When 'work' slips from positive to negative,  what is the source of the slippage - in the mind, or in the language game?   
 
Allow me to persevere with my assertion that the term 'work' is dysfunctional and deceptive as a tool for communication.   When the word's meaning slips and slides from positive to negative, see Tom's posting (below),  it becomes impossible for society to get a grip on it, for the sake of sensibly negotiating a future for work.   Habermas refers to its continued use as 'systematic distortion'.  Again, I propose that we consider trashing the word in favour of some newly invented ones.  Refer to archives for proposed alternative terms (search 'working alternatives').  I think all would benefit from more discussion in this vein. 
 
 
TOM wrote:  The question ... about work being taken as a good instead of a bad
really is a key one.
 
It's fair to say that MOST people enjoy doing their work, at least for some part
of the day (although, of course, not every day). Chapman's analysis
explicitly addresses this question as one of the elements that make analysis
of work time so complex. By comparison, von Mises adopts an unreflective
"work is pain" assumption and goes from there. The same 'simplification' is
inherent in Barone. The complication is not that some work is pleasurable
and other is painful, it is that some work which is pleasurable under some
conditions is painful under other conditions. The length of the working day
(and vacations, week-ends etc.) is a major factor in bringing about the
change of sign from positive to negative or vice versa.

Reply via email to