In this article, Stephen T. Asma claims that play is valuable to humans. The first reason he gave is that play is vital for humanity. Asma further supported this by using Nietzsche’s three-step development in his book Thus Spoke Zarathustra. The development describes the process of spiritual transformation symbolically represented by the camel, lion and child. The focus is on the transformation from carrying obligations as a camel, to rebellion for its freedom as a lion to finally evolving into the highest level of humanity as the innocent and creative playing child. Asma committed the fallacy of begging the question as he concluded this argument by saying it is clear that Nietzsche considered play vitally important for humanity (Asma, 2015).
…show more content…
He further supports this objection with evidence of Plato’s reproach in “The Republic” of artists as merely playing in the realm of illusion, Aristotle’s view of play being beneficial only as a break for our otherwise highbrow endeavours and leisure should not be squandered on play and Juvenal’s chide that play has distracted people from their social conscious and therefore causing the decline of Roman civic duty. He then counter argued this objection with Bertrand Russell’s essay In Praise of Idleness and explained that it gave a positive viewpoint on what the former philosophers deemed as idle and complained how modern people does things for the sake of something else and never for its own sake. He quoted Russell’s essay “the road to happiness and prosperity lies in an organized diminution of work”, suggesting that by reducing our workday to four hours, we would have the leisure time to think and reflect on every topic, especially the social injustices around us and the manipulations of the …show more content…
Russell's claim of reducing workdays to four hours make the world happier and better is not economically feasible. It is difficult to visualize a workforce whereby employees can maintain output per hour with the need to substitute them every four hours. Albeit taking into consideration that unemployment levels may decrease, production level may very well decrease as well and thereby leading to an eventual drop in GDP. I quote “We think too much of production, and too little of consumption. One result is that we attach too little importance to enjoyment and simple happiness, and that we do not judge production by the pleasure that it gives to the consumer” (Russell, 1932). Russell’s viewpoint is that a decrease in production is fine as production should be weighed against the value consumers place on the goods. This mentality is a fallacy of hasty generalization itself. For instance, it implies that so long as the higher class values their luxury goods, these luxurious brands would continue its production. This reasoning neglects the shortages of some other crucial products such as food and medicine. Such a drop in world production will further worsen food and medical scarcity which causes chaos and unhappiness. Russell’s key argument is that people will be reflective and somewhat productive in their leisure time which is true only to a certain extent. The
He further supports this objection with evidence of Plato’s reproach in “The Republic” of artists as merely playing in the realm of illusion, Aristotle’s view of play being beneficial only as a break for our otherwise highbrow endeavours and leisure should not be squandered on play and Juvenal’s chide that play has distracted people from their social conscious and therefore causing the decline of Roman civic duty. He then counter argued this objection with Bertrand Russell’s essay In Praise of Idleness and explained that it gave a positive viewpoint on what the former philosophers deemed as idle and complained how modern people does things for the sake of something else and never for its own sake. He quoted Russell’s essay “the road to happiness and prosperity lies in an organized diminution of work”, suggesting that by reducing our workday to four hours, we would have the leisure time to think and reflect on every topic, especially the social injustices around us and the manipulations of the …show more content…
Russell's claim of reducing workdays to four hours make the world happier and better is not economically feasible. It is difficult to visualize a workforce whereby employees can maintain output per hour with the need to substitute them every four hours. Albeit taking into consideration that unemployment levels may decrease, production level may very well decrease as well and thereby leading to an eventual drop in GDP. I quote “We think too much of production, and too little of consumption. One result is that we attach too little importance to enjoyment and simple happiness, and that we do not judge production by the pleasure that it gives to the consumer” (Russell, 1932). Russell’s viewpoint is that a decrease in production is fine as production should be weighed against the value consumers place on the goods. This mentality is a fallacy of hasty generalization itself. For instance, it implies that so long as the higher class values their luxury goods, these luxurious brands would continue its production. This reasoning neglects the shortages of some other crucial products such as food and medicine. Such a drop in world production will further worsen food and medical scarcity which causes chaos and unhappiness. Russell’s key argument is that people will be reflective and somewhat productive in their leisure time which is true only to a certain extent. The