on philosophy is likewise profound and insightful, but somewhat hefty for the casual reader, despite Pieper's obvious attempts to limit and simplify his points. Here the crucial point is that wonder is the beginning of philosophy. What follows is that wherever wonder is found philosophy is taking place; the capacity to wonder in the midst of the workaday world allows for a fullness of humanity unattainable by those who simply see the world at face value. In addition, because philosophy is inextricably related to wonder, it can never provide ultimate answers. Pieper introduces theology as the immovable rock (supernatural revelation) in the flowing river of philosophy that changes the course of philosophic thought. While I probably would make a stronger case for theology as provider of ultimate answers, Pieper's point that theology is content with mystery is well-taken.
I wish I could have read this book under the tutelage of a learned scholar who could expound its points more fully than I was able to grasp on my own. Nevertheless, I am quite certain that it is the sort of book that seeps down into one's mind and soul, showing its influence in ways quite unexpected.
July 7, 2017
I have never seen so much dense information packed in 176 pages! I picked up this thin book thinking I would finish it with a little enlightenment on embracing a more leisurely lifestyle (more "down" time for pursuits of enjoyment and learning). What I found was an incredibly thoughtful discussion (2 essays) on leisure as an act of intellectual thought and on philosophy as a thought that not only needs but also requires us to embrace our theology in the process of philosophizing. I spent over a month reading these pages, taking notes, and digesting the information here. And I still need more time to ruminate these ideas and how to practically apply this need in my own life and, generally, in present-day society.
I loved that he set up the book with thoroughly defining leisure from the Greek word for leisure which in Latin is "schola"... root for our English "school." A discussion ensues on leisure as far more than lake days but as an act of intelligence pursued... in rest. He talks deeply of the vocational movement and this quote hit me: "It should go without saying that not everything that cannot exactly be categorized as 'useful' is useless." And he quotes Hegel, "...there is not only use, there is also blessing." Those that pause to find leisure and contemplate are not useless but rather a blessing to society in their thoughtfulness. We read scripture that says Be still and know that I am God... He points out that "Leisure is a form of that stillness that is the necessary preparation for accepting reality; only the person who is still can hear..." To truly find leisure, we must receive information and spend some time contemplating it fully. His section on busyness (as I label it) makes this statement that is very insightful and very true in my experience: he quotes Charles Baudelaire's (not a Lemony Snicket character... ;-) ) 'Intimate Journals' - "One must work, if not from inclination, at least from despair, since, as I have fully proved, to work is less wearisome than to amuse oneself." It IS easier to be busy than to be deeply thoughtful...
This book would be far easier to just quickly read through or scan over, but I would say that wouldn't be done in true Leisure... you'll need time to exhaust your mind and ponder the writings of Josef Pieper.
I loved that he set up the book with thoroughly defining leisure from the Greek word for leisure which in Latin is "schola"... root for our English "school." A discussion ensues on leisure as far more than lake days but as an act of intelligence pursued... in rest. He talks deeply of the vocational movement and this quote hit me: "It should go without saying that not everything that cannot exactly be categorized as 'useful' is useless." And he quotes Hegel, "...there is not only use, there is also blessing." Those that pause to find leisure and contemplate are not useless but rather a blessing to society in their thoughtfulness. We read scripture that says Be still and know that I am God... He points out that "Leisure is a form of that stillness that is the necessary preparation for accepting reality; only the person who is still can hear..." To truly find leisure, we must receive information and spend some time contemplating it fully. His section on busyness (as I label it) makes this statement that is very insightful and very true in my experience: he quotes Charles Baudelaire's (not a Lemony Snicket character... ;-) ) 'Intimate Journals' - "One must work, if not from inclination, at least from despair, since, as I have fully proved, to work is less wearisome than to amuse oneself." It IS easier to be busy than to be deeply thoughtful...
This book would be far easier to just quickly read through or scan over, but I would say that wouldn't be done in true Leisure... you'll need time to exhaust your mind and ponder the writings of Josef Pieper.
March 23, 2020
I read this thinking it would give me a better philosophical outlook on the quarantine-induced period of leisure that I am currently in as an (exiled) college student. Explicit references throughout the book makes it clear that Pieper is responding to the giants of early twentieth century philosophy (mainly Hegel and Heidegger) and trying to re-direct the current of philosophical thought to the ideas of Thomas Aquinas, Plato, and Aristotle (in that order). I also found Pieper's style to be similar to that of another twentieth century Christian philosopher, Rene Girard.
The convoluted prose, probably due to Gerald Malsbary's obtuse translation, was a major buzzkill. This pretty much ruined it for me, but there were a few bright spots of clarity that kept me from deleting the ebook right away. Pieper is really good with coming up with terms of art for the concepts he discusses (maybe it's because he's German or maybe it's the use of Latin). I'll definitely steal the distinction between discursive knowing (ratio) and receptive understanding (intellectus), and the difference between stillness and quiet. I also thought the connections between religion and philosophy were interesting, although occasionally they became quite heavy-handed.
Overall, would not recommend to anyone. This book did re-pique my interest in reading philosophy though, and for that it gets two stars.
The convoluted prose, probably due to Gerald Malsbary's obtuse translation, was a major buzzkill. This pretty much ruined it for me, but there were a few bright spots of clarity that kept me from deleting the ebook right away. Pieper is really good with coming up with terms of art for the concepts he discusses (maybe it's because he's German or maybe it's the use of Latin). I'll definitely steal the distinction between discursive knowing (ratio) and receptive understanding (intellectus), and the difference between stillness and quiet. I also thought the connections between religion and philosophy were interesting, although occasionally they became quite heavy-handed.
Overall, would not recommend to anyone. This book did re-pique my interest in reading philosophy though, and for that it gets two stars.
January 26, 2018
The problem with Pieper is that he is so wedded to Plato, tradition, and Christianity. He talks of philosophy as arising from both wonder and doubt, but he seems to show no doubt when it comes to the trio mentioned above. What usually bugs me about theistic philosophies is the tendency to fall back on concepts of tradition and God and transcendental knowledge when they don't have a clearer answer. As William James said, God is just an abstract word that gets us no closer to realizing the essence of God or our creator/creation.
I followed Pieper's thoughts almost every time until he brought of Christianity or God. That was his fallback, and to me, that is his downfall. In the past, I have asked many of the same questions he did, but his theistic answers led me no further to answers that satisfied me.
He does justify the need for leisure and philosophy, which he proves are highly related, and I like that he seems to lean toward Marxism in his justification of leisure.
If you're not a fan of theistic philosophy, don't read this. You'll be disappointed by the majority of his conclusions.
I followed Pieper's thoughts almost every time until he brought of Christianity or God. That was his fallback, and to me, that is his downfall. In the past, I have asked many of the same questions he did, but his theistic answers led me no further to answers that satisfied me.
He does justify the need for leisure and philosophy, which he proves are highly related, and I like that he seems to lean toward Marxism in his justification of leisure.
If you're not a fan of theistic philosophy, don't read this. You'll be disappointed by the majority of his conclusions.
February 17, 2023
Un libro para releer y cambiar la vida que llevamos.
Puede ser de provecho incluso para una persona no estrictamente cristiana pero que sienta que la cotidianidad le es insuficiente.
El ocio es el gran olvidado y lo que es peor, es degradado con sucedáneos cada vez peores.
El autor deja claro que el ocio digno, la contemplación , una vez se han cubierto las necesidades groseras de la vida, está al alcance de todo hombre; y además es una necesidad natural.
Sin elitismos pero estableciendo celestes jerarquías Pieper nos muestra el camino.
Puede ser de provecho incluso para una persona no estrictamente cristiana pero que sienta que la cotidianidad le es insuficiente.
El ocio es el gran olvidado y lo que es peor, es degradado con sucedáneos cada vez peores.
El autor deja claro que el ocio digno, la contemplación , una vez se han cubierto las necesidades groseras de la vida, está al alcance de todo hombre; y además es una necesidad natural.
Sin elitismos pero estableciendo celestes jerarquías Pieper nos muestra el camino.
November 18, 2022
This book by Josef Pieper consists of two essays. At the end of both, and especially the last one, Pieper shows himself a bit too narrow-minded though (will explain later), which left me with a bit of a sour taste upon finishing reading. While reviewing the parts of the book that I highlighted afterwards though, I was reminded that there still were a lot of interesting ideas and arguments that I could agree with in both essays.
The first essay is called "Leisure, the Basis of Culture". As the title indicates, Pieper argues in it for the importance of leisure. Aristotle said that "We are not-at-leisure in order to be-at-leisure." What this is hinting at is the contrast between work and leisure. In a capitalist society in which man is reduced to a cog in the machinery of production and leisure is understood as break for the sake of work, Pieper asks: "Can the human being be satisfied with being a functionary, a 'worker'?" His answer is that it is only possible by spiritually impoverishing the workers so that their lives are fully satisfied by work. For such an spiritually impoverished worker "meaningful action that is not work is no longer possible or even imaginable." The solution is, of course, to open up to such a person a world of meaningful activities that are not work, or in other words, to open up an area of true leisure.
How can leisure then be defined? Pieper defines it in multiple ways in this essay, for example as a disposition of receptive perception of the real and of immersion in the real. This is still a bit abstract, so I'm gonna give you another way to define it (via negation): Leisure cannot be realized as long as one sees it as a means to an end: "There are certain things which one cannot do 'in order to...' do something else. One either does not do them at all or one does them because they are meaningful in themselves." In contrast to leisure, work is, by definition, always a useful activity. Which means it does not have any meaning in itself, but serves some end beyond itself.
Up to this point I would have rated this essay with five stars. In its last part though, Pieper comes through with a bit of a religious agenda. He starts by pointing out that leisure is historically and culturally grounded in religious festivities, which also meant a definite period of time, separated from the rest of the working time (e.g. the Sabbath, every seventh day). So far I can agree. I start disagreeing when he, falsely, concludes from this, that religion and leisure are not only historically but also logically linked, and that leisure "becomes toilsome without worship." Unless one broadens the meaning of the words 'worship' and 'religion' considerably (which I'm not sure Pieper would have agreed with), I don't see any reason why this would be true.
In the second essay titled "The Philosophical Act", Pieper philosophizes about what philosophy is. This essay too starts out very strong. Making a connection to the previous essay, Pieper maintains that in the philosophical act the "work-a-day world" is transcended. Philosophy thus definitely falls into the realm of leisure, as it can only ever be an end in itself: "For philosophy is 'useless' in the sense of immediate profit and application – that is one thing. Another thing is, that philosophy cannot allow itself to be used, it is not at the disposal of purposes beyond itself, for it is itself a goal."
What follows is an interesting discussion on what it means to be or have a spirit. Pieper posits that there is a hierarchy of beings and their worlds. Plants are lowest in this hierarchy, followed by animals, and the highest are (human) spirits. This hierarchy represents the ability of the beings to relate to the world. While plants only relate to their immediate local surroundings, the human spirit stands in relation to the totality of being (through spiritual or intellectual knowing - or, if you want, through philosophizing). Thomas Aquinas for example formulated it in the following way: "Every other being possesses only a partial participation in being," whereas the being endowed with spirit ”can grasp being as a whole.”
In the following chapters Pieper invokes Plato's understanding of philosophy as a loving search of wisdom. This search begins and is maintained through wonder (finding the "truly unusual and extraordinary ... within the usual and the ordinary") and has as its goal the understanding of reality in terms of an ultimate principle of unity. But just as a philosophical question can never be finally, conclusively answered, philosophy can never reach this ultimate goal.
The last chapter of the essay is, again, the one that really stirs my disagreement. Here Piper invokes the "great, paradigmatic figures of Western philosophy", and the fact that they were believers in a previously given and handed down interpretation of the world that also grasps the whole of the world. Of course he refers to religion and belief in God here. His actual claim gets clear a few pages later. I think the Piepers narrow-mindedness is obvious in the following excerpt and needs no further commenting:
"What is the contemporary form of knowledge 'given to us,' as Plato said, 'as a gift of the gods, by some unknown Prometheus'? To this, one can only answer: since the fall of the Roman Empire, there has not been any pre–philosophical tradition apart from the Christian tradition. In the Western world, there is no theology but the Christian. Where is a non–Christian theology to be found, in the full sense of the word?"
Concluding, I would say that although the endings of both essays were rather disappointing for me because of their polemical nature and their lack of argumentative support, I enjoyed the largest part of both essays and found in them many useful concepts and perspectives regarding leisure, work, philosophy and the human spirit.
The first essay is called "Leisure, the Basis of Culture". As the title indicates, Pieper argues in it for the importance of leisure. Aristotle said that "We are not-at-leisure in order to be-at-leisure." What this is hinting at is the contrast between work and leisure. In a capitalist society in which man is reduced to a cog in the machinery of production and leisure is understood as break for the sake of work, Pieper asks: "Can the human being be satisfied with being a functionary, a 'worker'?" His answer is that it is only possible by spiritually impoverishing the workers so that their lives are fully satisfied by work. For such an spiritually impoverished worker "meaningful action that is not work is no longer possible or even imaginable." The solution is, of course, to open up to such a person a world of meaningful activities that are not work, or in other words, to open up an area of true leisure.
How can leisure then be defined? Pieper defines it in multiple ways in this essay, for example as a disposition of receptive perception of the real and of immersion in the real. This is still a bit abstract, so I'm gonna give you another way to define it (via negation): Leisure cannot be realized as long as one sees it as a means to an end: "There are certain things which one cannot do 'in order to...' do something else. One either does not do them at all or one does them because they are meaningful in themselves." In contrast to leisure, work is, by definition, always a useful activity. Which means it does not have any meaning in itself, but serves some end beyond itself.
Up to this point I would have rated this essay with five stars. In its last part though, Pieper comes through with a bit of a religious agenda. He starts by pointing out that leisure is historically and culturally grounded in religious festivities, which also meant a definite period of time, separated from the rest of the working time (e.g. the Sabbath, every seventh day). So far I can agree. I start disagreeing when he, falsely, concludes from this, that religion and leisure are not only historically but also logically linked, and that leisure "becomes toilsome without worship." Unless one broadens the meaning of the words 'worship' and 'religion' considerably (which I'm not sure Pieper would have agreed with), I don't see any reason why this would be true.
In the second essay titled "The Philosophical Act", Pieper philosophizes about what philosophy is. This essay too starts out very strong. Making a connection to the previous essay, Pieper maintains that in the philosophical act the "work-a-day world" is transcended. Philosophy thus definitely falls into the realm of leisure, as it can only ever be an end in itself: "For philosophy is 'useless' in the sense of immediate profit and application – that is one thing. Another thing is, that philosophy cannot allow itself to be used, it is not at the disposal of purposes beyond itself, for it is itself a goal."
What follows is an interesting discussion on what it means to be or have a spirit. Pieper posits that there is a hierarchy of beings and their worlds. Plants are lowest in this hierarchy, followed by animals, and the highest are (human) spirits. This hierarchy represents the ability of the beings to relate to the world. While plants only relate to their immediate local surroundings, the human spirit stands in relation to the totality of being (through spiritual or intellectual knowing - or, if you want, through philosophizing). Thomas Aquinas for example formulated it in the following way: "Every other being possesses only a partial participation in being," whereas the being endowed with spirit ”can grasp being as a whole.”
In the following chapters Pieper invokes Plato's understanding of philosophy as a loving search of wisdom. This search begins and is maintained through wonder (finding the "truly unusual and extraordinary ... within the usual and the ordinary") and has as its goal the understanding of reality in terms of an ultimate principle of unity. But just as a philosophical question can never be finally, conclusively answered, philosophy can never reach this ultimate goal.
The last chapter of the essay is, again, the one that really stirs my disagreement. Here Piper invokes the "great, paradigmatic figures of Western philosophy", and the fact that they were believers in a previously given and handed down interpretation of the world that also grasps the whole of the world. Of course he refers to religion and belief in God here. His actual claim gets clear a few pages later. I think the Piepers narrow-mindedness is obvious in the following excerpt and needs no further commenting:
"What is the contemporary form of knowledge 'given to us,' as Plato said, 'as a gift of the gods, by some unknown Prometheus'? To this, one can only answer: since the fall of the Roman Empire, there has not been any pre–philosophical tradition apart from the Christian tradition. In the Western world, there is no theology but the Christian. Where is a non–Christian theology to be found, in the full sense of the word?"
Concluding, I would say that although the endings of both essays were rather disappointing for me because of their polemical nature and their lack of argumentative support, I enjoyed the largest part of both essays and found in them many useful concepts and perspectives regarding leisure, work, philosophy and the human spirit.
December 10, 2017
A wonderful little book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 377 reviews