Which is better? A philisophical question, if you will.

[ChrisKH]

You've pretty much got to be a degenerate moron to be happy doing nothing, haven't you? Doing nothing is an absolute waste of time, and of life.

There is a lot to be said for contemplation, prayer, fasting and meditation. You may be doing nothing physically but mentally you can be right on the edge. It can be very satisfying and spiritually healing.

 

[bonj2]

Aren't they pretty much the same thing?

If your category 1 your life is constant stimulation there are no quiet times so you wont get bored.

On the flipside if your category 2 and you get distracted by the slightest thing then you are seldom bored as in your mind you ARE leading a life of constant stimulation and excitement?

By definition in this world if you think you are in category 1 you actually are just a category 2 with denial?

So *everone* is doing some sort of activity, it just boils down to whether it is physically strenuous or not, and whether you prefer physically strenuous activity over non-physically strenuous. Basically then, the OP's question could be rephrased as simply "are you lazy?"
Or is the OP wanting to find out how many people do *literally* nothing, just sat in a chair drooling?

 

[yello]

I can never understand those that have to get involved in some sort of physical activity to avoid boredom. Do they lack the intellect to amuse themselves in other ways? (just a question, no offence intended.)

I take it as a question.

I DO understand people that need physical activity to avoid boredom. I experience adrenaline rush and enjoy it, so I can get my head around it. I just don't need it all the time.

But, again, I really think it helps here to define your terms. What is 'doing nothing' as opposed to 'doing something'? Reading is not nothing. Watching the world go by and musing on it is not nothing. In fact, I reckon it's damn near impossible to do nothing.

So what we're really saying is are you satisfied or fulfilled by the something/nothing you do? Or is it an active/passive distinction.

I disagree with Plato (even disregarding the fact he missed that sitter), "better" is a perspective thing. What's wise about being dissatisfied? It's pejorative too - a satisfied person is not necessarily a "fool".

 

[bonj2]

There is a lot to be said for contemplation, prayer, fasting and meditation. You may be doing nothing physically but mentally you can be right on the edge. It can be very satisfying and spiritually healing.

I'll think about these one by one:
Contemplation, yes I agree that there is a lot to be said for that. I personally do it while I'm doing something mundane, such as driving. In fact, it's one of the benefits of driving as it gives a relatively uninterrupted environment for contemplation.

Prayer - now that may be a topic for another thread or three, but it essentially boils down to whether there is a god. If there isn't, it's essentially, by definition, pointless.

Fasting - I vehemently disagree that there is a value in this as it starving your body of food is intrinsically unhealthy.

Meditation - possibly some value in this if you know how to do it right.
e.g. if you do it before you do something that may make you angry or frustrated, you may limit the amount of frustration or anger it causes you.

 

[Wigsie]

So *everone* is doing some sort of activity, it just boils down to whether it is physically strenuous or not, and whether you prefer physically strenuous activity over non-physically strenuous. Basically then, the OP's question could be rephrased as simply "are you lazy?"
Or is the OP wanting to find out how many people do *literally* nothing, just sat in a chair drooling?

Its not about doing something physically strenuous or in fact any actual activity Bonj... Its about being constantly stimulated by a factor whether it be mentally or physically (Fnaar?) and the perception of fulfillment of that stimulation (Fnaar again?).

It's ok to say you don't understand sometimes Bonj

 

[bonj2]

Reading is not nothing. Watching the world go by and musing on it is not nothing.

Ah, I think that's where I would draw the line.
"Watching the world go by and musing on it" is close enough to nothing to be deemed nothing, in my opinion.
Basically because you're doing that *anyway*, whatever else you're doing - it's like the 'background' of the scenery of activity. Even when you're reading you're also "watching the world go by and musing on it".

 

[bonj2]

Its not about doing something physically strenuous or in fact any actual activity Bonj... Its about being constantly stimulated by a factor whether it be mentally or physically (Fnaar?) and the perception of fulfillment of that stimulation (Fnaar again?).

It's ok to say you don't understand sometimes Bonj

Well that definition of 'doing something' can be proved wrong by example - what about the case of a mudpacker, or today's equivalent, somebody who works in a factory constantly shuffling cakes off one conveyor belt onto another. They are being neither physically, nor mentally (we would hope) stimulated. But they are still doing something. A constant repetitive motion that is neither strenuous nor intellectually demanding but is still of value.

 

[ChrisKH]

Well that definition of 'doing something' can be proved wrong by example - what about the case of a mudpacker, or today's equivalent, somebody who works in a factory constantly shuffling cakes off one conveyor belt onto another. They are being neither physically, nor mentally (we would hope) stimulated. But they are still doing something. A constant repetitive motion that is neither strenuous nor intellectually demanding but is still of value.

And therein lies the crux of the issue. What may have value for one person, may not for another.

 

[yello]

And therein lies the crux of the issue. What may have value for one person, may not for another.

Indeed. Does that end the debate? We could always talk about the weather!

Value, fulfilment, happiness; personal things - you can say no more than that.

 

[Wigsie]

Well that definition of 'doing something' can be proved wrong by example - what about the case of a mudpacker, or today's equivalent, somebody who works in a factory constantly shuffling cakes off one conveyor belt onto another. They are being neither physically, nor mentally (we would hope) stimulated. But they are still doing something. A constant repetitive motion that is neither strenuous nor intellectually demanding but is still of value.

but even the packers are moving around, watching, listening, maybe talking...... its all stimuli.

As ChrisKH said, just because YOU don't value something, for example sitting, watching and musing over lifes conundrums does not mean its not stimulation and enjoyable for others.

Open your mind Bonj, its a big wide world out there and we are all different.

 

[PaulB]

Basically then, the OP's question could be rephrased as simply "are you lazy?"

No. No it couldn't. I'm not even necessarily asking about the same person living one or the other life. To perhaps re-phrase it; which life do you think is more fulfilling? A life full of excitement and stimulation, perhaps in a vibrant city where you have a jet-set lifestyle where you're constantly doing something or going somewhere but during the inevitable quiet times, you get depressingly bored? Or a life perhaps living on a remote croft where each day is pretty similar to the preceding one in which a day-trip to the city once a year is relished and anticipated for months and months on end?

I ask because I've had cause to live both types of life and each has definite merits.

 

[bonj2]

And therein lies the crux of the issue. What may have value for one person, may not for another.

Well, you've picked a bad example - because the activity of shuffling cakes probably DOESN'T have (direct) value for the person doing it! It only has value for the factory. It has indirect value in that they get paid for it, but not direct value in terms of being fulfilling as we're discussing here.

 

[yello]

Bonj, have you never met anyone that enjoys and is fulfilled by their job? Even 'cake shufflers'? They do exist. Admittedly rare in this day and age but they do exist.

 

[Wigsie]

Well, you've picked a bad example - because the activity of shuffling cakes probably DOESN'T have (direct) value for the person doing it! It only has value for the factory. It has indirect value in that they get paid for it, but not direct value in terms of being fulfilling as we're discussing here.

Don't presume that every single cake shuffler in the world does not find value in what they do, dangerously naive that is Bonj.

Besides, look at Mr Kipling! I bet he loves to shuffle!

 

[scook94]

Is it that people who get bored easily simply don't enjoy their own company?