I was hoping you could help me with something personal.
My general question is, is there any philosophically rigorous defense for being lazy?
Here are the specifics:
I'm 20. My parents started me playing cello since I was 4: weekend music school, recitals, the whole bit. And I enjoyed it while I did it, and got good at it. Now I'd like to stop. Naturally, my parents are up in arms:
"you can't stop."
1) you've invested so much time.
2) you owe it to yourself to continue.
3) it's part of who you are, you like it, and it's in your best interest to continue. You shouldn't abandon a rewarding activity just because you're lazy.
4) you have the potential to bring others joy through your music".
How do I respond to these claims? I feel like the ideas behind the claims traffic in philosophy, that there are equally philosophically defensible rebuttals, and that I don't know them. As another piece of information, and I think this applies to a lot of young people caught in this...
You could give your parents the argument that laziness is better than nothing, and nothing is better that than the most rewarding activity, so laziness is better than the most rewarding activity. But then again, that argument is fallacious. In fact, maybe your parents are right. But you might argue that staying with the cello only makes sense if you will really find it rewarding in the long term, and the fact that you do not find it rewarding after sixteen years of playing is powerful evidence that you will not find it rewarding in the long term. This argument hardly amounts to a proof, but at least it isn't fallacious.