0

The importance of leisure time would become more vivid if we considered that constant work results in burnout.

What does this sentence mean? Does it mean that:

  1. Currently we do not consider that constant work results in burnout and therefore the importance of leisure time is not vivid?

  2. It does not tell anything about the situation. It does not state that we considered or consider something. It just says that something is the result of something else!

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

It definitely doesn't mean 2.

Whether 1. works depends on whether the original is being interpreted informally, or formally. For most native English speakers, the former is the norm and so your 1. is a good representation of how they'd interpret things.

But for the analytic philosophers, lawyers, etc among us, for whom a more formal interpretation might apply, 1 is not accurate. Specifically: the original does not actually assert that "Currently we do not consider..."; it merely implies it. Your 1, by contrast, does make the assertion.

So as I say, for most people, your 1 is a good restatement of the intent of the original. But if it were being addressed to A.J. Ayer, or Ludwig Wittgenstein (in his earlier philosophy anyway) then you might get some pushback. :-)

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .