Random Fashion Thoughts (Part 3: Style farmer strikes back) - our general discussion thread

[LA Guy]

Anyway I'm not sure how at all you're reading this as puritanical given that I'm posting on a ******* fashion forum.

It's just weird and annoying to see this backlash against any type of judgement. Like, one can't say anything. and I also have a lot of dislike for the creeping utilitarianism too but that's another story.

The idea that certain things are inherently frivolous and thus somehow morally suspect, "It makes sense to limit that frivolous **** to a few things so as to be a good person." is extremely puritanical.

I dunno man. I guess that I just don't see how your own biases are at play here. You make these statements as if they were truths rather than simply your opinion, and it seems like not one that you can really defend or even explain.

I suppose that that's what I object to - the absolute nature of your statements, which leave no room for the possibility that there might be other, contradictory, valid ideas. That, and the deeply ingrained anti-intellectual tenor of your replies.

You threw something out there, and then refuse to engage in any good faith discussion about your statements.

 

[penanceroyaltea]

Is it unreasonable that a 21st century person's personal philosophy is a mixture of previous thoughts and ideas? Is that a novel concept?

in any case there is close to zero marxist analysis in my thought and I'm not sure how you're getting that but whatever



- this is not an appeal to natural law
- Some things are worth spending time on. Other things are frivolous. Everyone does frivolous ****. It makes sense to limit that frivolous **** to a few things so as to be a good person.
- spending your time playing video games or watching Appreciation is more frivolous than going to university and working on being a productive member of society. (or getting your electicians ticket or working on raising a family or whatever)
- We all have choices in how we choose to spend our time, how we choose to build our careers, our lifes, and our character

None of this is "philosophy" so I don't know why you're trying to place me into some weird box as if I actually need to hash this out.

You sound like Jordan Peterson

 

[hendrix]

I hate jordan peterson, dude is a moron.

 

[hendrix]

The idea that certain things are inherently frivolous and thus somehow morally suspect, "It makes sense to limit that frivolous **** to a few things so as to be a good person." is extremely puritanical.

I never said some things are inherently frivolous. In fact, I even went so far as to point out when some at-face-value "worthwhile" pursuits are in fact frivolous.

I dunno man. I guess that I just don't see how your own biases are at play here. You make these statements as if they were truths rather than simply your opinion, and it seems like not one that you can really defend or even explain.

I suppose that that's what I object to - the absolute nature of your statements, which leave no room for the possibility that there might be other, contradictory, valid ideas. That, and the deeply ingrained anti-intellectual tenor of your replies.

You threw something out there, and then refuse to engage in any good faith discussion about your statements.

Dude, it's a really simple statement. You don't have to agree with it. But you're wrong.

And I really object to the idea that the tenor of my statements is anti-intellectual. Just because I'm rejecting pseudo-intellectual ideas doesn't make me anti-intellectual.

 

[hendrix]

How to be a good person and what constitutes good character are important philosophical questions.

An individual's relationship with and duty to society is an important philosophical question.

Appeals to self-evident truths is an appeal to natural law.

And of course you need to hash it out. You were the one who made the initial set of statements. If you hadn't, you wouldn't need to hash anything out. But you did.

no, again that is not an appeal to natural law. I have very limited formal training in philosophy but I know enough to know that it's not an appeal to natural law. maybe you should look it up?

 

[LA Guy]

no, again that is not an appeal to natural law. I have very limited formal training in philosophy but I know enough to know that it's not an appeal to natural law. maybe you should look it up?

I'm not a philosopher or theologian either, but I did spend a fair bit of time reading Aquinas's Summa, since I was named after him, and then the derivative works, including non-theistic ideas of natural law.

Your statement, and I'm not sure if you ninja edited it, or if it's just so late that I can't find it anymore was this:
"I'm not going to spend hours coming up with a scientific definition for something we all know to be what it is." That is basically a reformulation of one of the tenets of natural law, that some things are naturally knowable by all human beings, self-evident truths, if you will.

I never said some things are inherently frivolous. In fact, I even went so far as to point out when some at-face-value "worthwhile" pursuits are in fact frivolous.

Dude, it's a really simple statement. You don't have to agree with it. But you're wrong.

And I really object to the idea that the tenor of my statements is anti-intellectual. Just because I'm rejecting pseudo-intellectual ideas doesn't make me anti-intellectual.

lol. "You don't have to agree with it. But you're wrong" is about as anti-intellectual as you get.

Also, I really object to this throwing around of the term "pseudo-intellectual" in an attempt to dismiss someone else's arguments. You don't get off that easily.

You can show that someone's ideas don't have any basis or are critically flawed, but it's intellectually dishonest to say that you don't need to engage with an argument by asserting that it is "pseudo-intellectual" without ever having shown it to be so. Your inability an unwillingness to engage in a good faith discussion, not your rejection of an idea, is what makes you anti-intellectual.

Anyway, it's super late, and I have another COVID-19 conference call at 7:30, so, in a few hours. The gist will be more modeling projections that show that COVID-19 reopening is not going great, unsurprisingly, hopefully some new modeling approaches, and then some reports from the virologists and immunologists pointing out new symptoms. Pretty predictable but hope springs eternal that something will lend some clarity. A few weeks ago, one non-expert expert suggested use of process engineering tools to linearize differential equations so that the effects of specific inputs and perturbations could be studied in isolation, so that's cool. Also some interesting graph theory work going on.

Which all goes to say that I'm done with the conversation. If you want to have the last word, have at it. I suppose that come morning here, the rest of the peanut gallery wlll either have weighed in or decided that this is garbage and move on.

 

[Racing Green]

I'm older than most on here (50) and can assert from a lifetime of experience that anything that gives you joy or satisfaction or a sense of accomplishment etc is never frivolous.

The entire concept of 'productivity' is bogus. I've just spent 2 hours sitting outside in the sunshine watching my kids cycle up and down the street, totally unproductive by simplistic definition but not to me or my kids.

Same applies to nerding over Japanese denim, fantasy football, benchmade shoes, Supreme drops, Northern Soul, handmade knives or whatever floats your boat.

Happiness outweighs any stupid notion of productivity. I work in PR so it makes me very attuned to the difference between worthwhile and what is just bullshit and especially the energy wasted on trying to prove to yourself and others that you are 'productive'.

 

[hendrix]

I'm not a philosopher or theologian either, but I did spend a fair bit of time reading Aquinas's Summa, since I was named after him, and then the derivative works, including non-theistic ideas of natural law.

Your statement, and I'm not sure if you ninja edited it, or if it's just so late that I can't find it anymore was this:
"I'm not going to spend hours coming up with a scientific definition for something we all know to be what it is." That is basically a reformulation of one of the tenets of natural law, that some things are naturally knowable by all human beings, self-evident truths, if you will.


lol. "You don't have to agree with it. But you're wrong" is about as anti-intellectual as you get.

Also, I really object to this throwing around of the term "pseudo-intellectual" in an attempt to dismiss someone else's arguments. You don't get off that easily.

You can show that someone's ideas don't have any basis or are critically flawed, but it's intellectually dishonest to say that you don't need to engage with an argument by asserting that it is "pseudo-intellectual" without ever having shown it to be so. Your inability an unwillingness to engage in a good faith discussion, not your rejection of an idea, is what makes you anti-intellectual.

Anyway, it's super late, and I have another COVID-19 conference call at 7:30, so, in a few hours. The gist will be more modeling projections that show that COVID-19 reopening is not going great, unsurprisingly, hopefully some new modeling approaches, and then some reports from the virologists and immunologists pointing out new symptoms. Pretty predictable but hope springs eternal that something will lend some clarity. A few weeks ago, one non-expert expert suggested use of process engineering tools to linearize differential equations so that the effects of specific inputs and perturbations could be studied in isolation, so that's cool. Also some interesting graph theory work going on.

Which all goes to say that I'm done with the conversation. If you want to have the last word, have at it. I suppose that come morning here, the rest of the peanut gallery wlll either have weighed in or decided that this is garbage and move on.

I am glad that you have a great deal of important work that you're dealing with. It sounds fascinating. I too have my own important work for which my understanding of philosophy and knowledge is very much as a functional tool, rather than an academic understanding. I think about 7 or 8 years ago I posted the cover to my thesis on here this forum - it was actually in the field of immunology. In the time since then I've taught myself arabic as an adult, got a second masters in a tangentially related field to my first one and now work in a small rural emergency department in the middle of nowhere. Neither of us are virtue signalling here; we both know that these are real, worthwhile pursuits with real, tangible, important outcomes.

Is it self evident that my time spent on the above, and your time COVID conference calls are more worthwhile than time spent on perfumes and knives and sneakers? Yes. Yes it is. Does this mean it's "naturally knowable by all human beings?" No - it's not "naturally knowable". It's cold, hard, tangibly knowable. Evident by things like people not dying, or less hardship in society, or the philosophy of doing the best you can.

This is not and has never been an appeal to nature, or an appeal to good will, or an appeal to purity.

If you read through my posts from the very beginning - the one in which I intimated that I like things as silly as perfume and that I'm posting on a fashion forum - you can see that this ascribed notion of puritanism is just simply not true.

Nor has this ever been anti-intellectual. I accept that my use of the term "pseudo-intellectual" may come off as poorly intentioned so for that I apologise. I should have simply stated that I reject the use of the unknowing or the unknowable as a rebuttal against simple critique or judgement. I don't say that lightly - I think of myself as somewhat in between a post-modernist and a nihilist and frequently do use a tear-down-the-sky approach to what is actually known myself. I just don't think your allegation that I'm alluding to "natural law" is at all applicable here.

 

[hendrix]

I'm older than most on here (50) and can assert from a lifetime of experience that anything that gives you joy or satisfaction or a sense of accomplishment etc is never frivolous.

The entire concept of 'productivity' is bogus. I've just spent 2 hours sitting outside in the sunshine watching my kids cycle up and down the street, totally unproductive by simplistic definition but not to me or my kids.

Same applies to nerding over Japanese denim, fantasy football, benchmade shoes, Supreme drops, Northern Soul, handmade knives or whatever floats your boat.

Happiness outweighs any stupid notion of productivity. I work in PR so it makes me very attuned to the difference between worthwhile and what is just bullshit and especially the energy wasted on trying to prove to yourself and others that you are 'productive'.

"Productivity" was the wrong word. Meaningful is the one I should have used from the start.

hmmmm, I don't really agree re: happiness.

 

[penanceroyaltea]

No wonder you and Fok don’t get along.

you’re basically Fok!

 

[mak1277]

"Productivity" was the wrong word. Meaningful is the one I should have used from the start.

hmmmm, I don't really agree re: happiness.

I'm not sure "meaningful" is even unassailable though, unless we all agree on the definition. Is all compensated work inherently "meaningful"? I for one don't think so. I am a highly compensated individual, but I am not so arrogant as to think my work is meaningful to society in any way (I'm a CPA who has only ever worked for large companies...nobody here is saving lives).

I'm definitely more in the @Racing Green happiness camp. I am much more fulfilled when I am pursuing my unmeaningful hobbies than I am when I'm at work.

 

[Chaconne]

How’d we get to meaningful vs frivolous? I thought we started with interesting vs boring? I have no interest in this knife conversation but if I cared about knives I’d rather have a conversation with someone who is passionate about them and has an enlightened knife wire than someone who only replies with “ I dunno.”
I think that was Fok’s point about nerds but I could be mistaken.

 

[London]

I'm older than most on here (50) and can assert from a lifetime of experience that anything that gives you joy or satisfaction or a sense of accomplishment etc is never frivolous.

The entire concept of 'productivity' is bogus. I've just spent 2 hours sitting outside in the sunshine watching my kids cycle up and down the street, totally unproductive by simplistic definition but not to me or my kids.

Same applies to nerding over Japanese denim, fantasy football, benchmade shoes, Supreme drops, Northern Soul, handmade knives or whatever floats your boat.

Happiness outweighs any stupid notion of productivity. I work in PR so it makes me very attuned to the difference between worthwhile and what is just bullshit and especially the energy wasted on trying to prove to yourself and others that you are 'productive'.

amen

 

[PeteyPajamapant]

get a sword and be done with it

 

[Joytropics]

get a sword and be done with it