Fun is a state of absorption, not a type of activity

The question "what do you do for fun?" defaults to hobbies, but that framing is missing something. A hobby is a vehicle. Fun is the state the vehicle takes you to, and the two are not the same. Some of the most fun things I've done couldn't really be called a hobby by anyone's definition.

What makes something fun isn't that it's easy or painless. Working out is painful. Football is painful. Learning a new skill can be painful. But all of these can be deeply fun, which means pain and fun are not opposites. You can't get to some of the best fun without the pain - they're packaged together.

Connection amplifies fun almost universally. Going to the gym with someone is more fun than going alone, independent of the workout itself. Shared engagement is one of the conditions that tips activity into absorption. It's not incidental.

The opposite of fun is obligation disconnected from reward. Replying to messages past your capacity to process them isn't fun because there's no absorption, just anxiety. It erases fun because it demands your attention without giving you any of the thing that makes attention worth spending. The neo-hedonist position isn't "maximize pleasure, minimize pain." It's closer to: choose absorption. Pain that comes with something you chose and are present for is compatible with fun. Obligation that leaves you processing at zero depth is not.

Source claim: Fun is a state of absorption that can coexist with pain and is amplified by company; what kills it is obligation without reward, not difficulty.