Nowadays, the expression «free time» generates, in the individual, a defensive reaction against a rival seemingly determined to dominate him.
The situation is compounded by the fact that this opposition does not spring from his neighbour, because it certainly is a purely internal conflict. And our difficulties do not end there. If we consider that the same individual will be unable to provide a relatively accurate answer if what s/he wants to defend is challenged. Thus, we are forced to confess our ignorance regarding what is implied by Aristotle’s often discussed statement: «We work so that we may have free time». And there lies, in my opinion, the crux of the problem.
What do we understand by free time?
Thus, it is a good choice to start by asking ourselves what we understand by free time, establishing what meaning is ascribed to this concept by the great humanist tradition. In order to answer this question, I think it is useful to start by focusing on the opposite force, that is, the overestimation of work. It is only an approximate definition, because the term «work» has many interpretations --at least three: it can be used to refer simply to «activity in general» or «a difficult, agonizing task»; it is also frequently used to convey the notion of a «useful activity», especially a «socially useful activity». Which of these three meanings are we thinking of when we talk about the overestimation of work? All three of them, in my view, because we ascribe an excessive value both to activity in general and to every effort and difficulty, as well as to the functioning of man in the midst of society. This is, in fact, the three-headed dragon encountered by anyone who wants to defend free time.
Overestimation of activity in general
I will define this tendency as the impossibility of allowing the event to take place freely, accepting it, and adopting a purely passive attitude towards it. It is a state of absolute activity that, if Goethe is to be believed, always leads to disaster in the long run. Hitler took this heresy to the extreme, when he stated that every activity, even if criminal, has a positive value, while passivity is always devoid of meaning. Certainly, this point of view is a sign of pure madness and utter absurdity, but I believe it remains, in «attenuated» form, a rather general characteristic of the modern world.
Overestimation of effort and difficulty
Strange as it may sound, this is a common phenomenon. We can also say that, in general, the moral norms of our «respectable» contemporaries are derived to a large extent from excessive respect towards difficulty. It is essentially arduous to do good, and everything that requires no effort at all is devoid of moral value. Schiller mocked this attitude in these clever verses against Kant: «Gerne dient’ ich den Freunden, doch tu ‘ich es leider mit Neigung, Darum wurmt es mich oft, dass ich nicht tugendhaft bin» “How willingly I’d serve my friends, but alas, I do so with pleasure, and so I am often worried by the fact that I’m not virtuous.”
The «Ancients» –and I am using the term to refer to the great Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle–, as well as the doctors of Western Christianity, did not regard good as something essentially and universally difficult. They knew for a fact that the loftiest manifestations of good never involve an effort, because they result from love. We cannot regard as a mental effort, either, the most elevated forms of knowledge, such as the spark radiating from genius or true contemplation, just because they entail no obstacles to be overcome and are essentially offered to us as a gift. It may be necessary to search for the key to the problem in the word «gift». When considering this strange preference for any difficulty, which has turned the good will of modern man towards suffering into a distinctive trait (which in my view is much more typical than man’s often criticized search for pleasure), it is worth asking whether this attitude springs from the decision to reject all gifts, regardless of their origin.
Overestimation of social usefulness
It is not at all necessary to emphasize this evident trait of the modern world. In any case, within this context, we should not only think about the «five-year plans» of totalitarian regimes, whose worst aspect is not so much planning per se but the fact that they pretend to represent the only measure, not only of industrial production, but also of the organization of the free time of individuals. The dictatorship of mere social usefulness can also be one of the most rigorous ones in a non-totalitarian world.
In this regard, it is relevant to remember the old distinction between liberal arts and servile arts, that is, between free activities and servile activities. This distinction entails the view that certain human activities are an end in themselves, while the value of other activities, which have an objective that differs from their immediate aim, lies only in their usefulness. At first glance, this distinction may appear to be rather outdated and pedantic; however, it does in fact reflect a contemporary truth that is –in some aspects– also political. Translated into the jargon of the totalitarian world of labor, the question «Do free activities exist?» becomes «Are there any human activities other than those defined in five-year plans?». The ancients clearly answered yes to this question. The answer of the totalitarian world is equally categorical: «No. Man is a functional being. Every free activity with no social usefulness is reprehensible and must be suppressed».
If we go back to the notion of «free time», now based on the triple overestimation of work, it is evident that this idea seems out of place in the working world. This concept not only is at odds with contemporary opinion, but is also morally suspect. Actually, the two attitudes are completely incompatible because the idea of «free time» is utterly opposed to the totalitarian concept of the «worker» in the three aspects noted.
Against respect towards activity as an absolute value
The expression «free time» actually means «inactivity». Free time is a sort of silence. However, it is precisely this type of silence that allows us to listen. In fact, only the silent man is able to listen. Free time is a purely receptive activity of the individual who allows himself to be absorbed by the reality that surrounds him; it constitutes the penetration of the soul by the world, a penetration that only brings forth those true and beneficial thoughts that no «mental effort» can produce.
Against the overestimation of effort
The expression «free time» entails a state of enjoyment, that is, the opposite of any form of effort. Whoever has an inner distrust of an absence of effort is as unable to generate free time for himself as he is to have a feast; however, in order to «celebrate», an additional element is required, as we will see below.
Against the overestimation of the social function of man
Free time entails a liberation of man from his social function. However, it should not be confused with pause, which means «recovery before tackling another task», regardless of whether it lasts one hour or three weeks. Thus, pause only exists in connection with work. Free time is wholly different. It does not simply mean that man is still able to work uninterruptedly, but rather that, in addition to fulfilling his social function, he remains capable of seeing beyond the limited sphere that he occupies due to his social function and of contemplating the world as a whole, while at the same time having «a heart of celebration» and devoting his time to a «free» activity that constitutes an end in itself.
How to «create» free time for oneself?
True culture presupposes the presence of free time, at least inasmuch as culture concerns that which is not at all part of the basic needs of human existence, but which is still indispensable if one wants to live a fully human life. This poses the problem of finding out what we can do to stop the destructive march of the dictatorship of work. If culture requires free time, what demands is this free time subject to? What must we do for people to be able to appreciate free time (for free time «to be created» as the Greeks used to say)? How can we keep people from becoming mere «workers» who are totally absorbed by their social function? I must confess that I am not able to provide a practical and concrete answer to this question. The basic problem emerges in such a way that it cannot be solved upon the basis of a single decision, even if it were tackled with an optimal attitude. In any case, we can at least say why this happens. We know that doctors have long stressed the importance of free time for staying healthy. Doctors are certainly right. However, it is totally impossible to generate free time for oneself in order to stay healthy, recover one’s health, or save culture. Certain activities represent an end in themselves. It is impossible to pursue them «for» something or other to happen (for example, we would not be able to love a person «for...» or «considering that...»). There exists a certain irreversible order, and every attempt to modify it not only appears to be out of place, but also doomed to fail.
The main aspect to identify is that free time simply stops existing as soon as we stop regarding it as an end in itself. Let us return to the idea of «feast», because it contains the three elements that constitute the idea of «free time»: first, inactivity and rest; second, well-being and a lack of effort; third, liberation from utilitarian tasks. We know all the difficulties generally experienced by modern man when attempting hold a feast. Man experiences the same difficulties when he wants to create free time for himself. His feasts «fail» for the same reasons that make his free time fail.
The true origin of free time
It is time to examine an idea that, as I have often been able to observe, most people seem to disapprove of. In a nutshell: to celebrate is to express our harmony with the world in an exceptional manner. Every man who is unconvinced that reality is essentially «good» and that the world as a whole is well made is as unable to «celebrate» as he is unable to create free time for himself. This means that free time also depends on the harmony of man with himself and with the reality of the world. We thus reach a conclusion as provocative as it is inevitable. The noblest way to manifest our satisfaction with the universe is to praise God, to venerate the Creator through religious worship. By pointing this out, we have defined the true origin of free time. I think we must be willing to accept the fact that the world will do anything to avoid the consequences of this truth. For example, it will seek to establish artificial feasts, which, while shirking the question of true and deep satisfaction, will generate gatherings –thanks to an impressive spectacle, undoubtedly resulting from the sponsorship provided by political power– that create the impression of a real feast. Actually, «organized rest» within the framework of these pseudo-feasts simply involves a new effort.
It would be a mistake to regard as a specifically Christian notion the theory that religious worship is the basis of free time and culture. Maybe what we call «secularism» is not so much a rejection of Christianity as it is a loss of certain fundamental beliefs that are part of the natural wisdom of man. It seems to me that the theory of the connection between free time and worship is part of this legacy. Before the Christian era, this was expressed through a magnificent mythological image devised by the Greek philosopher Plato. He wonders whether there exists a truce for man, who is undoubtedly destined to work. He answers by stating that such a truce certainly exists: «so the gods, in pity for the human race thus born to misery, have ordained the feasts of thanksgiving as periods of respite from their troubles; and they have granted them as companions in their feasts the Muses and Apollo the master of music, and Dionysus, that they may at least set right again their modes of discipline by associating in their feasts with gods»1. And Aristotle, that other illustrious Greek, more «critical» and less given to using mythological symbols, expressed the same thought in more sober terms. His Nicomachean Ethics also includes the words already cited: «We work so that we may have free time». The philosopher declares that man would not be able to lead a life of leisure by himself; he can only do so because his soul contains a spark of the divine.
