Skip to main content

The pleasures of not having to do a day's work in your life

Alain De Botton's new book is out. The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work is a another philosophical self-help treatise, or so it's been described in the Metro this morning (I am reading the free Metro on the bus). I have not read the book.

It's kind of a bad time, I guess, for someone who does not need to work, at a time when many are being put out of work, to write about the pleasures of a 9-5 grind in the office.

I am sure I read a columnist in the Times or Mail on Tuesday who also had a go at DB because DB has never had to work - the claim made was that DB inherited 200 million from his father. The Metro, on the other hand, says that while his father was eye-wateringly rich, DB's "money is his own". Hmmm, confusing messages. Especially for me, as I really want to revel in being pissed off and envious, and the latter report rather stands in my way.

Anyway at least I can gloat over some reviews:

Naomi Wolf wanted to hurl it across the room.
The merciless Daily Mail review here.

PSOTSCRIPT Sat 4th April:

To be fair (and to qualify my admittedly rather petty comments above), I have since found these reviews which are much kinder:

Todays' Guardian.

I should of course read Alain's book before commenting myself, so will do and put up a review later. I have also promised a short review of Singer's latest book.


Toby said…
As regards his wealth, it's probably a bit of both. He may have made money from his books and films now, but had a privileged upbringing (and was possibly supported in early adulthood).

So those of us who didn't come from a wealthy background or go to a public school can still be envious and pissed off!
Paul P. Mealing said…
We live in a society where it's considered that, unless what you're doing is earning money, then it's a waste of time. Yet I think the best things I've done haven't earned me a cent. For most people (but not me), raising children is probably the most important thing they will do yet it doesn't earn them any money at all, quite the contrary.

For many males, their job is often their identity but I've never subsribed to that philosophy, which may simply mean I have the wrong job.

Having said that, I can't complain as I work with intelligent people on diverse projects, and live quite comfortably, especially compared to the great majority in the world.

On another topic altogether, but relevant to subjects oft discussed on this site, you might want to check out the following Not in Kansas

Regards, Paul.
Alain de Botton said…
Stephen, your blog is normally great but this time, you've really a hit low. For a start, you write about a book you haven't even read and imagine what it is. For goodness sake, read the damned thing (I'll get you a copy) before blogging on it. It's not about how fun it is to go to the office. You're such a fool to blunder in like this. You're supposed to be a philosopher, you can't even do the basic task of a journalist.
And then you repeat some bulshit you've also picked up in the gutter about my family background. I'm completely proud of my dad, who came from nothing and died a rich man. He didn't leave me any money and that's the way I like it because I'm a very rich man myself now, from the sweat of my own brow. I could sit back for the rest of my days and live off my royalties but I never will. I work every day of my life and almost never have a holiday - because for me, my work is my life. I've often thought that your philosophical writing betrays the feeling of a man who is doing it all 'just as a job', not for passion, not from some inner need. You're onto a losing wicket. Find something you really love, find something you'd do even if you weren't paid to do it - then you might find you'd become really successful about it. In the meantime, I'm sorry my life makes you feel bad but don't take shoot cheap shots.
Stephen Law said…
Hi Alain

Yes you are quite right I should read the book - will do. Sorry if this made you feel bad. It wasn't intended to and I apologise for that.

Of course, if you read my comment again you will see I was mocking myself a little too...
Stephen Law said…
Actually I guess a good thing to do is to read the book and discuss it here. Then you, Alain, and others can comment if you wish. We can see to what extent we agree with these other reviews.
Kosh3 said…
"I've often thought that your philosophical writing betrays the feeling of a man who is doing it all 'just as a job', not for passion, not from some inner need."

My impression - formed from reading this blog - is that Stephen does philosophy, and in particular, gets involved in matters of religion, rationality, secularism, humanism, and all the rest of it, because he genuinely believes (as many do) that these are important matters that need discussion.

Surely that same kind of thinking rested in behind 'Status Anxiety' - the social utility that examination of why it is that we feel a need to promote ourselves in terms of status could hold for us.
Stephen Law said…
Hello again Alain

I have done a bit of reflecting on this post. It is a bit petty and unnecessary. Also, as I say, I certainly regret causing any hurt, which was not the intent. Won’t do it again.

I suppose that in my defence I could point out:

(i) It just is a bad time to be bringing out a book about the pleasures and sorrows of work, if you don’t have to, and many are losing their jobs. This was not meant to be a criticism, just an observation that your timing is unlucky.
(ii) It just is true that there have been conflicting reports in the press about the sources of your wealth, which I did find puzzling. I am being entirely accurate about the content of the reports.
(iii) I say I am envious of your amazing success, but am being honest and being a bit self-mocking about it (maybe that did not come across). Not really something I can be criticised for, surely?
(iv) I link to the two online reviews, which are bad (not my fault).

The one other thing I can be faulted on, perhaps, (as well as pettiness) is saying you write “about the pleasures of the 9-5 grind in the office.” Possibly you do not, but I assumed you did because the book is called the pleasures and sorrows of work, and menial office work is work (and included I believe), so I concluded you are writing about the pleasures and sorrows of menial office work – and hence the pleasures of menial office work. Possibly I drew a faulty inference. Of course I don’t say you said it’s fun to work in an office (you’re attacking a straw man there).

I won’t respond to the criticism of my books - people can make their own minds up.

best wishes
Gail Renard said…
Actually I think it's a great time for Alain de Botton to be bringing out his book, when so many are examining attitudes to work, money and ethics, and the relationship (however tenuous) between them.... and actually have the time to read it.
Roger said…
Clearly that can't have been the real Alain de Botton chipping in? The spelling and word-order mishaps seem uncharacteristic (or he has a good editor for the books). Are we supposed to laud de Botton senior for being the head of a financial institute? He dies rich...woo-hoo! Is that really the kind of success measure we expect from Monsieur de Botton? How did he live is the better question? Maybe de Botton jr can muse on that and offer-up a few choice quotes from the history of philosophy to illuminate it.

No wonder the fellow doesn't have to take holidays when the meat of the books' research involves judiciously-chosen globetrotting expeditions in the name of 'research'.

Popular posts from this blog


(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o