Ask Your Question today
The life of a wild animal is harsh, but even then there will be some time of the day in which all of their needs are met, right? Not hungry, not thirsty, not tired, hunting is done, shelter is ready, no one is attacking, etc.
What do they do during that time? Or does that time come at all?
| Yes, they laze around or play | 50 | |
| Yes, they mate | 16 | |
| No, they are busy all the time, you're stupid | 12 |
The first animal I think of is a lion. As far as I know, they lounge around lazily. Other animals probably have to spend more time acquiring food, e.g., grazing animals.
Outside of humans, bonobos are the only animals that spend time having sex non-reproductively.
I got a call just last week from an Indian tiger I met in the Zoo in Delhi, and all she did was complain about how she didn't have enough to do. She complained that she could only wash herself so much and even playing with the occasional incautious visitor before before killing and eating it, was totally uninteresting any more. She said that her life of leisure was not what she thought it would be. How sad.
Also, there was this Elk I met in Alaska some years back, that had so much free time in the summers, he wrote mystery novels, using a voice recognition program on his computer, and a pseudonym.
So I guess I'd have to say that some animals, definitely have an excess of free time.
I remember seeing a funny documentary where these Ravens just rolled in snow for apparently no reason, so I imagine other animals play, laze about and have free time to waste on sweet F.A.
God damn animals. Wasting all their time hunting and mating. The REST of us have to work for a living. I never see no animal complainin'. But what the hell do I know, I'm just a workin' stiff. Gimme my tools and a container a' coffee and I'm happy.
I don't know. What is free time? Many animals socialize, but is time spent socializing really "free"? Socializing serves an important purpose and it leads to tangible advantages, so I think it qualifies as a type of work as much as a type of leisure. You need to believe in completely free will to believe in completely free time, and I don't know how far I believe in free will.
Free time is time in which you can spend doing things you want to do, instead of things you need to do and wouldn't do otherwise, and instead of things others tell you to do, which you wouldn't do otherwise.
It should be noted that I did not pose the original question, and the definition of free time in this context is more up to the poll creator to decide than me.
Whether socializing is work, does, in my opinion, not depend on whether it leads to an advantage later on. Then all play is work, and buying a lottery ticket is potential work.
Whether something is work depends on whether you do it for enjoyment, or endure it for some later gain. If money or some other form of payment is expected in return for some activity, I would also call it work, even if the activity is motivated partly by enjoyment of the activity itself.
But to believe in a difference between doing something for enjoyment (purely of your own volition) and enduring it for later gain depends on the existence of free will. Without free will, you can't have play which is separate from work because that distinction is characterized by choice.
That's what I'm trying to hint: all play can be considered as work as if you follow the logic that play isn't done of your own free will. The line between work and leisure isn't tangible.
I believe in free will, yes. Though, that doesn't really have much bearing on the subject.
The distinction between work and play isn't characterized by choice. You can make the choice to play instead of work or vice versa, but that alone doesn't define what work is or what play is.
I think it does matter, depending on how you define work.
For me, a good simple definition of "work" is "doing things you must do" i.e. you have no practical choice in the matter. If you don't believe in free will, you don't believe in that all-important choice: therefore, everything is work because nothing is characterized by choice.
The way I normally question free will is by thinking of actions as determined by physical/chemical processes, particularly neuroprocesses, instead of them being determined by "pure choice".
If your thinking about the non-existence of free will is different, feel free (!) to inform me.
Though choices may be predetermined rather than free, you still have a feeling of choosing your actions, if you're anything like me. You probably have many experiences of choosing a course of action, choosing what to eat, choosing to visit a particular website, etc.
Even if your choices may be determined by things you are not aware/knowledgeable of, you still have an experience of making a choice.
Hopefully, you're also able to distinguish, in a lot of cases, between someone saying they chose to do something and someone saying they had to do it. If you can do that, I think a distinction can also be made between work and play/leisure time.
To me, saying that the difference between doing something for enjoyment and enduring something purely for later gain depends on the existence of free will, is like saying that a yummy ice cream cone tastes the same as a plateful of yucky vegetables because there is no free will.
You could say that we are not animals, and that animals may not have any preference for one thing or the other, rather following their course of action mechanically like the water in a river. For a lot of animals, I would disagree, though.
I completely agree that we all have the perfect illusion of choice, and that this makes determinist perspectives irrelevant for most practical purposes. Where I disagree is that I don't think this has to be a practical discussion; we're applying humanly-constructed distinctions of "work" and "free time" to animals, which I think makes the discussion hypothetical. I think considering a less practical, theoretical perspective like determinism is totally valid, and that justifies my determinist definitions of "work" and "free time".
Yep, thr has it right. By "free time", I mean stuff they do that isn't necessary for survival.
Ah, but that leads to the question of exactly what is necessary for survival. Socializing creates social bonds which are necessary to survival for many animals. Play develops skills which can be used in hunting or fighting, which are necessary skills for survival. Does that make socializing and playing necessary for survival, in the long term? I don't think the answer is as simple as yes or no.
That can be applied to humans, too.
The question is whether they're doing it specifically for survival and nothing else, or if they're doing it recreationally and it just happens to have the added benefit of survival.
If they are doing it simply for fun, if times became tough they would probably cut it from their schedules and focus time on things they consider more important, even if it ends up killing them in the end.