What would happen to the meaningfulness of people’s lives if the economy were restructured so people only needed to work four hours per day, without a reduction in material standards of living? Some believe this would diminish meaning, as work is a source of purpose, and would encourage hedonism. I will argue that a four-hour day would enhance well-being and quality of life for those who use their free time to develop an Optimal Leisure Lifestyle (OLL), thereby increasing the meaningfulness of their lives. This essay first defines meaning through Aristotelian philosophy and the Serious Leisure Perspective (SLP) (see figure 1). It then outlines how the benefits of leisure support meaningfulness, critiques Aristotle’s separation of work and leisure, and reevaluates whether work is the only primary source of meaning. In doing so, the essay provides an analysis of the relationship between work, leisure and meaningfulness in the context of a reduced workday.

‍

For Aristotle (1925, 1098a13–18), meaningfulness, or eudaimonia (‘flourishing’), is achieved through the excellent performance of human function–– rationality. Rationality is performed through the highest, most virtuous activity of the soul: contemplation. Moreover, flourishing is the result of virtue or proactive development, only possible in leisure (scholē) (Aristotle 1925, 1099b14–16). This Aristotelian idea parallels the SLP, which synthesises leisure into a theoretical framework. In the SLP, leisure is a fulfilling, uncoerced activity one engages in during free time, using one’s abilities and resources. The SLP frames an OLL as an agreeable balance in time and quality of serious and casual leisure activities, which one must discover.

‍

The individual subjectively defines their OLL by determining if they have optimally used their free time to enhance their well-being and quality of life (Stebbins 2020, 106, 194). By Aristotle and SLP standards, flourishing is only possible through an individual’s own diligence and willingness (Stebbins 2020, 70). The SLP identifies leisure as casual or serious (Stebbins 2020, 21). Casual leisure is a fleeting, hedonic activity that requires minimal skill to enjoy and has eight subtypes (Stebbins 2017, 54; 2020, 32). These include play, relaxation, passive or active entertainment, socialising, sensory stimulation, volunteering or aerobic activity. Serious leisure is ‘the systemic pursuit of an amateur, hobbyist, or volunteer core activity that is… substantial, interesting, and fulfilling (Stebbins 2017, 57).’ Serious leisure can transform into devotee work when the core activity becomes highly appealing, self-enhancing work, such that ‘the line between work and leisure are erased (Stebbins 2020, 24).’

Moreover, serious leisure and devotee work are considered serious pursuits, as they share six characteristics, including perseverance in the activity, the availability of a leisure career, the need for self-motivation to gain skills and knowledge, the realisation of various special benefits, a unique ethos and social world, and an attractive personal and social identity (Stebbins 2020, 25–27). Lastly, disagreeable obligations are distinguished by their necessity for one’s livelihood (Stebbins 2020, 130). This constitutes work and nonwork obligations, the latter of which is completed outside of work, such as chores (Stebbins 2017, 8). With an understanding of SLP concepts, I will move on to my argument.

‍

‍

I argue that reducing the workday to four hours would heighten the meaning of life for people who use their free time to pursue an OLL. While critics argue that increased leisure can lead to aimless hedonism and passive consumption, moderate casual leisure has benefits vital to meaningfulness (Stebbins 2017, 64–66). It allows serendipitous experimentation, discovery, and invention; edutainment through media consumption or exploration of the social and physical world; regeneration greater than that of serious leisure, especially after disagreeable obligations; improvement in interpersonal relationships; and well-being. Notably, Stebbins (2020, 54) states that types of casual leisure–play and volunteering–can transform a core activity into serious leisure. This ‘augmentative play’ creates challenging circumstances that demand inventive solution(s), thereby requiring further engagement in the activity (Stebbins 2020, 54). However, casual leisure can become an uncontrollable addiction–characterised by psychological or physical dependence, and powerlessness to control and manage one’s behaviour despite its consequences. In this case, the activity is no longer leisure as it is coerced for the primary goal of pleasure or escape from discomfort (Stebbins 2017, 143–47). The concern of excessive casual leisure given a shortened workday is valid, as this form of leisure only brings superficial joy, and too much prevents an OLL. Therefore, a four-hour workday affords people casual leisure, which, in balance, improves quality of life and wellbeing, thereby permitting flourishing.

‍

As stated, meaningfulness only occurs in a four-hour workday when one balances casual and serious leisure through an OLL. Serious leisure fulfils the four subjective indicators of quality of life that bring flourishing (Stebbins 2020, 32–33; Boguslaw 1977, 1). The first quality-of-life indicator, a sense of accomplishment, is evident in the personal rewards of serious leisure. These rewards include enrichment through experiences; self-actualisation through the development and self-expression of skills and knowledge; a strengthened self-image; self-gratification; recreation; and financial return. The second indicator is the appreciation of beauty in nature and arts, which may be seen in an artist enamoured with Michelangelo’s sculptures. The third is an identity with one’s community, which may be that of a dabbler who more confidently identifies as a ‘reader’ after joining a local book club. The final indicator is a sense of fulfilment of one’s potential, manifesting as perseverance in the activity or by transforming it into devotee work. Thus, a four-hour workday would provide additional time for thoughtfully balanced casual and serious leisure, improving quality of life and enhancing its meaningfulness.

‍

In the economic reform to a four-hour workday, Aristotle would strongly support the role of leisure in flourishing, but oppose the coexistence of serious leisure and work. For Aristotle (2013, 215), work, otherwise ‘occupation’ (ascholia), is a ‘lack of leisure’ done for necessary livelihood. Casual leisure, otherwise ‘amusements,’ is important for relaxation after occupation, though not the goal of occupation (Aristotle 1925, 1176b33–35). Finally, serious leisure is parallel to ‘leisure’ (scholē), which was virtuous activities that cultivated the mind, spirit, and character. Aristotle (1925, 1177a11–18) believed that only in the ease of leisure could one partake in the highest activity of the human function (reason)––contemplation. He maintains a strict dichotomy between occupation and leisure, and suggests flourishing is not possible even for self-chosen work that aligns with intrinsic interests and values (Owens 1981, 719). Aristotle (1925, 1177b4–5) concludes that leisure is the end of occupation and thus, the means to flourishing.

‍

I disagree with Aristotle and argue that serious leisure and work can coexist as meaningful devotee work according to the SLP. While devotee work may not be accessible to everyone, when it does occur, it provides the same benefits to quality of life as serious leisure: a sense of accomplishment, appreciation of beauty, community identity, and fulfilment of one’s potential. The only difference is that the core activity becomes an obligation for livelihood, albeit agreeable, compared with disagreeable work and nonwork obligations. Moreover, Aristotle's claim that occupation undermines self-development is not persuasive, as Veltman (2018, 1) argues that meaningful work can develop and celebrate the identities, skills and capabilities of its workers. I add that contemplation and manual labour–and leisure and occupation–can occur simultaneously. An ardent gardener can wonder life’s meaning whilst routinely trimming hedges, and a farmer can appreciate a golden sunrise whilst feeding hens. In fact, devotee work can bring opportunities for self-development through physically or mentally challenging experiences. Hence, devotee work challenges Aristotle’s separation of work and leisure, and shows that a four-hour workday can allow fulfilling work to manifest through serious leisure, thereby creating lifelong flourishing.

‍
A four-hour workday may concern Veltman (2018, 1), who argues that work is a primary avenue for developing essential skills that contribute to flourishing both within and outside the workplace. These may include problem-solving, social skills, decision-making, or careerrelated skills. However, I contend that work is the primary source of meaning largely due to the economic structure that centres life around the traditional eight-hour workday. Moreover, this structure fails to account for the additional hours spent preparing for, commuting to, and recovering from work. Consequently, many people lack the time and energy to seek meaningfulness through serious leisure. Work, therefore, becomes the default, more accessible route for skill-building and learning. Furthermore, work becomes an easy source of identity and purpose, as achievements are standardised and quantified by external metrics already valued within these institutionalised environments (Nguyen 2024, 469). By contrast, serious leisure demands agency through higher levels of self-directed learning (SDL) (Stebbins 2020, 117). Individuals must forge their own educational and self-development curricula, which, though more demanding, are more personalised to their interests and values. This approach cultivates greater personal growth through critical thinking and autonomy, leading to a deeper sense of accomplishment and fulfilment.

‍

Moreover, work may be unavailable for retirees, the unemployed or people with disabilities (Stebbins 2020, 106), making serious leisure their primary avenue for flourishing. Leisure literacy allows people to discover and maintain an OLL that promotes well-being, quality of life, and flourishing in place of what traditional institutions provided (Stebbins 2020, 117–19). For instance, leisure literacy programs may help people explore meaningful community oriented leisure through volunteering, counselling, or teaching. Nonetheless, regardless of whether the economy is restructured, leisure education is important for everyone–workaholics, retirees, and those unsure how to spend their newfound time. Everyone will reach a stage in life when they can no longer work, by choice or necessity. Consequently, serious leisure can serve as a primary source of meaning in life in place of work as it fosters self-development, fulfilment, and education.

‍

In conclusion, restructuring the workday to four hours could enable individuals to flourish by using their free time to cultivate an OLL that enhances well-being and quality of life. This restructuring increases leisure’s role in facilitating the discovery of fulfilling devotee work, and challenges work as a primary source of meaning. Nevertheless, the benefits depend on the development and implementation of accessible, effective leisure education that teaches people to utilise free time meaningfully. Furthermore, a modern reinterpretation of Aristotle’s view on reserving work to the less rational, manual labourers could imply the reallocation of disagreeable obligations to artificial intelligence (Aristotle 2013, 1328b37–1329a3). This would minimise AI’s role in leisure activities, such as art or music and allow humans more time to pursue these meaningful activities instead. Ultimately, a four-hour workday offers an opportunity to reflect on the benefits of leisure and how leisure education can help people find meaning.

‍

Monash University | ATS1057 | Introduction to Philosophy: The meaning of life | Semester 1, 2026