Is black suit an acceptable business attire?

concordia

inductive reasoning and weighing probabilities

Click to expand...

Which, by its very essence, requires faith in your ability to so divine. Edit: But I wonder what has happened to the beautiful Alexis who offered such a pleasurable view as this morning's wake-up call.

The definition of faith as equivalent to belief offers wide latitude and can encompass the certain physical fact ("the sun will rise in the east tomorrow&quot, an existing widely held convention, which cannot be touched or seen ("don't wear sneakers with flannel suits&quot, or the religious leap of faith for which there cannot be visible evidence ("I know my Redeemer liveth..). Manton's point is simply that sartorial conventions exist (of that there can be no doubt) and not that these conventions spring from an uncontrovertible absolute ("wearing loafers with suits is a moral sin..&quot or are mandated by an unseen power.

stylestudent

sartorial conventions exist (of that there can be no doubt)

Click to expand...

No. Your theory that 'there can be no doubt' is refuted simply by the existence of this thread. Except, of course, as to its digressions into the field of abhorrent non-clear liquors and debates of the second power regarding whether debating of the first power should continue.

stylestudent
Quote:

Click to expand...

sartorial conventions exist (of that there can be no doubt)
No. Your theory that 'there can be no doubt' is refuted simply by the existence of this thread. Except, of course, as to its digressions into the field of abhorrent non-clear liquors and debates of the second power regarding whether debating of the first power should continue.
A convention or belief does not have to be universally held to be valid. Merely because Marc Grayson criticized your ability as a shirtmarker does not mean that the belief that you are an excellent shirtmaker is necessarily wrong. Now, Mr. Kabbaz, if you disagree with the above, we are going to really have a long day and one without cocktails.

Wait.....no cocktails? I am not signing up for that.

Merely because Marc Grayson criticized your ability as a shirtmarker does not mean that the belief that you are an excellent shirtmaker is necessarily wrong

Click to expand...

Unfair Unfair Unfair STEEEVE.

Right, OK. Â There is "belief" in things that are entirely, 100% matters of faith, and as such beyond the reach of reason. Â Then there is belief in things which reason can grasp but can't prove. Â As Concordia points out, I meant the latter sense. I would love to say that "I know" there is a rule about kissing sleeve buttons. Â In my prouder moments, I am tempted to say just that. Â But then I have to remember that I do not "know," as genuine knowledge of the truth of a thing admits no possibility of error. [Cf., Plato, Theatetus, passim.] To venture once again onto higher ground, this difference between "standards of proof" as it were is a key difference between ancient and modern philosophy or science or thought. Â Plato's (and Xenophon's) Socrates repeatedly says that he only knows that he knows nothing. Â He has a certain humility based on his awareness of the limits of reason and the human mind. Â Yet this humility allows for a greater boldness, in a sense. Because Socrates is aware of his limits and does not insist on "proof," he is able to work through propositions dialectically, exclude things which cannot be true, ferret out contradictions, and arrive at propositions which he things are more likely (in some cases far more likely) to be true than their alternatives. The moderns believe that this imprecision is a fatal weakness. Â Descartes insists on a much higher standard. Â "Method" replaces dialectic; one who uses the method properly will arrive at the truth of a given matter, or at least the untruth of other propositions. Â The method is uniform and rigorous. Â If one has confidence that someone else has followed the method properly, one does not need to repeat his reasoning, but can simply accept his conclusions. Â Socrates and his followers would never do that. In any event, the higher standard of proof leads to the separation of "philosophy" and "science," which were considered one and the same thing from ancient times through the Middle Ages. Â "Science" deals with things that can be proven. Â Philosophy comes to be regarded as mostly matters of opinion, or as a historical curiosity. Â The boldness of Socrates is abandoned because certain lines of inquiry are considered fruitless, as they cannot result in proofs. Â Aristotle's very sensible remarks near the beginning of the Nicomachean Ethics about standards of proof and the necessary imprecision of political science and ethics are either ridiculed or forgotten. Â Unfortunately, human things -- political and moral norms -- cannot be proved to the satisfaction of the scientist, and confidence in these norms was undermined in some cases to the point of obliteration with (eventually) some very unpleasant consequences. As one may guess from the preceding, I'm with Socrates on this issue.

Well I guess what we have here is a battle between those two worlds. I can easily see the doctor falling into the latter category you've described. Anyways hay guys it's 1 am here in South Korea, just got off the phone with the IRS to order tax forms because those dorks aren't open 24/7, also North Korea is stepping up its nuke program help And of course the only thing of even higher priority is how to convince the tailor to make my sleeves shorter, after the shoulders have been finished Also my trousers need more adjusting, stupid legs

Since we've moved (partly) on to a topic near and dear to my heart (Bourbon), allow me to add my 2 cents. It appears the discussion of what is and what isn't Bourbon has been covered, so I'll move into some brands I prefer and have tried.

- Maker's Mark - despite an earlier posting, I think that this IS a good bourbon. It is on the sweeter side, and is particularly good for someone who is just "getting into" bourbons. I usually drink it on the rocks. I don't find it to be particularly good as a sipping bourbon (i.e. straight up) - too sweet. I believe MM also makes some higher end (more expensive) versions, but I haven't tried them.

- Knob Creek - I find this to be smokier and not all that remarkable. However, I have enjoyed a glass from time to time. I believe this comes from Jim Beam.

- Woodford Reserve - smokier than MM, but quite good. Runs about $5 more per bottle. I've had it on the rocks and straight up.

- Eagle Rare - I've only had the 10 year old variety - quite good and relatively inexpensive (around $25 or $30, I want to say). The 17 year old is supposed to be excellent, but I've never tried it.

- Blantons - quite good, with a price to match (around $50 a bottle). Some I have talked to find Blantons to be almost "too mellow", but I like it. I believe Blantons also makes some other, more specialized versions, which are undoubtedly priced higher.

- Booker's - this is distilled by Jim Beam, I believe. It is very good, but with a very strong, full flavor. I would not recommend it for someone just starting out (I have had it straight and cut with water). This one is also expensive at around $55 per bottle.

- A.H. Hirsch - I have had the 16 year old, which is very good, but I'm not sure that it's worth the price (around $75) - I have a bottle, which, unfortunately, is almost gone - also unfortunate is the fact that the distillery is closed - get it now, if you want it (the liquor store where I bought mine no longer has any) - I imagine its rarity has helped drive up the price.

- Buffalo Trace - this is a delicious Bourbon which, unfortunately, is only available in Kentucky and certain other states (not CT, where I live) - I tried this Bourbon knowing next to nothing about it, from a relative who was visiting from KY - I really like it - the best thing about it is the price (around $20).

- Wild Turkey Rare Breed - supposed to be great - I haven't had the good fortune of trying it yet.

There are many others on the market. If you're just starting with Bourbon, I would recommend the Maker's Mark, the Woodford Reserve, or the Eagle Rare 10 yr. old. All are resonably priced and will give you a good indication regarding the taste of bourbon and whether it's a hobby you'd like to pursue. I like a good single malt scotch, too (although I do not have a great breadth of knowledge here). However, I think I enjoy bourbons more. Also, scotch is, in general, a much pricier habit to have.

Finally, I don't understand the hatred for Jack Daniels coming from some. As has been pointed out, it is not a bourbon, but instead a Tennessee Whiskey. However, I think it is a very good tasting whiskey, and perfectly appropriate to have on the rocks (although not for after dinner sipping, IMHO).

Regards,

Jeff

Finally, I don't understand the hatred for Jack Daniels coming from some.  As has been pointed out, it is not a bourbon, but instead a Tennessee Whiskey.

Click to expand...

You're not alone. I find my own hatred of it hard to explain, as well, especially considering that it is made so similarly to things I really like. Yet I just can't stand it. Blanton's is probably my favorite.

- Maker's Mark - despite an earlier posting, I think that this IS a good bourbon.  It is on the sweeter side, and is particularly good for someone who is just "getting into" bourbons.  I usually drink it on the rocks.  I don't find it to be particularly good as a sipping bourbon (i.e. straight up) - too sweet.  I believe MM also makes some higher end (more expensive) versions, but I haven't tried them.

Click to expand...

Hey, awesome. I bought a bottle on a whim because I thought the wax cap was cool. I should try it sometime.

A fascinating discussion. I like the philosophical crap especially. And I mean that in the loftiest sense possible. Thanks, especially to manton, for the insights.

I'm also of the opinion that the religious analogy is illuminating only up to a point.

It seems to me part of the problem with rules, and part of what has caused the quarrels here (apart from personal history), is that they're Janus-faced.

On one hand, they're largely the result of convention and contingent (if not arbitrary) historical circumstances. Therefore, the rules with longer, deeper histories, the rules which most everybody recognizes as "common sense" (no sneakers with suits, no sloppy clothes at weddings, no loin-cloths at presidential inaugurations), seem stronger than ones that fewer people know about or that have a more fragile historical existence (no brown in town, no black business suits, buttons must kiss).

On the other hand, rules are authoritative. And I think each rule is just as authoritative, qua rule, as any other. Otherwise it wouldn't be a rule.

So people get impressed by the contingency of rules when they come upon one they don't know or acknowledge, and they get impressed by the authority of rules when they see a rule they do know violated.

For instance, I don't like the word "quote" used as a noun (as it is on many forums); it grates on me; it's a piece of journalese. (I don't mind "forums" as a plural though; "fora" to me sounds fussy.) My distaste for "quote" comes not just from knowing this particular rule (here, against needless neologisms), but from the authoritative character of rules in general. Another person could say, with plenty of justice: "Who cares? The language has changed."

Hence the fights. By the way, I don't think I'm informing anybody here of anything they don't know. I just like gassing on about abstractions.

Ld Fop.


Egad.

Well I guess what we have here is a battle between those two worlds. I can easily see the doctor falling into the latter category you've described. Anyways hay guys it's 1 am here in South Korea, just got off the phone with the IRS to order tax forms because those dorks aren't open 24/7, also North Korea is stepping up its nuke program help And of course the only thing of even higher priority is how to convince the tailor to make my sleeves shorter, after the shoulders have been finished

Also my trousers need more adjusting, stupid legs

Click to expand...

Why call the IRS? Â You can download forms and instructions off the Internet: www.irs.gov

manton

Because Socrates is aware of his limits and does not insist on "proof," he is able to work through propositions dialectically, exclude things which cannot be true, ferret out contradictions, and arrive at propositions which he things are more likely (in some cases far more likely) to be true than their alternatives.

Click to expand...

By its very nature, the requirement of faith in one's (or another's) reasoning is key. A wide gulf exists between A] The sky is blue because I heard so. [Belief - Faith required] and B] The sky is blue because I see it. [Faithless non-deductive observance] I find the discussion of whether belief requires faith akin a long-past discussion on the national scene as to what the definition of is is. In the instant matter, I should have to say that I, personally, have faith in your contention that sartorial rules do exist. Having had the pleasure of reading some very large quantity of posts by you, I should even go so far as to say that I shall place my faith in the accuracy of your 'rules compilation'. Nonetheless, my belief in said accuracy requires my faith in your reasoning as well as in the veracity of your allegations. Noted: They're discussing those abhorrent dark, non-clear liquors again.

A wide gulf exists between A] The sky is blue because I heard so. [Belief - Faith required] and B] The sky is blue because I see it. [Faithless non-deductive observance]

Click to expand...

Yes, but is the sky blue around your fingers?