Contra Leisure

http://davidkanigan.com/2011/11/19/if-youre-busy-youre-doing-something-wrong-the-surprisingly-relaxed-lives-of-elite-achievers/

What I got out of the article was more of a message of, "Don't forget efficacy."  As opposed to lax-times.

O.K., WHY AM I SO MUCH AGAINST LAX TIMES?
AGAIN, I'M GOING TO BE SAYING SOME PRETTY SEVERE THINGS HERE.  HOLD YOUR GLARES.

I want to give a defense for attacking leisure and supporting work.

First of all, I admit the vagueness in the term.  If I describe leisure as 'doing what one likes', then this includes things that may not be 'leisure'.  In fact, if one defines 'doing what one likes' as leisure, then it seems to me that the ideal solution would be to construct all 'work' in such a way that it is 'leisure'.  I can not say that 'leisure' is the complement of the set of the things that increase the skillset that you have determined to amplify.  Because this would include trivialities such as 'doing the laundry' as 'leisure', and this doesn't quite match up with the common sense definition of the word.  I'm not quite sure how to go about this.

Second of all, I admit I fall into patterns of leisure myself.  From my perspective, it is a fault to correct.

With this said, my first of two basic arguments is the same reason that one might be against using the word 'miracle' is very similar to why I'm against the preconception of leisure being necessary.  If we allow the label of 'miracle' over certain phenomena, it dissuades us from trying to figure out what is occurring with those phenomena.

Similarly, if we say that leisure is necessary, then it dissuades us from trying to figure out how we might use that time to better ourselves instead.

The other reason is behavioral, and is similar to the reason why so many determinists are compatibilists.  The reason, I believe, that some determinists accept compatabilism (that is that ethics and norms exist despite our not being able to choose to follow or not follow a given ethics or norm), is behavioral:  that is that the very fact that we believe in those norms increases are chance that we follow those norms, and this is beneficial in a survival or utilitarian sense.

Similarly, if I say that leisure is necessary, it provides an outlet for rationalization to such a behavior, and thus increases the chance that I do it far beyond what may be argued as 'psychologically necessary' (if such an argument like that exists).