[52-6F-62]

I think I get what you're saying, now. Sounds like more of a critique of North American/protestant work ethic coupled with our acclimating to convenience.

I think that's probably a whole other subject to be tackled.

Aristotle's core point above would be along the lines of:

Relaxation (in order to) -> Work (in order to) -> Leisure (the goal, for its own sake)

Leisure and relaxation being entirely different activities, or lack thereof.

Maybe think of leisure in this case being the activity of passion/deep interest or communal good or else that might not come in returns that pay for any other aspect of your life directly. Work being the activity (that you may well enjoy enough, or have interest in) that pays for everything and allows you time and/or resources for leisure. Relaxation is what helps you essentially stay sane and healthy in order to follow through with the rest.

So it seems like you aren't taking on peoples' ability for leisure, but NA society's values that prevent it [for most people].

[hoaw]

Right. I am saying that if you take time off you end up being at odds with much of society. You realize that many things, even leisure activities, now only exists in relation to work. And after not working for a while few of these things are exciting anymore.

So I am not saying it isn't a good idea. Just that it is hard from a practical perspective. Which is why younger people who take sabbaticals often end up in e.g. Asia.

[52-6F-62]

I don't think it needs to be that grand of a scale to fulfill the reasoning.

OP's example was a fellow taking time off and exercising his other interests in electronics by learning and experimenting.

Another example might be a hobby. A hobby is a great example of a leisure activity as its [usually] done completely for its own sake. For instance, a sheet metal worker who spends much of their time off work playing in an amateur cricket league [however unlikely and obscure an image that might be].

I don't think I understand, though, how you mean it puts anyone at odds with society. Could you elaborate?

[hoaw2]

To take the example at hand, for many young(ish) people taking time off work to learn electronics wouldn't necessary be a nice experience. Because their lives exist to a large extent in relation to work. They have moved to a new city, because of work. Where the live in a small apartment, to be close to work. They have friends, from work. And they have coffee on their way to work, to talk about work or even to do work.

They couldn't just take time off and have a similar life. By leaving work they would lose a lot of the connection to their de facto lives. It wouldn't be worth living in an expensive city, in a small apartment and have expensive coffee "just" to learn electronics. Increasingly the things in people's lives aren't "neutral". Their small apartments are made for going to work from, not necessarily for doing things in. But you can't necessarily move either without losing context.

On the other hand if you are already established. You have a house, a family, friends outside work and whatever else you need, it isn't necessarily that hard to go down in the basement and learn electronics instead of going to work for six months out of the year. Because your environment is "neutral" and exists whether you go to work short-term or not. A lot of people aren't really established like that though.

[52-6F-62]

To me, your example sounds more like a lifestyle choice, my friend.

My advice to the person in question would be to pull your head out of work and sample a little more of that big city while you're paying so much to be there.

There's no reason why every moment of time that isn't paid for by work to be spent on work, outside of that being a choice (given our current example, which sounds like a well-enough-to-do tech worker).

Personally, I couldn't live that way, and I'm probably filling out a few of your checkboxes above. I like the people I work with, but I value [and fear] time too much to give it all into my job—be it tasks, networking, socializing, whatever.

The example you extended sounds more like a problem of agency than one of [a lack of] leisure.

[hoaw3]

> The example you extended sounds more like a problem of agency than one of [a lack of] leisure.

It is. But you can't just take time of work, not replace it with anything and expect to be able to have some sort of leisure. At least not in my experience. I don't live in a big city anymore, but that doesn't really fix things. The equation is as hard as in a city, just in a different way. That is why people like 'bunnie' who do electronics as a passion end up in Asia. There are just so much easier to live and so many more things to do. People who stay e.g. in the US end up moving around different small to medium size cities instead looking for something that makes sense.

[52-6F-62]

I think you're misunderstanding what I've been saying about leisure, then. I've not suggested you take time off work, nor to fill your time with nothing.

Work is additive, "free" time is not subtractive.

I don't understand any else of what you're saying. Electronics is something you can do anywhere, and I'd argue there's a gaping need in much of the spaces in between towns and cities in North America...

I think you're just discussing personal preferences at the end there.