Sorry, I’m so late with this. I was away visiting family. I’m not sure I’ll be able to write anything cohesive, but maybe I’ll just shoot for coherent.
In this chapter Pieper enumerates three “movements” which have attempted to keep man from becoming a mere cog in the machine of society. Those movements are “art for art’s sake,” calling upon tradition – specifically educational tradition, and humanism.
After questioning whether these movements and ones like them are able to make a difference, he leaps into an examination of the “proletariat.” I don’t quite get the transition or connection. I mean, I do, a little, but not completely. Perhaps after I’ve read some of the thoughts of my fellow readers I’ll have a better understanding of this.
Pieper puts forward the idea that the way to solve class struggle, is not to classify everyone as a worker, but rather to make it possible for everyone to be at leisure. Even the worker needs a sabbath. (Again, the worker needs a rest not so he can return to work stronger, but rather so that he can remain “human.”) He needs both the opportunity for rest and the internal ability for it.
If I understand correctly, there are three reasons why a person may be incapable of leisure. One is that a person has no material possessions of his own, no land, no property and so the only thing he can trade on is his work. I think of the huge debt that many people have and how they are enslaved by it.
The second reason is government compulsion to constant work and constant productivity.
The third reason is the saddest in my opinion: ”the inner poverty of the person.” This is a person who is satisfied with just work and “meaningful action that is not work is no longer possible or even imaginable.” Being satisfied with one’s work seems like such a good thing, yet being satisfied with ONLY work is just so dull and sad.
The remedies to these three hinderances to leisure, are property ownership purchased with earned wages, a limited government and “overcoming internal poverty.” (How?) I find it interesting that Pieper seems to be saying that a free market economy is necessary for the arts to flourish. I am ignorant in this area. Is this true? Does history bear this out?
Work must be seen to serve a specific purpose, to supply a specific need. It is a means to an end, not the end itself. If work is all there is, a human becomes narrow.
What the others are saying about this chapter.