1. Welcome to the new Styleforum!

    We hope you’re as excited as we are to hang out in the new place. There are more new features that we’ll announce in the near future, but for now we hope you’ll enjoy the new site.

    We are currently fine-tuning the forum for your browsing pleasure, so bear with any lingering dust as we work to make Styleforum even more awesome than it was.

    Oh, and don’t forget to head over to the Styleforum Journal, because we’re giving away two pairs of Carmina shoes to celebrate our move!

    Please address any questions about using the new forum to support@styleforum.net

    Cheers,

    The Styleforum Team

    Dismiss Notice

Philsophy of MC style

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by Fuuma, Aug 3, 2012.

  1. dopey

    dopey Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    14,577
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    ...
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
  2. jrd617

    jrd617 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    14,543
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    

    well said
     
  3. Holdfast

    Holdfast Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,562
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Foo: given your laments for the future in this thread, I have an honest question: what do you actually want from Styleforum and its members that you're not already getting?

    I ask because the (perhaps erroneous?) impression I get is that you want it to be a discussion forum for learning to dress within the parameters you've chosen for yourself ("recognized to be well-dressed in an MC context", to quote post #5).

    Well, isn't it already that? You - and everyone else - have the opportunity to have as much of that discussion as you choose, in the same way that others have the ability to discuss whatever aspect they want to about tailored clothes. The recent upsurge in discussion activity you enjoy is specifically due to the mutual decision of you & others to post more. That's ample evidence of your shared ability to have as much of that discussion as your hearts desire. It could be one thread, or a millon threads. It will continue for just as long as you all - and any who learn to also follow that path - choose to continue it. This is even more true given your ability to moderate posts at variance with whatever thread topic you want start (I think you've got the ability to do that, right?). What is present in other threads has no impact on that. So what more do you want?

    The only option I can think of is that you want to convince others that this is indeed the optimal way to dress in tailored clothes. I don't mean to put words in your mouth: have I got that right, or am I missing something else?

    If that is the missing element, I think you'll never be satisfied. How can someone possibly convince everyone else of their opinion in an open forum, or indeed, the wider world? It's just not doable. But much more importantly, I don't see why it matters whether others are convinced or not. Why does the general level of dress - or rather, the opinion about what it is to be well-dressed - matter at all? Isn't it enough to enjoy dressing and feel you're dressing to your best? Whether others listen doesn't influence your own satisfaction at putting together an outfit you're proud of.

    Having said all of that, if convincing/educating/instructing the wider world IS important to you, then I really don't understand why you go about it the way you have in this thread. You must surely understand that persuading others only rarely happens through logic or force of argument, but through charm, persuasion and psychological manipulation. You acknowledge this yourself in post #7 by correctly predicting what would happen through coercion. What you really should implement is an advertising and marketing approach, not a didactic instructive one. Put idiomatically, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. In a way, that's part of why the recent upsurge in threads has potential to influence minds; it's not WHAT you say in those threads that matters. It's the mere fact those threads exist at all, taking up mindshare of the forum and encouraging through example rather than either through coercion or logic.

    Clothing is a form of culture, not mathematics. Disseminating your chosen culture as widely as possible is best achieved if thought about in that memetic way.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
  4. Geezer

    Geezer Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    414
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Location:
    London
    This is a good thread, potentially the most important of the "Old Guard" threads of the last few days, and overlaps with a number.

    There is a contrast between the "analysers" and the "emoters". I'm afraid that I run on gut feeling, not detailed knowledge, and for all the threads that I've read on tailoring techniques or shoe construction, I tend to focus on the end product, rather than the process. As a mild extrovert, I think I am in touch with my emotions and deeply charming, whereas the others are anal-retentive boring nerds. The latter may well think I'm a superficial prick, We are both right and equally wrong, and should respect each other and focus on what unites us, not what divides. I still have no great idea how a shoe is made, but I know which shoes I buy.

    On classism, all British people are born with an MBA in it. I was staggered decades ago by the way that Molloy in "Dress for Success" was so overt with his proposition that if you wanted to get on, you should dress like a member of the upper-middle class. Not that he was wrong, but that he was so honest in print, violating a rule of British hypocrisy (all people are hypocrites, and it is the lubricant of most societies) to not talk about stuff like that and to pretend it is not true.

    I'm a mild optimist though on Foo's depressing analysis. Yes, "we" are outnumbered. But every generation has thought that it was now facing Total Decline Into Barbarism (inc. Plato's). What is happening is that formal wear and black tie are supplanted by lounge suit, lounge suit by business casual, and so on. But I would not have thought years ago that Knightsbridge hedgies would be getting their business casual made bespoke. And they are.

    There is without doubt on this forum a tension between baroque/mannerist (Spoo? NORE?), neo-claccisicism (Foo, Manton), and something that might be modernism or post-modernism (whatever happens in SWD). But that, or some variant thereof, is a good thing.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
  5. mafoofan

    mafoofan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    20,793
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    H., I think you are conflating my philosophical discussion about the difficulty of overturning values related to dress and whether I am willing to give it a go. I see nothing contradictory in recognizing that a task is difficult while attempting to accomplish it.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
  6. Fuuma

    Fuuma Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    25,816
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    

    Not at all, most of these terms are explained in the post and the very few that aren't are peripheral to the main argument and can easily be found by using your favourite internet search engine. The post was rather straightforward and the "name dropping" merely placed it in the context of various philosophical arguments, as making a parallel between the later and what is going on in MC was the main point. If it went over your head you should either read more carefully or ignore me but please don't say the language used was too complicated, we're not engaging in a the politics of the english language debate yet again.

    It is also rich that Foo, who just made a reference to the master-slave dialectic, would say I am using metalanguage too heavily.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
  7. mafoofan

    mafoofan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    20,793
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    

    Okay, but I am trained in philosophy, too. Often, using terms of art only risks obscuring what could have been said more precisely--even when between those educated in the subject.
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. CBrown85

    CBrown85 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,986
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    If it's any consolation, I understand Fuuma's prose far better than Foo's. In fact, I often have to read Foo multiple times to understand what he's saying. Some are rather dense and I feel stupid asking. :(
     
  9. Bounder

    Bounder Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,247
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    This


    is antithetical to this


    Master? Slave? Coerce? Goodness. I prefer to think of SF as a community of free persons, thank you very much.

    Fuuma has it right and Foo has it wrong. The idea of sartorial rules laid down by dictat would indeed be classist. But that is simply no longer possible as the upper classes, as they once were, no longer exist. There is no sartorial master and, certainly, no sartorial slave. Influence is based on results ala Fuuma's consensus, not "moral credibility." I find the idea of "submitting to Manton's moral authority" and dressing CBD simply because he does absurd. If, however, you like the effect that Manton creates regardless of whether it is Manton dressed that way or Joe Bloggs, that's another story.

    And this is the difference that I have been arguing for for a while. I believe that, as practiced by some posters on SF, dressing is a bona fide art form. I think, though I cannot, of course, prove it, that there is a germ of objective correctness in the rules of classical dress in the sense that many of these rules evolved for good reasons that speak to something fundamental about humans. But that is neither here nor there. All that is necessary is that there be a consensus that something looks good. We can then have an interesting discussion about why it looks good and how to replicate those essential elements, whatever they are, in other contexts.

    This is what Manton and Vox are doing. Manton wrote an entire book about why the rules of dressing are the way they are and how to use them effectively. The premise for this book was that classical dressing looks good, for whatever reason. If you do not accept this basic premise, there is no point to the rules. But if you do, the argument Manton makes is, "People think this looks good. The reason it looks good is because of X. Therefore, if you do X it will also look good in this other context." He is not relying on "moral credibility" but on results.

    So the "credibility" that Vox and Manton have comes from the results that are delivered from the theoretical structures that they propose. This is the "coherent set of principles" that Fuuma suggests. Note that this is an intellectually difficult exercise and goes very far beyond "Nice fit!" or even, "I think it would look better with a burgundy tie." Creating these rules does not rely on the eye or even the opinion of the "expert." Rather, it relies on the expert's knowledge of a great number of individual cases and his ability to formulate general rules from them.

    To put it another way, Manton and Vox engage in a process of inductive reasoning that allows them to formulate a set of rules/principles. Once they have done so, non-experts may use these rules to reason deductively to produce a particular sartorial effect. Whether these rules are accepted does not depend on how many bespoke suits they own or on how many posts they have but on how well their rules work to produce the desired effect, whatever it is.

    Now here on SF we can debate, endlessly, exactly what effect we ought to be trying to produce, and how well a proposed rule works to produce it. That, for me, is the entertaining bit. But ultimately, that is based on a shared consensus, no matter how transitory, not on the dictates of history or the "moral credibility" of a "sartorial master."

    The other side of this coin is that if you do not agree that classical dress looks good, you should not be posting here. As entertaining as Mt. Spiffy (or whatever his name is) was there was no point in trying to engage him in a serious sartorial discussion as there was no common frame of reference.

    TLDR
     
  10. mafoofan

    mafoofan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    20,793
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Bounder, I don't think you understood anything that I said. If you don't understand the use of "master" and "slave" here, I refuse to believe you understood Fuuma.
     
  11. Holdfast

    Holdfast Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,562
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Ah, I think I see.

    Well, in that particular case, then logically, you're certainly absolutely right that there's nothing contradictory in that. I therefore wish you luck in your chosen Herculean task (and I'd certainly agree that more than a whiff of the Augean stables in some of the outfits posted occasionally!). My suggestions as to what would be the most effective methods to employ in your mission certainly still stand though.

    I must say, personally, I would find taking up such a challenge exhausting and dispiriting (I almost never get involved in extended arguments, either IRL or on the internet). Perhaps it's a quirk of my profession, but I always love noting the differences between people in what energises them vs what tires them. Good luck and best wishes to you.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
  12. Geezer

    Geezer Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    414
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Location:
    London
    "persuading others only rarely happens through logic or force of argument, but through charm, persuasion and psychological manipulation"

    Holdfast - that resonanted, setting aside any HF/Foo issues. I have adjacent and at times overlapping responsibilties with a colleague at work. I have a degree in art history, she in mathematics.

    Both have their merit, though at times our conversations feel like we are from different countries - I'm all colours and pictures and adverbs. She''s all numbers and graphs and charts.Even when, as often, we agree, the ways of getting there are entirely different. That holds true here too.
     
  13. dopey

    dopey Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    14,577
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    I am glad I deleted my post
     
    1 person likes this.
  14. RJman

    RJman Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    18,647
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Location:
    In the not too distant future
    
    [VIDEO][/VIDEO]
     
    1 person likes this.
  15. Geezer

    Geezer Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    414
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Location:
    London
    

    Bounder may be English, and therefore by definition taking the piss a little bit. We do that.

    If not, he is doing a fair impression.
     
  16. Holdfast

    Holdfast Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,562
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Just to clarify, from my side (and I suspect from Foo's as well, though he can speak for himself), there are no "HF/Foo issues". I was genuinely curious what more he wanted from the board; he directly addressed the anomaly I perceived. The last thing I come onto SF for is to accrue issues with any other posters here! I just come here to look at pictures of pretty outfits and occasionally lose myself in a sociocultural discussion of clothing. :)

    On the more general note, I really enjoy facilitating negotiations between rigid and imaginative people. It's great fun; you have to constantly switch "modes" bouncing between logic and charm while searching for a common frame of reference. It's very intellectually satisfying when you get both sides agreeing!

     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
    1 person likes this.
  17. Geezer

    Geezer Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    414
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Location:
    London
    HF - I was not suggesting, and I apologise if you read it as such, that you and Foo had personal "issues". But you clearly have different takes on this stuff, and as two of our most prolific and interesting posters, you ought -as you are - to debate them more oftem.
     
  18. mafoofan

    mafoofan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    20,793
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    

    A few important distinctions I think are worth emphasizing.

    Being analytical about the conflict between classic men's dress and contemporary social norms and moral psychology does not require one to be analytical about how he dresses.

    Also, being analytical does not mean one is not influenced by emotion. There are many theories as to what emotions are, but I see no reason why following logic or one's emotions represents an either/or proposition. Emotions can be viewed as inputs to one's logical thought process. I feel X, so I do Y to achieve Z, which will serve X, etc. A truly analytical person must recognize that all of his logical reasoning cannot directly uncover any empirical facts (though it might direct him to which is best to believe in). Emotions belong in the empirical realm. They are reactions to material things and events. So, there is no necessary conflict being emotional and logical. In fact, I posit that it may be impossible to think illogically--what we call illogical may simply be a sudden recognition of new empirical information one did not have before, which may change of obfuscate one's situation, and therefore his logical calculus as well.

    On a similar note, I don't think being analytical about dress makes a person any more rigid. Being "emotional" about how one dresses can be equally restricting: "Yellow makes me sad, so I will never wear yellow." A simplistic example, but you can take it further on your own.

    "Class" does not necessarily refer to socioeconomic class. The Dubiously Honored are also a class. Anything you can categorically distinguish from everything else is a sort of class.


    To be fair, the master and slave is a theme that has dominated continental philosophy since Hegel. Also, the terms are colorfully transparent--I think a reasonably well-educated person can easily get at their general meanings in the context of discussion. Now, if anyone is confused by my usage of them, I would be happy to explicate.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
  19. mmkn

    mmkn Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,442
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    

    Thank goodness for someone reminding me what is fulfilling, at teh end of the day . . .

    - M
     
  20. RJman

    RJman Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    18,647
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Location:
    In the not too distant future

    It's the law, b!tch.

    Have you bought your RJ cat pocket square? Wang has them back in stock.
     
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by