Research on Josef Pieper and “Leisure; the basis of culture.”

Research on Josef Pieper and “Leisure; the basis of culture.”

Background of the study

The cotemporally philosophical understanding of Josef Piepers’ works and other philosophers of the ancient time intrigues thinking towards their subjects and pitching something to mull-over. Josef Pieper’s line of thought in this book tried to connect work and leisure in the medieval era and the current time. In the quest to understand about leisure and work, he presents a problem to the reader in which we are required to unmask the philosophical gist or the in-depth interpretation of his work subject to the past era and the present contemporary day. This book is a composite of two articles; leisure, the basis of culture, and the philosophical act whose meeting point is a congruence to the problem confronting the reader requiring a viewpoint, a critic, or an opinion towards Piepers’ school of thought. This paper covers research on this book “leisure; the basis of culture” in the bid to understand Piepers’ philosophical approach and his school of thought.

Literature review

According to Pieper, this book presents leisure as a basis to culture, a prerequisite towards philosophical thinking meant to unravel leisure as an essential tool as far as work is deemed much necessary. He defined leisure as a tool that shapes up culture and should be preserved or guarded since it is essential to do so. Different scholars that are philosophers of his time were also opinionated in this line of thought in the light to seek the relevance of leisure amidst the various activities we are engaged in. Under this section, the study unfolds the different related studies and critics of this work from the different scholars and their opinionated version towards Josef Pieper’s work on Leisure; the basis of culture.

According to Hui-di (2000), leisure is an intuition perspective, naturally a prerequisite to a healthy full life in work. Philosophically, humankind is essential as a systematic exposition of the need to integrate work and leisure. Heidi’s school of thought presents a problem to think through, and readers often will want to understand leisure as either conscious or rational. In this work, he tries to help scholars understand the naturality of leisure in meeting the prime need for spiritual or material perspective. Further, he poses the question, “is leisure about the meaning or the behavior of human beings?”. Such attempts in the arena of philosophy; help readers in forming opinions or ideologically interpreting the authors meaning. This helps to relate the various philosophical subjects we have in society in the day to day activities. To wrap up Hui-di’s work and his relevance in this study; he has explained leisure to mean an objective reality of one kind of a man, in his behavioral traits which is majorly determined by his cultural life, his style of living, and the value factor of life that a man faces in his existence. This study by Hui-di has presented leisure as a necessary tool needed in not only aspects of work-life but also as a formal decision with much weight to work. His ideology does not slip far from Piepers’ school of thought. Both seem to emphasize leisure as a significant factor to consider in life, and they often encourage it more to work.

According to Goodale and Godbey (1988), leisure has evolved into different forms of what it is perceived in the current era. Much of this work by these two gentlemen consider many factors that are contributory and leading us to form an opinion that leisure can be a culture and much necessary to work as Pieper will pose it. This work has accustomed the many cultural activities in the medieval era as the current form of leisure. Substantially, these modern philosophers have opened up leisure to foster the understanding of contemporary work that many people engage in. They argue that current cultural activities and action is what has existed in the long past as leisure. Therefore, they are arguing out leisure as an accultured process that keeps on growing and mutating to a new form as years go by.

Further, they take us through the evolution of leisure and the recognizable ancient beginnings to what we are experienced in the current world as leisure. The work also philosophically relates to the involvement of recreation as a subject to leisure. This study entirely coincides with Piepers’ ideology of leisure; the basis of culture school of thought, though, the two researchers have modernized their approach and broadly explored leisure to capture many of the current scholars’ opinions.

Josef Piepers’ work on “Leisure; the basis of culture” has, in several instances, been criticized in both ancient times and the cotemporally periods with time. At one point, Pieper will make us relate to culture and leisure as a philosophy accustomed to credit leisure as a broader aspect of culture. This notion has faced criticism of Chris Rojek, at the light of explaining the importance of leisure in the current society. According to Rojek (2010), culture precedes leisure. He argues out that the modern era has people much constrained to work, and they often learn to use their leisure time wisely. He unveils that leisure is an independent variable to work. This disqualifies the whole notion of culture in the Piepers’ school of thought.

According to Max Weber (1930), Pieper’s world in the reading; leisure; the basis of culture” is a false entrenchment to the reality of the current world setting. Weber’s critic stood with the opinion that Pieper’s work was forged against the world of work. He, however, reminisces the past applications of this work as a good source to understanding leisure though he disqualifies its applications in the current world. Weber urged that in however much, the current generation may deem Pieper’s work irrelevant, part and much of the work has philosophical borrowings that are the beneficial factor to the theologists and other social thinkers.

Depending on the various scholars’ ideologies, Piepers’ philosophy in his book “leisure; the basis of culture” has full acceptance in both old age and the current era. Considering his reference on philosophers, Plato and Aristoteles (Greek Mythologists) of the ancient era and Thomas Aquinas of the middle era, one can argue out that the relevance of this study is constrained to the period of these two eras. People have got different opinions and support or criticize this study at different viewpoints.

In the conclusion of the study, there are various viewpoints qualifying and criticizing the study. On both sides, researchers have to make a conclusion of the same and form an opinion. With much of the work being philosophical in nature, an in-depth understanding of these studies is important in order to form an opinion that is well informed and meaningful. According to

Methods

This section will cover the methods used to collect the different information relating to this study and also their relevance in the usage towards the accomplishment of this research.

This study widely relied on secondary information to obtain opinions and remarks. The researcher got information from the written books, archival settings, and the articles bearing the information used as the basis of the above opinions. This method goes hand in hand with the Delphi method, where the researcher had to look for opinions of the different philosophers. Here different scholars gave their different versions of this study, and it was recorded down either as a critic or in support of the study.

Internet media also played an essential role in the research and establishment of this study. Much of the information that is not available in books could be obtained from the electronic sources via the internet.

Findings

This part will cover the different outcomes from the different scholars and the derived opinions from the secondary sources of information that have been noted above.

From the research conducted on Pieper’s work has support and criticism from various scholars. The work has been widely appreciated from the different eras of philosophical study bit at the same time, exhibited much criticism from the different scholars. The relevance of the study is seen to outdo the criticism with most scholars arguing and supporting the Max weber school of thought on Piepers’. Weber looked at the various ages withing which the book has enjoyed superiority in terms of its philosophical content, and he drew a double-edged opinion on the same. He and others have acknowledged this book through the various reviews made and the much support through criticism on areas demanding changes to fit the current world setting. In summary, “Leisure; the basis of culture” has been deemed as one of the best philosophical writing of its era, rich in the philosophy that any reader will yearn to tap knowledge from.

References

Pieper, J. (2009). Leisure: The basis of culture. Ignatius Press.

Hui-di, M. A. (2000). Leisure── From Cultural Philosophical Perspective [J]. STUDIES IN DIALECTICS OF NATURE, 1.

Goodale, T., & Godbey, G. (1988). The evolution of leisure: Historical and philosophical perspectives. Venture Publishing, Inc.

Weber, M. (1930). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism [1904–5]. na.

Rojek, C. (2010). The labor of leisure: The culture of free time. SAGE publications.