or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The mafoofan and Thom Browne philosophies are not too unlike.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The mafoofan and Thom Browne philosophies are not too unlike. - Page 16

post #226 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacobJacob View Post
...mess intended to impress....
Why do people claim, "There is no truth, and that's the truth" or "No one can know, and I know"?
post #227 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
This is an analytic mess, but I'll try to parse it.



What do "all such fictions" refer to? I never distinguished between interpretations and perspectives, you haven't either, and I don't see how the distinction is relevant in this discussion.



Your assertion that "categories of reason are just logical fictions and perspectives" needs support. The reason why logic can be equated with a form of truth is because it does not make or require fact-based or empirical assumptions. It is a consistently repeatable, abstract idea. Like math. Triangles may not exist in nature or be realizable in material form, but we can nonetheless definitively describe a triangle in abstraction.

As an aside, I find that postmodernist and feminist "thinkers" who deride the patriarchal hegemony of logic fail to construe it as the abstract, narrowly potent thing it is. Rather, they conflate empirical assertions with logic, and then denounce the latter because of the former's unreliability.

I don't understand what you mean by "argu[ing] from utility of an interpretation to its objectivity." However, I think you're missing the basic point: if you are going to act as if there is truly no absolute truth, then it doesn't matter what you think, as you can never be right or wrong, or make decisions that are any more optimal than others.



What do you mean by "any perspectival view of truth?" And what "differences" does it "admit of?"

If are you are right that some perspectives "carry more value . . . than others," and you mean "more" in an objective sense (which I think you must), then you are admitting that absolute truth does exist in at least some form.



Again, I'm confused by your language and phraseology. However, if by "this view," you mean the postmodernist notion that all analyses are actually perspectives and fictions, than it does, of course, claim to hold some truth. If there is literally no truth in such a view, it is cognitively vacuous and doesn't deserve further consideration.



I never said that "speaking about the world" ever "mirrors reality." However, I don't see how the insufficiency of words, as you put it, says anything about the existence of truths.

Oops.

-b
post #228 of 239
shorter is better?
post #229 of 239
With this inane thread Style Forum has officially jumped the shark. I think the AAAC tread , "Are Bees, Though They are Not WASPS Trad?" is certainly less destructive to the mind.
post #230 of 239
Thom Browne and Foof are actually one..."OneFoof".
post #231 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
This is an analytic mess, but I'll try to parse it.

The reason why logic can be equated with a form of truth is because it does not make or require fact-based or empirical assumptions. It is a consistently repeatable, abstract idea. Like math.

logic is however axiomatic and requires the acceptance of certain starting points as self-evident.
post #232 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
Triangles may not exist in nature or be realizable in material form...

In nature, no. Although I did once have an honest to goodness platonist professor...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
As an aside, I find that postmodernist and feminist "thinkers"...

Are the quotes intended to convey snark, or are you, given the context, employing the word in its Heideggerian sense? Re Burton's post, there's a "thinker" that would enjoy the Trad forum.
post #233 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burton View Post
With this inane thread Style Forum has officially jumped the shark. I think the AAAC tread , "Are Bees, Though They are Not WASPS Trad?" is certainly less destructive to the mind.

Intellectual masturbation is springing to my mind...
post #234 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by lasbar View Post
Intellectual masturbation is springing to my mind...

I understand as much as anyone else how irritating intellectual masturbation can be. But it's even more irritating when someone merely attaches the label to whatever they don't understand or aren't willing to spend time understanding.
post #235 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
I understand as much as anyone else how irritating intellectual masturbation can be. But it's even more irritating when someone merely attaches the label to whatever they don't understand or aren't willing to spend time understanding.

I don't know if the poster you're responding to could understand this discussion or not, but I can understand it and I still think it's intellectual mastubration. Here's why--I don't think you have any chance of convincing the post-modernism fanboy who got you going in the first place. . Continental post-modernist fans are basically the same as high school/college objectivists--they think highly of their own intelligence, enjoy being part of a sub-culture and being contrarians, and thus cling to their faith like small towns cling to guns--and if they give in to counter argument then they lose the community as well as their pride. And I think you know that good and well. The tone of his argument suggests he has chosen his side, and is just sticking to it now, rather than engaging with an open mind.

But I think you're engaging in this argument none-the-less because you ENJOY the discourse for its own sake, which is what makes it masturbatory rather than legitimate discussion. I don't think you're doing it to educate 3rd parties who might actually be weighing the tenets of post-modernism vs traditional western modes of thought--no one on this threak has indicated they're on the fence and want to see how this plays out.

And that was some of my own intellectual masturbation.
post #236 of 239
I don't know if this thread's chock full of intellectual masturbation so much as it's full of sophistry. The two often go hand in hand, but there is a subtle distinction to be drawn.
post #237 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by OffTheRack View Post
I don't know if the poster you're responding to could understand this discussion or not, but I can understand it and I still think it's intellectual mastubration. Here's why--I don't think you have any chance of convincing the post-modernism fanboy who got you going in the first place. . Continental post-modernist fans are basically the same as high school/college objectivists--they think highly of their own intelligence, enjoy being part of a sub-culture and being contrarians, and thus cling to their faith like small towns cling to guns--and if they give in to counter argument then they lose the community as well as their pride. And I think you know that good and well. The tone of his argument suggests he has chosen his side, and is just sticking to it now, rather than engaging with an open mind.

But I think you're engaging in this argument none-the-less because you ENJOY the discourse for its own sake, which is what makes it masturbatory rather than legitimate discussion. I don't think you're doing it to educate 3rd parties who might actually be weighing the tenets of post-modernism vs traditional western modes of thought--no one on this threak has indicated they're on the fence and want to see how this plays out.

And that was some of my own intellectual masturbation.

But there is an ongoing (though admittedly fringe) discussion about postmodernism in this forum. Moreover, that discussion is very relevant to the forum's subject matter. Men who like dressing in clothes that are largely obsolete according to contemporary norms, which were largely developed by other people in a different time and place, are necessarily grappling with postmodernist themes.
post #238 of 239
Someone please summarize - so who won the internet?
post #239 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
I don't go below the numbers, cross bridges, or go through tunnels--that is, of course, unless it's for some fatty, hand-carved pastrami .

Funny, I don't go above 14th street. I pretty much refuse to enter any borough besides Manhattan and some parts of Brooklyn. You couldn't pay me to go to Staten Island.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The mafoofan and Thom Browne philosophies are not too unlike.