Legitimate Reason to like suits?

[mb121]

Suits seem to symbolize a lot of what is good: wealth, professional attitude, stature (not in the Keating sense), power (not in the Toohey sense but in the sense of "power over yourself") etc.

I'm wondering if these are rational reasons to like suits. After all, we could attach these significant emotions to any other types of clothing - especially those that allow for the most efficient movement. Suits are outdated and stiff compared to other more modern types of clothing (clothing that fits precisely around your body and allows for the most efficient movement).

Furthermore, there are some really irrational aspects to traditional apparel as well: what are the point of ties that get in the way while you work? What about really stiff shoes, which although simple and beautiful in design, are somewhat surpassed by the ultra-modern and confortable sneakers that are market has also provided for us.

Yet despite all of this, I would wear nothing but suits. Am I being irrational?

[Inspector]

Am I being irrational?

What's your job? Do you wear suits off the job as well?

[Moebius]

Personally I dislike suits, but I wear one to work everyday.

I'm not sure what you mean by a suit symbolizing "power over one's self", since I do not attach my evaluation of my values (or power, or whatever) on my clothing. Furthermore, I do not attach any emotion at all to someone's attire, save perhaps in an aesthetic sense (which a lot of times have more to do with the person than the clothes). Of course I do appraise someone on first impression based on the clothes they wear, but it is based more on a recognition of social conventions than the clothing itself.

Do I think a suit can look good on someone? Sure. But personally I don't like wearing them, and I hate the fact that I have to wear them.

As for whether it's irrational to wear nothing but suits, it really depend on the reason why. It's perfectly rational, for instance, if you simply think they look good, or if it achieves a certain effect that you want on others. But it's obviously irrational if you wear nothing but suits because it "gives you power over yourself".

[mb121]

No, it's not 'power over myself' that I meant, but it symbolizes power over one's self when I see them worn on others.

It's perfectly rational, for instance, if you simply think they look good, or if it achieves a certain effect that you want on others.

A little devil's advocate here: I should like them because I 'simply think they look good'? I'm trying to analyze why i think they look good to see if it is rational or not. To achieve a certain affect on others? Isn't that a bit selfless?

Furthermore, what is the objectivist point of clothing anyway? (I know this is extreme but I'm just trying to use reason to determine something here). Why have clothes at all if one doesn't want them for rational reasons? Suppose I was most efficient without restriction from clothing. In an ideal frame of mind, should I listen to others when they tell me I should wear a suit, baggy pants, or x?

[Chops]

I should like them because I 'simply think they look good'?

If you like how they make you look, then that's reason enough to wear them.

To achieve a certain affect on others? Isn't that a bit selfless?

Depends. If you are just trying to impress random others with your taste, ability to afford suits, or whatever, then yes, that's selfless. However, if someone whom you value appreciates and likes suits, then there's nothing wrong with wearing a suit for someone (say a girlfriend at a fancy restaurant).

I generally don't care about suits, but I'll wear one out of respect for individuals whom I respect on special occasions. As an example, I'll dress up for the symphony out of respect for the performers. Usually, I wear what I am comfortable wearing, which typically amounts to shorts, a t-shirt, and flip-flops (in summer anyway). If you prefer to wear suits, then wear suits.

[JASKN]

There are many objective reasons for wearing clothing, and some of them have already been stated: work, social events, comfort, aesthetic taste, shelter from the elements, sports activities, and so forth. But what pieces of clothing would be appropriate in each situation is very contextual. What kind of person is wearing the clothing? What kinds of clothes does a particular viewer enjoy? What are the clothing trends of the time?

If you are asking for an aesthetic theory behind clothing styles, to my knowledge there isn't a good one out there. You might try reading Rand's Romantic Manifesto to get some ideas, based on general aesthetic theory.

Personally, I think suits and ties are pleasant for people to look at mostly due to their historical precedent, who has been associated with them, and what they now symbolize. The rest is possibly due to some good aesthetics, such as clean lines and sharply accented bodily features.

Coincidentally, I had been thinking about this very subject last week. I still enjoy a good suit, but I think it's a bit of psychological residue, and on its way out; suits are uncomfortable, cumbersome, superfluously styled, and over-priced! I like the sport-clothing trend on the rise. Want to dress up? Buy higher quality, more comfortable material!

[Inspector]

If you like how they make you look, then that's reason enough to wear them.

No, that's not true. Simply liking something is not reason enough - that like could be rational or irrational.

[Prometheus98876]

If you like how they make you look, then that's reason enough to wear them.

No..if you like them AND if doing so serves some rational purpose.

[softwareNerd]

In Chops's defense, he didn't simply say to wear suits if one likes to. He provided a first-level reason: to look good.

[JMeganSnow]

No, that's not true. Simply liking something is not reason enough - that like could be rational or irrational.

Actually this isn't true. In the realm of the optional, it's perfectly rational to do something just because you like it. I like chocolate ice cream, so when I get ice cream, it's usually chocolate. I like blue better than yellow, so when I choose colors for something, I usually get blue over yellow. I prefer email over phone conversations, so usually when I need to contact someone I email them.

Now, if you're a psychologist you may be curious as to why you like something, (I'm generally curious about that sort of thing) but I've found that for sensory stuff the "reasons" people come up with are usually pretty contrived. Why do I like chocolate better than vanilla? Does it even matter why I like chocolate better than vanilla? It's a totally optional value.

This even applies to higher-level values like studying law vs. studying medicine. If you've identified both of these as rational values, the reason why you'd pick one or the other is, well, basically that you like it.

[KendallJ]

Do I think a suit can look good on someone? Sure. But personally I don't like wearing them, and I hate the fact that I have to wear them.

hmm, now here is an interesting question. Do you hate the fact that you have to wear them just because:

a. you hate suits in general or

b. you hate the idea that someone requires you to wear something you don't like. i.e. do you not like the idea of a dress code.

I used to hate the idea of a dress code, and when I was in manufacturing I loved wearing jeans and t-shirts to work. However, I'm now fully sold on the idea, especially for positions which interface with customers.

[KendallJ]

Actually this isn't true. In the realm of the optional, it's perfectly rational to do something just because you like it. I like chocolate ice cream, so when I get ice cream, it's usually chocolate. I like blue better than yellow, so when I choose colors for something, I usually get blue over yellow. I prefer email over phone conversations, so usually when I need to contact someone I email them.

Now, if you're a psychologist you may be curious as to why you like something, (I'm generally curious about that sort of thing) but I've found that for sensory stuff the "reasons" people come up with are usually pretty contrived. Why do I like chocolate better than vanilla? Does it even matter why I like chocolate better than vanilla? It's a totally optional value.

This even applies to higher-level values like studying law vs. studying medicine. If you've identified both of these as rational values, the reason why you'd pick one or the other is, well, basically that you like it.

This is a really important point. Sometimes, we try to ask what a philosophy like Objectivism says about every little thing. We ought to also consider that there are a whole lot of aspects of life which philosophy is silent on, which are arbitrary. Suit or khakis, boxer or briefs, chocolate or vanilla, blue or red, cats or dogs (wait, maybe not that one ). Philosophy (or psychology) might say something about a particular aspect of these things in a particular context, or it might be completely arbitrary.

[D'kian]

Furthermore, there are some really irrational aspects to traditional apparel as well: what are the point of ties that get in the way while you work?

Have you never heard of a tie clip?

Oh, well. That's easy for me to say. The dress code at work is "business casual." Meaning any kind fo buttoned shirt, any kind of non-jeans slacks and any kind of non-sneaker shoes (except I wear black Air Nikes because my job often involves prolonged periods standing up or walking). And we do have casual Fridays.

I wear a suit only for occasions such as weddings, formal events, etc. I've probably worn a tie less than 200 times in all my life. I don't even know how to tie it on.

Most men look good in a suit if it fits propperly, but I rarely take notice of what other men look like. Women, now, look wonderful in business suits, and women's suits are much more varied. And women are a lot mroe pleasant to look at, too.

[KendallJ]

I'm not sure what you mean by a suit symbolizing "power over one's self", since I do not attach my evaluation of my values (or power, or whatever) on my clothing. Furthermore, I do not attach any emotion at all to someone's attire, save perhaps in an aesthetic sense (which a lot of times have more to do with the person than the clothes). Of course I do appraise someone on first impression based on the clothes they wear, but it is based more on a recognition of social conventions than the clothing itself.

a. couldn't mb's statement not mean attaching value to clothing, but rather having clothing reflect one's estimation of oneself. This certainly is goverened by social convention, but is not necessarily vain or second handed. I think expressing a sense of esthetics is valid reason for "decorating" yourself.

b. Don't minimize that "easthetic sense" piece. That actually is an important basis for which to consider dress. Are you telling me that when your girlfriend gets dolled up to go to the theatre, you don't respond differently that if she's wearing flip flops and jeans to go the bookstore.

[KendallJ]

Furthermore, there are some really irrational aspects to traditional apparel as well: what are the point of ties that get in the way while you work? What about really stiff shoes, which although simple and beautiful in design, are somewhat surpassed by the ultra-modern and confortable sneakers that are market has also provided for us.

Whats the point of ties? Stiff shoes? Good god, man, you and I are going to have to go shopping.

Men have so few degrees of freedom socially compared to women when it comes to dress, and you go throwing out 2 of the most important "levers" we've got.

What do we get as far as choices for formal attire:

a. Suit color: black, blue, grey

b. Collar cut

c. Shirt color

d. TIE!!

e. Shoes - very important!

f. belt (must match shoes and it's hardly seen anyway)

The tie is where you get to show your asthetic flair!

Am I the only guy that wishes that there were places you could still wear classic black tails with white vest and white tie? (except of course, the prom and one's wedding...)

Ladies, whose up for the symphony?

[Inspector]

Actually this isn't true. In the realm of the optional, it's perfectly rational to do something just because you like it. I like chocolate ice cream, so when I get ice cream, it's usually chocolate. I like blue better than yellow, so when I choose colors for something, I usually get blue over yellow. I prefer email over phone conversations, so usually when I need to contact someone I email them.

Sure, for the truly optional. But just saying that because you like how "x" looks, that's reason enough to wear "x," is not true. For instance, what if Johnny likes how he looks smeared in feces? Or, more realistically, what if he likes wearing clothes that don't fit because he likes to look deformed (a la medieval Christian art that depicted man as a deformed wretch)?

[Chops]

For instance, what if Johnny likes how he looks smeared in feces? Or, more realistically, what if he likes wearing clothes that don't fit because he likes to look deformed

Those actions are indeed irrational, but they also fall outside the domain of "rational clothing." In the context of rational clothing (sweats, shorts and t-shirt, polo and khakis, suit and tie), in standard, everyday situations, no real justification is necessary if I wish to wear sweats or a suit. If I like how a suit looks, and I feel that the time it takes to press and dress a suit is worth it, then sweet. Obviously context plays into consideration here, such as one wouldn't want to wear a suit in the garden or while playing a sport.

But in the context of "Today is a normal day, and I could realistically wear anything here in my closet, what should I wear?," the decision to wear what you like does not need justification beyond "I like it."

I hope that was clearer, as I realize my original statement relied on what I assumed were universal implications.

[Inspector]

I hope that was clearer, as I realize my original statement relied on what I assumed were universal implications.

It's clearer, and eliminates much of the problems of the unclear position, but I still don't agree. There are certain things we "just like," but something as complex as clothing is not one of those things. You may like a suit but you don't "just like" a suit. There are reasons for it.

[~Sophia~]

Am I the only guy that wishes that there were places you could still wear classic black tails with white vest and white tie? (except of course, the prom and one's wedding...)

You are not the only one!

[JMeganSnow]

It's clearer, and eliminates much of the problems of the unclear position, but I still don't agree. There are certain things we "just like," but something as complex as clothing is not one of those things. You may like a suit but you don't "just like" a suit. There are reasons for it.

I posit that food is a great deal more complicated than clothing and I "just like" food. Complexity is not the issue here. I like a suit on a guy but if I lived in 16th-century Europe when the height of fashion was lace and high heels I probably would think THAT looked good. Who knows.

The reasons why you have a clothing preferences "model" has to do with the context in which those clothes are presented to you over the course of your lifetime. It's largely psychological and, since it is optional, isn't something you need to spend a lot of time dwelling on.

Personally, I like a guy that looks good in a suit, but if you don't look good in a suit don't wear one. My poor ex looked really good in jeans and a polo shirt or a T-shirt, but the one time I saw him wear a suit he looked like a confused penguin. Take the guy in Kendall's picture, add about 90 pounds and lop off 6 inches of height . . . not to mention he had a really short neck and round face, and you get the idea.

[mb121]

Wait a minute: "optional values"? I've never heard such a thing in objectivism! Of course I know you are not a hedonist JMeganSnow (quite the opposite), but this is hedonism! Just do whatever feels good? No, there is a reason why we do everything and we must analyze it and figure out whether or not it is rational.

We start with tradition (ie, the collective experiences of millions of men before us).

Tradition gave us traditional apparel, ie, suits. There is a reason why millions of men have worn variants of these things in the last few centuries. So, why do did they like them? They have imparted this cultural value upon us in the 21st century. I admit I like suits. So, why did I like them? Should I like them? This is where reason comes in; I can analyze what has been passed down to me and change my tastes to what is most rational.

There is real value here in this conversation. If one likes a suit and he can't discover why he likes it, we shouldn't just call it "optional value." I would posit that there is even reason why you like chocolate over vanilla, although it probably has to do with biology, but if you wanted the answer you could find it. Finally, this is not the same as chocolate vs. vanilla because this is not physical taste (which is not controllable), this is aesthetic taste (which is very controllable).

Edited May 9, 2007 by mb121

[KendallJ]

You are not the only one!

Great! Brahms, Beethoven, and Strauss, June 2. Pick you up at 7.

(just kidding, but it's a nice thought. I'll be in China instead.)

Wait a minute: "optional values"? I've never heard such a thing in objectivism! Of course I know you are not a hedonist JMeganSnow (quite the opposite), but this is hedonism! Just do whatever feels good? No, there is a reason why we do everything and we must analyze it and figure out whether or not it is rational.

Not so fast there mb. Let's be clear. Some aspect is optional. The example Megan gave of a career for instance is correct.

A purpose, as such, is not an optional value. The specific purpose you choose, is, and it must be congruent with other parts of Objectivist ethics. (e.g. being a thief is not a valid purpose)

Hardly hedonism. It is contextual vs. subjective. Don't confuse the two.

[LaszloWalrus]

Wait a minute: "optional values"? I've never heard such a thing in objectivism! Of course I know you are not a hedonist JMeganSnow (quite the opposite), but this is hedonism! Just do whatever feels good? No, there is a reason why we do everything and we must analyze it and figure out whether or not it is rational.

"Optional value" is a legitimate concept in Objectivism.

[mb121]

Careers are no different! For some reason I like the law. Why? Well, probably because [x] (my father was a lawyer, my grandpa, etc. and I saw him). Now, I could analyze why the job is appealing to me and come up with rational reasons to change my tastes to medicine (ie, I'm better at medicine, it makes more money [money is only 1 concern out of 100 tho], or whatever is more rational).

Thus, career choice isn't an "optional value" either. The concept of "optional value" I think is subjectivism. Both butter and brocolli are values to me, but in the priority scheme which is my life, brocolli is much more important since it doesn't make me fat. Some choices might be better for me (after all we live in an objective reality), but the time it would take to discover the better choice would be so inverted that I would be better off just going off of the gut feeling. That doesn't mean that any value can be "optional," it just means I value time efficiency more than figuring out exactly how many calories brocolli has versus carrots.

Again, I don't think "optional value" makes sense.

[KendallJ]

Careers are no different! For some reason I like the law. Why? Well, probably because [x] (my father was a lawyer, my grandpa, etc. and I saw him). Now, I could analyze why the job is appealing to me and come up with rational reasons to change my tastes to medicine (ie, I'm better at medicine, it makes more money [money is only 1 concern out of 100 tho], or whatever is more rational).

Thus, career choice isn't an "optional value" either. The concept of "optional value" I think is subjectivism. Both butter and brocolli are values to me, but in the priority scheme which is my life, brocolli is much more important since it doesn't make me fat. Some choices might be better for me (after all we live in an objective reality), but the time it would take to discover the better choice would be so inverted that I would be better off just going off of the gut feeling. That doesn't mean that any value can be "optional," it just means I value time efficiency more than figuring out exactly how many calories brocolli has versus carrots.

Again, I don't think "optional value" makes sense.

I think you're missing the point. All value choices has some aspects which are essential to the choice as a value. Some aspects however are inessential to the choice as a value. That is, change that aspect and it makes no difference from a value perspective. When you exhaust all the essential aspects and still have 2 "equal" choices, then what's left is optional.

You keep inserting examples that have essential issues. Butter and broccoli? Nutrition is an essential aspect to consider so that's not what we're talkingn about. Try broccoli and spinach instead. Eating healthy food is a value. I'd argue that the two are pretty equivalent on that aspect. They both taste like crap so what's left? It's optional which you choose.

Claiming that everything is philosophically essential to a choice has a term for it as well: deterministic. All our best choices are predetermined for us.

If you think you can give a philosophical reason why Jen likes chocolate over vanilla, I'd love to see you try it. You may argue that it is biological, but then it has nothing to do with the value aspect of the choice. Biology is not philosophy, psychology is not philosophy, but please offer up that argument.

Edited May 9, 2007 by KendallJ