Anti-Work Philosophy Q&A Corner

After writing an introductory article that served as a summary of anti-work philosophy, I was grateful to receive feedback and questions.

When writing an article that advocates for something as absurdly unconventional as this, it is common to invite misunderstanding and misinterpretation. However, in this case, there have been no such comments so far; instead, I have received questions that show a real understanding and help to further refine the anti-work philosophy. I am grateful.

Since the responses to the questions I received would not fit in the small comment section provided by note, I decided to create a new article.

Now, let's start thinking about the questions.

Q1
Do people really seek freedom?

Anti-work philosophy places the utmost importance on a person's free decision-making. It assumes that if people can make decisions freely, they will grasp happiness for themselves, and society as a whole will be adjusted well by that.

The question I received is, 'Do people really seek freedom?' in response to that.

As 'Sekai no Futsu kara' points out, anti-work philosophy certainly goes against public opinion, and this is definitely a question that anti-work philosophy must face from now on.

The feeling that it is safer to have someone else decide for you is familiar to me as well, and conversely, I have experienced many times the frustration of watching people vacillate indecisively and wanting to say, 'Just decide already!'

Nevertheless, my stance remains the same: 'People do not fear freedom; they fear evaluation.'

Let's calmly consider what kind of situation it is where people feel safer having someone else decide. I suspect that in most such situations, people feel that there is some kind of 'correct answer' existing, and when they lack the confidence to find that answer or find it too troublesome, they get the feeling of 'I want someone to decide for me.'

Schools and workplaces are notorious for suppressing freedom and forcing a single correct answer, while simultaneously imposing the contradictory double bind of 'do what you want,' which confuses people. The message here is clear: 'Freely behave in the way that the school or workplace considers ideal.' And if you don't, you get scolded, lose your grades, or get fired. In the worst case, you end up on the street.

There is no appeal in fake freedom. In fact, it can be said to be more miserable than a lack of freedom. This is because as soon as you act freely, prohibitions come rushing in, yet you are forced to pretend that you are enjoying freedom. If that's the case, it's only natural to think that you don't need fake freedom and would rather just be told the correct answer immediately.

And at the top of that is the evaluation system of money.

Money, in the name of a free market, also imposes fake freedom while simultaneously forcing a single value system: you must earn money. In other words, you are only given freedom within the range that the money system finds acceptable.

The act of earning money is quite a special behavior, and naturally, it is not a simple mechanism where 'you get money if you are useful to others.' Of course, doing what you like doesn't mean you can earn money. If you say, 'I don't need money, I'll do what I want!', your family and you yourself will end up on the street. So, it is only natural to feel like throwing away freedom and following the exam wars or large corporate systems where you can earn money quickly.

However, on the other hand, we are supposed to be given freedom. Saying things like 'I don't know what to do even if I quit my job' or 'I don't have anything I want to do even after graduating from university' is just standing still in the face of the contradiction between the pretense of freedom and the need to be evaluated by the money system.

People who seem to be fleeing from freedom at first glance are likely those who have grown disgusted with being given a superficial sense of freedom while being instructed to find the 'correct answer' in front of a single evaluation system—be it school, a company, or money—and are now throwing that superficial freedom away.

If you are raising children, you will keenly realize how ridiculous the discourse that 'humans fear freedom' really is. My son finds things he wants to do and things he wants to have one after another. He throws a tantrum when his freedom is compromised. His classmates are the same. If there were a child standing still saying, 'I don't know what I want to do,' it is likely that the child is tied up in knots by an evaluation system imposed by their parents.

Also, I think everyone has experienced the phenomenon where motivation disappears the moment they are ordered to do something, and this is also evidence that humans seek freedom. Even in areas that are inherently free, if you are told to do this or that, you stop wanting to do it.

The following article makes this very clear. Games are popular because they are the only space where children, whose freedom has been taken away at school and at home, can freely demonstrate their abilities, but if evaluation and orders are added to that, it immediately becomes a form of penance.

Now, Basic Income partially liberates people from evaluation. There is no longer a need to completely submit to the evaluation system of money, nor is there a need to search for the 'correct answers' of school or a company. That said, there is no such thing as a life completely un-evaluated by others, and it is likely impossible to never care about the evaluations of others at all. However, it is clear that there is currently an excess of evaluation, making it difficult to pursue pure desires like 'I want to do this, I want to do that.' BI is meant to weaken that dynamic.

Q2
Does anti-work philosophy affirm meaningless work?

Now, the second question is also related to the first.

Anti-work philosophy emphasizes autonomous decision-making and avoids letting other people's evaluations sway one's actions. Yet, if one were to try to determine the value of work by saying, 'No, that is meaningless work, so you should quit quickly and enjoy useful agriculture or forestry,' it would immediately create a group like the Chinese Communist Party. Alternatively, there is a possibility of regressing to a philosophy of voluntary poverty.

Instead, anti-work philosophy thoroughly maintains the stance that 'if the person involved is fine with it, then that is fine.' Also, it does not objectively evaluate whether something is useful or not. It affirms all meaningless work done for self-satisfaction.

In the first place, since anti-work philosophy uses whether the person is freely enjoying themselves as its KPI, for anti-work philosophy, meaningless paperwork that the person enjoys is considered 'useful.'

However, there is room for consideration regarding 'Why are there people who enjoy meaningless paperwork in the first place?'

The desire to contribute is one of human desires, but it is not the entirety of desire. People are capable of desiring all kinds of actions. There are people who desire the act of being urinated on while being stepped on in high heels, and there are people who make the act of climbing a mountain while nearly dying their life's work.

If so, it is considered possible to desire to engage in meaningless work. When we are forced into meaningless submission, like we are today, continuing to submit despite not wanting to do so causes cognitive dissonance. Therefore, it seems humans tend to move in the direction of telling themselves that they desire this meaningless submission.

That is likely the true nature of people who enjoy meaningless work.

Then, when BI is provided and they no longer have a reason to continue submitting to a company or a boss, will they actually continue to submit?

Perhaps they might continue, but wouldn't many people find what they truly want to do?

There are countless salarymen who attend bullshit meetings while saying things like, 'When I retire, I'm going to open a cafe.' Everyone has at least one or two grand projects they have given up on due to the shackles of money.

If you are in a situation where you must obey, even if you desire to obey, surely if freedom were to arrive, you would want to embark on that project.

Furthermore, among meaningless jobs, there are many where one assigns meaningless tasks to subordinates and makes meaningless complaints, but if that subordinate quits and starts a cafe, those meaningless complaints can no longer be made.

As a result, wouldn't meaningless jobs gradually disappear?

Q3
Can you summarize the anti-work philosophy in 10 lines?

I don't know in what sense you want it summarized in 10 lines, but since you've pressed your hands in prayer, I have no choice. I will try to summarize it.

By the way, the article in question is about 13,000 characters long. Personally, I think I already cut it down quite a bit. If I have to summarize this into 10 lines, it will be poetry.

But let's give it a try.

Labor is being controlled
Control is losing freedom
Freedom is living for desire
Our desires are
Whimsical
Compassionate
Overflowing with love
Therefore everything is forgiven
Only labor is a sin

If I condense it tightly, this is about it. If you read it normally, it doesn't make sense. But what I want to say is packed in there.

■ Summary

It was a bit rushed, but I will conclude my responses to the comments for now (since I arbitrarily set a one-day deadline for myself, I wanted to reply before the date changed today).

I cannot be confident that this is a complete answer. It makes me realize once again that the anti-work philosophy is still a work in progress.

I still need to brush it up further. If you have anything to add, please feel free to comment.