Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Legitimate Reason to like suits?

Rate this topic


mb121

Recommended Posts

I like the idea of suits, but I have difficulty finding actual suits I like. I am not yet possessed of sufficient income to have someone make me some suits, so I'm stuck with the off-the-rack variety. The most annoying thing about off-the-rack suits is that the 36Rs (my size; impossible to find) are cut in exactly the same style as the 48Rs. I want a suit that fits me, not that tries to hide my non-existent spare tire. And I have yet to figure out why they put pleats in pants smaller than 32". The store tailor won't take them out; I have to take them to a specialty expensive place. And I can't find four-button suits anywhere. And what happened to waistcoats/vests/three piece suits? Those were flash. I wish they'd come back, but not in a Justin Timberlake sort of way.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suits are the uniform of business. One dresses in a suit to acknowledge that he takes his business seriously.

Having said that, suits are not always the uniform of business. It depends on the business, and the job function. In sales, on Wall Street, in law, in many professions, wearing a suit is the sign of taking business seriously. That is not true in plenty of other professions.

I like wearing a suit, when it is called for. If it is not called for, I am glad that I don't have to wear a suit. I look good in a suit, but they are hot in summer, it requires more time to put them on, etc.

A suit is also a sign of respect and esteem at a wedding for the couple being married. It is a sign of respect at a funeral.

Showing respect or not is the philosophical/psychological significance of suits. There really is no philosophical meaning for suits per se. Hell, in the 1700s, men showed respect by wearing stockings and powdered wigs! The particular form of showing respect is entirely a function of custom. Today it is suits. Tomorrow it will be who knows? However, the fact that social customs will exist to show respect (or not) is unlikely ever to go away. Maybe clothing will no longer be used for that purpose, but that also seems unlikely, since throughout history particular items of clothing have been worn to signify respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).
I wonder if what you say about taste is actually true. Anyone who has ever had a drink of Scotch Whisky would likely admit that coming to enjoy that beverage requires quite a bit of work before you aquire a taste. The same goes for many foods with strong flavors. With certain foods, you can make a conscious effort to eat that food and you will often (but not always, of course) acquire a taste for it. On the other hand, aesthetic taste seems as if it is particularly hard to acquire for some people. How many Hollywierd stars can you think of who have gobs of money but not a scintilla of taste?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posit that food is a great deal more complicated than clothing and I "just like" food. Complexity is not the issue here.

That may be the wrong word, then. What I mean is that there are things we "just like" and clothing is several steps removed from that. As in, you don't "just like" thanksgiving. You like it because it's a day off which allows you to rest which is necessary for you to "recharge" and that feels good and you "just like" feeling good. (that's one reason to like it; there are others)

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.

Yes, all true... but there is a difference between that and "just liking" something.

And what happened to waistcoats/vests/three piece suits? Those were flash. I wish they'd come back

I've got one of those - it is very sharp. I get lots of compliments whenever I wear it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Reason B.

I don't particularly like wearing suits, but I don't dislike them either. I hate when people tell me I have to do something though.

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.

I didn't minimize the aesthetic piece. In fact what I said was outside of practical purposes (keeping warm, protection, whatever), that is the only value I really attach to clothes -- to look good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

How so? In what sense does wearing a particular piece of clothing symbolize power over one's self?

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?

As far as "simply look good" I'm talking about aesthetic taste. I suppose you can try and analyze the rationalities behind your taste, but it's probably so intertwined with your psychology, culture, and upbringing as to be an exercise in futility. Even if you were to somehow actually figure it out, it would still be something that applies only to yourself and would not be an universal truth -- so why bother?

How is trying to achieve a certain effect on others selfless? For instance, if I'm a businessman and I'm trying to convince someone of my professionalism in order to close a deal, how is that in anyway selfless? Or if a girl wears something sexy when she goes out, but wears something conservative when she goes to work, how is that selfless? You have a goal that you are trying to achieve, which may involve how someone perceive you on impression, so you do what you have to do achieve that goal.

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?

I'm not speaking for Objectivists, but like I said there seem to be only three rational reasons for clothes:

1. Practicality - comfort, warmth, protection, etc.

2. Aesthetics

3. Effect - looking professional, sexy, whatever.

And obviously, if someone offered you advice, you run it through your head using reason and taking into account your personal values and your appraisal of the advisor's knowledge and credibility, and then decide. This holds true regardless of what subject we're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not deterministic to say that there IS a right choice between brocolli and spinach. The value is pre-determined in the sense that there IS a right course for me to take, but it is not pre-determined in the fact that I will just automatically choose it. The same goes for chocolate and vanilla (there is one that is objectively better for me, but the time it would take to find out isn't worth it in the long run).

Now, applying this to suits, is it objectivist to submit to culture and societal standards when trying to send a "professional" image or whatever? Is this a rational thing to do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, applying this to suits, is it objectivist to submit to culture and societal standards when trying to send a "professional" image or whatever? Is this a rational thing to do?

Of course it's rational, although I wouldn't consider it "submitting" per se. The societal convention is what it is, whether the conventions are rational or not. Choosing to live my life rationally certainly doesn't mean that I have to necessarily believe that everyone else in the world does so as well. As such, I do what I have to in order to achieve the goals I want as long as it is within my moral parameters. To me, this is the only rational course of action.

The only time I would actively seek to change or destroy an irrational social convention (assuming that it is possible) is when the said convention is interfering with my rights or when the value for doing so is great enough. As such, the fact that people associate suits with being professional does not qualify. Besides it isn't at all clear to me that this particular convention is necessarily entirely irrational (albeit it is certainly arbitrary).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

4173_Ritz%20with%20dog%20ad.jpg

There are other options as well (like the vest or the pocket square, if one likes these things). Also, assuming one has such shirts, one can choose the buttons to go them and the cuff links to wear. One can also choose to wear a tie stay (and one can choose the type of tie stay to wear).

My favorite thing to wear (even more than white tie) is a morning suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

For regular business attire (as opposed to formal wear), do you have any prefered brands of suits, shirts, ties and shoes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, applying this to suits, is it objectivist to submit to culture and societal standards when trying to send a "professional" image or whatever? Is this a rational thing to do?

Yes. It's really just a form of language. Language is established by society and you have to submit to it when communicating - and that is for your own good if you want to be correctly understood. Professional language is the language of professionals. It's not just your clothing, it is also the way you write your letter, for example. You can't just begin your letter with "hi sir, ". And you can't just end it any way you like as long as it makes sense to you. It is rational to submit to such traditions simply because words or esthetic symbols (including dress) are a rational form of communication (of a particular message or a general message about yourself) to others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same goes for chocolate and vanilla (there is one that is objectively better for me, but the time it would take to find out isn't worth it in the long run).

hmm. maybe I used the wrong word. Deterministic is not quite what I want.

However, I'd like to see this argument for chocolate over vanilla, as a value judgement. Your statement in the parenthetical is self-refuting, isn't it? Aren't you essentially saying, "There is a value difference, but the value of the time lost to determine the value, negates it." If this is the case, then isn't it for all practical purposes, an optional value choice?

It may not be optional for an omnicient being, but value choices are human choices and so omnicience is an odd standard, by which to claim there are no "optional values".

Now, applying this to suits, is it objectivist to submit to culture and societal standards when trying to send a "professional" image or whatever? Is this a rational thing to do?

a. is it rational to send an image at all?

b. if a is the objective, then is it rational to use social convention to do so?

a. is debatable and contextual. I can imagine situations (where you want to project a false image, for instance) where you could say it is irrational, and I could also imagine situations such as business situations where it is perfectly rational.

b. this is an absolute YES. It is sort of like asking if you should speak swedish in order to communicate verbally with someone else who speaks only swedish. Duh. If a. is rational, then it would be irrational to NOT use the context of social convention to communicate it.

This is why I asked about your chafing at suit wearing. If a. is not your goal, then it is certianly understandable that you would chafe at a dress code; however, if a. is your goal and you still are angry that social convention is the mechanism you are "forced" to use, well then that is irrational. It's not force. Any dress code based upon social convention is simply a recognition of reality, i.e. that if you want to communicate an image to someone else you have to use a language they will understand. Recognize that your dress communicates something whether you want to or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For regular business attire (as opposed to formal wear), do you have any prefered brands of suits, shirts, ties and shoes?

I'm not quite the fashion guy to ask. I live in a small town with not much need for dress up (not much theatre or the like) and my work dress code is bus casual. So I have enough suit clothes to get by, but it is pretty basic. My selection locally is pretty slim. I like to shop at a higher end dept store like Marshall Fields (is it Macy's now?), etc for mens wear, just because it makes sense to invest a little money since you'll own the clothes for a while.

No preferred brands really. (There's a certain minimum fabric weight I think, other wise a suit will not lay well, or wear well) For suits and slacks, fit is the most important. Make sure it fits you well. Have it tailored if it doesn't.

For dress shoes, I prefer to buy a more expensive pair of leather shoes (e.g. Cohl-Haan, Bostonian, - minimum $125-150 for a leather dress shoe), and then take good care of them (store them in shoe trees, and minimize salt exposure), find a good cobbler, and have them work them over at least annually. Good shoes will last a decade and continue to look new if you do that.

Maybe GB can weigh in. I know he lives in NYC, and probably has more occasion to dress up. Frankly, I'd like to, but in a small midwestern town, you send a bit of an 'aloof' image if you dress too far above the norm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of turning this thread into an episode of Sex in the City, I've found that Allen Edmonds makes a great pair of men's shoes. They are fairly expensive, but sometimes you can find them on sale or closeout. They are shoes that will literally last a lifetime if cared for properly, plus they are still made in America (if that matters to you). As far as off the rack suits go, I'm fairly partial to Hart Schaffner & Marx and the various brands they manufacture. They have a wide range of quality and price points available. For shirts, I can't pick a specific brand, but all cotton with medium starch is my choice. Finally, for ties a maker called Robert Talbott has some great patterns.

My dad owned a men's store for years so I know something about clothing. It's pretty much the same story with power tools as it is with clothes: buy the best stuff you can afford and you won't likely be disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dad owned a men's store for years so I know something about clothing. It's pretty much the same story with power tools as it is with clothes: buy the best stuff you can afford and you won't likely be disappointed.

Well, shoot, you led me on. You're the expert!

Thanks for the shoe recommendations. I will check into them. They look great on the website, and in the expected price range (I low balled a bit on my previous. That is a minimum.)

I wholeheartedly agree with the general recommendation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same goes for chocolate and vanilla (there is one that is objectively better for me, but the time it would take to find out isn't worth it in the long run).

Right. I just bet you eat ice cream strictly for the calories and its nutritional content. Assuming you eat it at all, that is. How about this one: do you get the blue iPod or the white iPod? They are both identical in every respect except one: the color. If optional values don't exist (or aren't valid) then you have no means by which to choose between one and the other, in fact the existence of the apparent choice is irrational. We should go back to the days of Henry Ford: you can have any color you want, as long as it's black.

Now, me, because I happen to be in a blue mood, I'll take the blue iPod. I like blue. You can spend hours researching which color is "better for you" on the internet and reading all sorts of flaky research by all sorts of crazed hacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My room is full of blue things and white makes it easier for me to notice my ipod.

There's one rational reason to like white.

My clothes are mostly white so I want to have a blue ipod for slight visibility ease.

There's one rational reason to like blue.

Do you see what I'm saying here?

I agree that holding this to the standard of omniscience is bad (since our knowledge is finite); however, I still think if you got down to it there would be a rational color for your ipod.

Now, the argument about how value of time supercedes value of color/food/whatever is true. If time were the value than wasting time to choose a color of your ipod would cease to be a value.

My position is now this: optional value exists only in the sense that we must at some point make up our minds to maximize time-efficiency. It's just that "aesthetically" speaking, the phrase sounded so subjectivist that I might have had too much of a violent reaction (sorry if it came across as that).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, on the clothes thing. If clothes were purely about sending a message, then would I be irrational to want to wear suits in the privacy of my own home? Would about in occasions where you might seem a bit aloof? Maybe it is irrational to wear suits in these specific instances but not in other circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...