Does utilizing time properly make our lives meaningful and happy?
In my essay entitled Mind the Definition, I mentioned a list of philosophical questions. It happens that one of those questions rather reached out and grabbed me; viz. does utilizing time properly make our lives meaningful and happy?
Before I jump into the thick of the issue I must make full disclosure; viz. that this question grabbed me because I have, throughout my life, been accused of acting as though I believe that I must always be doing something. I resemble that accusation. It is not conscious but, after Pamela having recently made the observation, I started watching myself and I do go from project to project as though I must at all times be attempting to accomplish something. I describe and evaluate my days according to what was accomplished. Looking back, both of my parents seemed to have been driven to be doing something at all times. For my Father it was always something which he found meaningful; working on a book, making wine, preparing a lecture. For my Mother it was something she enjoyed doing; running, biking, sewing, playing the piano.
Does utilizing time properly make our lives meaningful and happy?
For starters, what does it mean to utilize time properly? For me the proper use of time might be to take a hike, catalogue plants I have pictured, or write an essay. Is that your proper use of time? If you are not taking a hike or cataloging plants are you not making proper use of your time? I believe that would be very presumptious of me and totally wrong. You might find it perfectly appropriate and "proper" to take a nap, watch a program on television, check out the new restaurant in town or sit on your porch and do nothing.
So we have an unresolvable problem right out of the blocks. If we drop the word 'properly' then we create another problem; viz. that doing nothing is utilizing time therefore we can not not utilize time. I guess that being comatose might qualify as not utilizing our time since it is a state over which we have no control, but that seems to be pushing a bit hard.
Let's come back to this because this isn't the end of our problem. Who or what determines if our lives are meaningful and happy?
This entire question has the smack of a societal question. Our social systems (i) like to tell us what is meaningful and what makes us happy. If we determine what is meaningful in our lives and what makes us happy, that may not bode well with our society. Prof. Tim Ingold, University of Manchester, was actually writing about the social relations of the hunter-gatherer band, but his observation about society is appropriate here.
"... transactions based on self-interest are conceived as the very antithesis of the social. Here, society connotes a domain of external regulation - identified either with the state or, in polites lacking centralized administration, with comparable regulative institutions - which curbs the spontaneous expression of private interests on behalf of public ideals of collective justice and harmony." (ii)
In other words, in our question, who gets to decide the definition of 'meaningful'? I can tell you right now that my definition of meaningful in my life is about as contrary to the society in which I live as any definition can be. I very honestly have no use for the society around me therefore I see the modern US social definition of meaningful as totally meaningless.
We have the same problem with the concept of 'happy'. Modern American society tells its members that if they are good capitalists - working exhausting hours to pay ever increasing bills due to the expectation to continue outlandish consumption of things they do not need - they are happy. I won't even begin to tell you what I think of capitalism, but I'm sure you can guess. I am a minimalist. I am a naturalist and conservationist who gets clausterphobic in a town and prefers to be totally out of sight of any sign of human civilization. The modern American capitalistic definition of 'happy' isn't going to come close to my definition.
Call it a gut feeling but I feel compelled to believe that the original question was posed with the idea that the words 'properly', 'meaningful' and 'happy' are defined by some external force known only to the person who originally posed the question. My guess is that that external force is their society and/or their own personal social environment; viz. their social systems.
The early 20th century philosopher, Juddi Krishnamurti, defines this social environment as "... wealth, poverty, exploitation, oppression, nationalities, religions, and all the inanities of social life in modern existence,..." (iii)
I must insist that I am not trying to be sarcastic when I say that this original questioner was a part of modern western society that defines 'meaningful' as doing something which benefits the society and those who control it, and 'happy' means the collection of copious amounts of useless goods which are defined as wealth. My gut level reaction is that the original questioner was having second thoughts about mindlessly accepting her society's definition of 'proper', 'meaningful' and 'happy'. But that doesn't really help us face her question.
So now we are faced with a much more complex question with a multifaceted answer.
Firstly, I propose that proper utilization of time is a totally personal concept therefore a generalized definition cannot be ascribed. Therefore any attempt to answer the question must differentiate between the personal and the definition of one's social systems.
Secondly, meaning and happiness are again personal. Do we want to know what makes us feel happy and enjoy a sense of meaning, or do we want to know what utilization of time makes our social systems happy?
One of the great things about philosophy is that we can take the simplest of question and debate it ad infinitum. (Most people considered that debating ad nausem or ad absurdum.) However, knowing that most modern readers do not like lengthy argument, I am going to attempt to sum up the question with a simple 'yes' and a resounding 'no'.
If the proper utilization of time is defined by our social systems there is going to be a very strong probability that it will not bring meaning and happiness to us, but to the beneficiaries of the society who are usually the very rich and/or elite ruling class who make the definition in the first place. Our only escape from this condition is either rebellion or to convince ourselves that we are happy with the confines of the society. In any such case I must conclude that the answer to the question is a resounding 'no'.
If the proper utilization of time is by our own personal definition, I would have to conclude that we have a greater potential for meaning and happiness if we have selected those things which bring us meaning and happiness. I know this sounds stupidly simplistic, but there is always that possibility that our own definition of proper utilization, whether or not it identifies with our society, can be contrary to our actual happiness. It is here that one must turn the tables on the question and ask 'what use of time brings me meaning and hapiness?' If one's definition of proper utilization is thus determined, then it should follow that their life will have meaning and be happy and the answer to the question is 'yes.'
FOOTNOTES
(i) see my essay What constitutes a social system? for my definitions. 2/27/2020
(ii) Tim Ingold, "On the social relationships of the hunter-gatherer band" in Lee and Daly (1999) Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers. p 400.
(iii) Krishnamurti, Juddi. Total Freedom: the essential Krishnamurti. Harper Collins Ebooks. p. 20.
No comments:
Post a Comment