What I want is enough money to say no to work I don't really like, enough money for allowing me to choose what to do with more liberty.
This is probably why the term "financial independence" was coined, to break away from this misconception.
Retirement/financial independence is not needing the paycheck anymore. It's owning all of your time to use how you want.
There are plenty of "retired" people that don't sit around on their ass all day. They've retired from the full time rat race but are very much active, doing what they want to do. It might even still sometimes look like "work", but it is on their terms.
But if you have to slog at boring jobs for a lot of years in order to accumulate that big pile of money allowing you to become FI you'll have to consider if it's worth it. Maybe after being FI you'll keep working but you'll have the privilege to choose only jobs or projects aligned with your needs and desires. If that's the case: is it worth it the years and years working at boring jobs? do you really need to be FI if you'll keep working after?
I'm not against having money on the bank, my approach is having enough to live several years without income, allowing me to reject things I really don't want. But I don't want to spend years just trying projects with no results, I want to do things valuable for other people and getting money in exchange is the way to be sure you're actually doing it.
It's not mutually exclusive.
> my approach is having enough to live several years without income, allowing me to reject things I really don't want.
This is what "FI" part means. the financial independence.
I understand financial independence as "having enough to retire without needing any more income", so the amount of money is not the same.
What happens when you're diagnosed with a serious, career-ending chronic disease?
Financial independence has nothing to do with having a relaxing retirement at a young age.
I wish I had realized this younger, for multiple reasons.