Clothes what - Page 8

so many tl dr posts ..
like wtf , just suggest some brands , thats what this thread was made for-_-

That definition and mine are mostly the same. Designing clothes is a creative endeavor so you can't say people who are fashionable undervalue art and beauty. Intellectual content and spiritual values don't have a lot to do with fashion, fashion in principle certainly doesn't betray those values. Materialistic, sometimes. Favoring conventional social values, being fashionable isn't really a conventional social value, maybe in Korea I guess. Forms of art that have cheap and easy appeal; doesn't really apply to fashion.

I still fail to see how fashionable people fit into that description. You can't really say everyone who's into fashion are condescending towards those who are not. That's based on your personal experience and is pretty much a prejudice.

Not gonna get into details but sure I agree. Most people get excited over some type of material thing. I can get excited over buying clothes and still have a fulfilling life. I don't understand what you absolutely refuse to agree with in principle. Are you following the Stoic doctrine? I know temperance is a virtue so do you regard people who spend a lot of money on clothes as intemperate?

If this thread was about how clothes are unnecessary would you come in here and argue the opposite because you are a dissident?

On August 28 2010 21:57 zulu_nation8 wrote: Show nested quote + On August 28 2010 20:35 Loco wrote:   On August 28 2010 18:50 zulu_nation8 wrote:   On August 28 2010 17:41 Loco wrote:   On August 28 2010 17:00 Night2o1 wrote: The human brain isn't built to be rational, and there's no rule that says everything in life has to be rational. Every person has their own idiosyncrasies and most of the time these individual traits are going to be harmless. Trying to run around ironing out everyone's personalities isn't going to help anything. Why can't you just let people in here discuss the topic they are interested in and GTFO instead of AW'ing the fuck out of every thread by bringing up an argument and turning the threads topic into 'what does baal think of this subject'. I completely agree with you about rationalization, but I believe you are mistaking if you believe that having a consumerist lifestyle has anything to do with one's own idiosyncrasies. It is not unique to his own, it is a borrowed habit coming from socio-cultural values. For that reason it is something that is embraced or abandoned. Baal is in a heroic mission in his mind to help people realize things about themselves that they are oblivious to, and sadly that is not his job and only arises antagony. I have been guilty of the same. He doesn't mean any wrong with it. Nigga every value you have is a socio-cultural value. You can't NOT be cultured. If you were born in some sort of society you will be like everyone else. There's nothing to fight here. If you want to experience the limits of society, you can either commit some crimes or take LSD, those are Foucauldian limit-experiences society does not offer. If you are not doing any of those things then you are living just like everyone else. I don't see what people are oblivious to. No one can judge the value of values except for the individual. This is untrue. I agree that we are formed by those very values in our most sentient period, but not beyond. Our 'Ids' at birth are malleable by direction, discipline, transference, never by abuse or suppression. In addition, we inherit a basic pattern from our chromosomes and genes which is our essential individuality and also rectifiable. And there is the most potent of all - 'environment', which includes parents and everything associative and inflicted upon us at that period. All our early controls are forged and forced on us from it. These three fundamentals are in constant impact creating experiences, forming our complexities, frustrations, desires, good, evil, hate, temperament, character and the direction of our individuality, ethics and principles. After the dangerous transition from adolescence comes the opportunity to break or not the harness of these controls. I am not like everyone else because I have broken them; but I make no virtue of it. I don't disagree with the first part. You clearly do regard breaking free of traditional values as a virtue. If you are not a criminal and you are not insane, you have inherited most of the societal values everyone else has. So in my perspective, you have not broken anything, neither has anyone else who posts on this forum. You may have taken on different values than the ones you were raised on, and doing so may be an achievement in your own right. But you have not transgressed the boundaries everyone lives within. You sleep in a house, you pay your taxes, you are a functional member of society. From both a personal and philosophical point of view, I'd much rather enjoy life than fight it. There are too many cynics and not enough ones who are grateful.

"You clearly do regard breaking free of traditional values as a virtue." I would rather use the term 'conventional', and I don't. What I believe is that it is a necessity in the process of reformation to accomplish virtue in behaviour. I believe in straying to find one's own path rather than following the band-wagon, the manufactured pleasures and the thinking done for you. It is not meant to be gratifying, as you seem to believe, but done for its own sake. When I say that I have "broken them", I am not speaking of societal standards for living; or saying that I have achieved sovereignty; I am not talking about my place in society and being completely independent from it, you have misunderstood. I am talking about my individuality; about the controls and the corruption my Ids - influenced by early environment and associations - have had on me since birth, and stating that they are no longer in effect. This is very different, because as I have stated, the environment molds us initially, but then we can mold ourselves, which doesn't prevent us being part of society still, although it -reformation while being socially active - is extremely difficult in every case I can think of, unless you are an artist or have another occupation which allows you to.

I believe there is no greater virtue than to work hard at something for which one is well suited - and there is no better service to ourselves and others - than to enjoy our leisure our own way, generating our own truth and worth without argument, i.e, without forcing them on others or allowing others to inflict theirs on you. I believe in leading a full life, but am also disgusted at the actions of those who believe in 'living life to the fullest' which I more or less equate to living life to the foulest instead. I do not believe I am "fighting life" by negating common vain ideals and pleasures. I have more sympathies for the Cynic than the Hedonist, although I'm more of a believer in a life orbiting around aesthetics rather than asceticism.

Edit: I could've made it easier in my post by saying what I have broken from is, partly, society's impact on my will rather than society itself.

On August 28 2010 22:51 zulu_nation8 wrote: That definition and mine are mostly the same. Designing clothes is a creative endeavor so you can't say people who are fashionable undervalue art and beauty. Intellectual content and spiritual values don't have a lot to do with fashion, fashion in principle certainly doesn't betray those values. Materialistic, sometimes. Favoring conventional social values, being fashionable isn't really a conventional social value, maybe in Korea I guess. Forms of art that have cheap and easy appeal; doesn't really apply to fashion. I still fail to see how fashionable people fit into that description. You can't really say everyone who's into fashion are condescending towards those who are not. That's based on your personal experience and is pretty much a prejudice. Not gonna get into details but sure I agree. Most people get excited over some type of material thing. I can get excited over buying clothes and still have a fulfilling life. I don't understand what you absolutely refuse to agree with in principle. Are you following the Stoic doctrine? I know temperance is a virtue so do you regard people who spend a lot of money on clothes as intemperate? If this thread was about how clothes are unnecessary would you come in here and argue the opposite because you are a dissident?

I guess I will be pegged as an art snob, but I do not relate in any way to the creativity and artistry of fashion designers. I do not respect their 'creative' visions. I do not see the beauty in it either. True art and creativity survives trends. Also, from my own perspective, modern things, whatever their style, are always under or over-rated. You can undervalue true art and beauty while still being creative - many do and they are easy to find because what they create is always going to be ugly in the eyes of those who can discern it. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

"You can't really say everyone who's into fashion are condescending towards those who are not. That's based on your personal experience and is pretty much a prejudice" since I have never said such a thing I wasn't prejudiced. I have only said that iop had been.

I am Stoic always, saying I follow any-thing wouldn't be correct, though. Yes, intemperate seems to fit well. Again, though, I do not condemn it, after all I was once a person who would spend more than I should, and grasp more than I needed.

"If this thread was about how clothes are unnecessary would you come in here and argue the opposite because you are a dissident?"

By that logic I should oppose my own ideals too? Aren't you capable of understanding how I use a certain word without us defining every one of them? As far as I know being a dissident doesn't mean that I disagree with everything and that I always want to argue about everything. On the other hand it does hint that what I was imposed, or exposed to I have disagreed with. In a way it has more to do with nonconformism than just some vague disagreements for the sake of disagreeing.

On August 28 2010 22:57 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On August 28 2010 21:57 zulu_nation8 wrote:   On August 28 2010 20:35 Loco wrote:   On August 28 2010 18:50 zulu_nation8 wrote:   On August 28 2010 17:41 Loco wrote:   On August 28 2010 17:00 Night2o1 wrote: The human brain isn't built to be rational, and there's no rule that says everything in life has to be rational. Every person has their own idiosyncrasies and most of the time these individual traits are going to be harmless. Trying to run around ironing out everyone's personalities isn't going to help anything. Why can't you just let people in here discuss the topic they are interested in and GTFO instead of AW'ing the fuck out of every thread by bringing up an argument and turning the threads topic into 'what does baal think of this subject'. I completely agree with you about rationalization, but I believe you are mistaking if you believe that having a consumerist lifestyle has anything to do with one's own idiosyncrasies. It is not unique to his own, it is a borrowed habit coming from socio-cultural values. For that reason it is something that is embraced or abandoned. Baal is in a heroic mission in his mind to help people realize things about themselves that they are oblivious to, and sadly that is not his job and only arises antagony. I have been guilty of the same. He doesn't mean any wrong with it. Nigga every value you have is a socio-cultural value. You can't NOT be cultured. If you were born in some sort of society you will be like everyone else. There's nothing to fight here. If you want to experience the limits of society, you can either commit some crimes or take LSD, those are Foucauldian limit-experiences society does not offer. If you are not doing any of those things then you are living just like everyone else. I don't see what people are oblivious to. No one can judge the value of values except for the individual. This is untrue. I agree that we are formed by those very values in our most sentient period, but not beyond. Our 'Ids' at birth are malleable by direction, discipline, transference, never by abuse or suppression. In addition, we inherit a basic pattern from our chromosomes and genes which is our essential individuality and also rectifiable. And there is the most potent of all - 'environment', which includes parents and everything associative and inflicted upon us at that period. All our early controls are forged and forced on us from it. These three fundamentals are in constant impact creating experiences, forming our complexities, frustrations, desires, good, evil, hate, temperament, character and the direction of our individuality, ethics and principles. After the dangerous transition from adolescence comes the opportunity to break or not the harness of these controls. I am not like everyone else because I have broken them; but I make no virtue of it. I don't disagree with the first part. You clearly do regard breaking free of traditional values as a virtue. If you are not a criminal and you are not insane, you have inherited most of the societal values everyone else has. So in my perspective, you have not broken anything, neither has anyone else who posts on this forum. You may have taken on different values than the ones you were raised on, and doing so may be an achievement in your own right. But you have not transgressed the boundaries everyone lives within. You sleep in a house, you pay your taxes, you are a functional member of society. From both a personal and philosophical point of view, I'd much rather enjoy life than fight it. There are too many cynics and not enough ones who are grateful. "You clearly do regard breaking free of traditional values as a virtue." I would rather use the term 'conventional', and I don't. What I believe is that it is a necessity in the process of reformation to accomplish virtue in behaviour. I believe in straying to find one's own path rather than following the band-wagon, the manufactured pleasures and the thinking done for you. It is not meant to be gratifying, as you seem to believe, but done for its own sake. When I say that I have "broken them", I am not speaking of societal standards for living; or saying that I have achieved sovereignty; I am not talking about my place in society and being completely independent from it, you have misunderstood. I am talking about my individuality; about the controls and the corruption my Ids - influenced by early environment and associations - have had on me since birth, and stating that they are no longer in effect. This is very different, because as I have stated, the environment molds us initially, but then we can mold ourselves, which doesn't prevent us being part of society still, although it -reformation while being socially active - is extremely difficult in every case I can think of, unless you are an artist or have another occupation which allows you to. I believe there is no greater virtue than to work hard at something for which one is well suited - and there is no better service to ourselves and others - than to enjoy our leisure our own way, generating our own truth and worth without argument, i.e, without forcing them on others or allowing others to inflict theirs on you. I believe in leading a full life, but am also disgusted at the actions of those who believe in 'living life to the fullest' which I more or less equate to living life to the foulest instead. I do not believe I am "fighting life" by negating common vain ideals and pleasures. I have more sympathies for the Cynic than the Hedonist, although I'm more of a believer in a life orbiting around aesthetics rather than asceticism. Edit: I could've made it easier in my post by saying what I have broken from (partly) is society's impact on my will rather than society itself.

The values most people are raised upon are not necessarily bad, in fact they are helpful to becoming part of society. If for example you were raised as a Christian but later became an atheist, sure you broke free of your upbringing and like I said it maybe a tremendous personal accomplishment. However there's no reason to view others according to how you live. A person can have wonderful parents and was raised on conventional values that help him to live a fulfilling life. That person probably doesn't feel the need to transform himself. Someone else may have grown up in an abusive household so he'd want to put his past behind. Neither life is better than the other. Neither life is more fulfilling than the other.

I disagree about the individuality you describe. Everyone is unique. Just because someone does not transfigure himself does not make him any less of an individual. To repeat myself, if you are not a criminal, an insane person, or a genius, you are not more of an individual than anyone else. The life you experience is similar to those around you. Your basic values, sexuality, sense of beauty, obligations, bodily pleasures, they are parts of every person molded by family and society most people do not and can not ever change. Your ambitions, political stance, hobbies, personal philosophy, those are the superficial make up that can be rewritten upon will. They do not change your basic experience. You may read Marquis De Sade and listen to horrorcore, but you're still having sex like everyone else and not murdering people, you're not that much different.

When I mentioned cynicism I am referring to a deep mistrust in life, a quality you seem to advocate. Those who are not cynical tend to be more accepting, and less suspicious. Someone who takes life at face value is not necessarily a philistine, he may merely understand there is nothing behind the world you are so suspicious of, and therefore not care either way. You don't want to force your truth upon others, but you are disgusted by those who live differently than you. There is certainly more than one way to live for everyone. No one, especially not the moral philosophers have the authority to place value on life, to dictate what is the good life and what is not. If you want to doubt something, start with stoics.

On August 28 2010 23:58 zulu_nation8 wrote: Show nested quote + On August 28 2010 22:57 Loco wrote:   On August 28 2010 21:57 zulu_nation8 wrote:   On August 28 2010 20:35 Loco wrote:   On August 28 2010 18:50 zulu_nation8 wrote:   On August 28 2010 17:41 Loco wrote:   On August 28 2010 17:00 Night2o1 wrote: The human brain isn't built to be rational, and there's no rule that says everything in life has to be rational. Every person has their own idiosyncrasies and most of the time these individual traits are going to be harmless. Trying to run around ironing out everyone's personalities isn't going to help anything. Why can't you just let people in here discuss the topic they are interested in and GTFO instead of AW'ing the fuck out of every thread by bringing up an argument and turning the threads topic into 'what does baal think of this subject'. I completely agree with you about rationalization, but I believe you are mistaking if you believe that having a consumerist lifestyle has anything to do with one's own idiosyncrasies. It is not unique to his own, it is a borrowed habit coming from socio-cultural values. For that reason it is something that is embraced or abandoned. Baal is in a heroic mission in his mind to help people realize things about themselves that they are oblivious to, and sadly that is not his job and only arises antagony. I have been guilty of the same. He doesn't mean any wrong with it. Nigga every value you have is a socio-cultural value. You can't NOT be cultured. If you were born in some sort of society you will be like everyone else. There's nothing to fight here. If you want to experience the limits of society, you can either commit some crimes or take LSD, those are Foucauldian limit-experiences society does not offer. If you are not doing any of those things then you are living just like everyone else. I don't see what people are oblivious to. No one can judge the value of values except for the individual. This is untrue. I agree that we are formed by those very values in our most sentient period, but not beyond. Our 'Ids' at birth are malleable by direction, discipline, transference, never by abuse or suppression. In addition, we inherit a basic pattern from our chromosomes and genes which is our essential individuality and also rectifiable. And there is the most potent of all - 'environment', which includes parents and everything associative and inflicted upon us at that period. All our early controls are forged and forced on us from it. These three fundamentals are in constant impact creating experiences, forming our complexities, frustrations, desires, good, evil, hate, temperament, character and the direction of our individuality, ethics and principles. After the dangerous transition from adolescence comes the opportunity to break or not the harness of these controls. I am not like everyone else because I have broken them; but I make no virtue of it. I don't disagree with the first part. You clearly do regard breaking free of traditional values as a virtue. If you are not a criminal and you are not insane, you have inherited most of the societal values everyone else has. So in my perspective, you have not broken anything, neither has anyone else who posts on this forum. You may have taken on different values than the ones you were raised on, and doing so may be an achievement in your own right. But you have not transgressed the boundaries everyone lives within. You sleep in a house, you pay your taxes, you are a functional member of society. From both a personal and philosophical point of view, I'd much rather enjoy life than fight it. There are too many cynics and not enough ones who are grateful. "You clearly do regard breaking free of traditional values as a virtue." I would rather use the term 'conventional', and I don't. What I believe is that it is a necessity in the process of reformation to accomplish virtue in behaviour. I believe in straying to find one's own path rather than following the band-wagon, the manufactured pleasures and the thinking done for you. It is not meant to be gratifying, as you seem to believe, but done for its own sake. When I say that I have "broken them", I am not speaking of societal standards for living; or saying that I have achieved sovereignty; I am not talking about my place in society and being completely independent from it, you have misunderstood. I am talking about my individuality; about the controls and the corruption my Ids - influenced by early environment and associations - have had on me since birth, and stating that they are no longer in effect. This is very different, because as I have stated, the environment molds us initially, but then we can mold ourselves, which doesn't prevent us being part of society still, although it -reformation while being socially active - is extremely difficult in every case I can think of, unless you are an artist or have another occupation which allows you to. I believe there is no greater virtue than to work hard at something for which one is well suited - and there is no better service to ourselves and others - than to enjoy our leisure our own way, generating our own truth and worth without argument, i.e, without forcing them on others or allowing others to inflict theirs on you. I believe in leading a full life, but am also disgusted at the actions of those who believe in 'living life to the fullest' which I more or less equate to living life to the foulest instead. I do not believe I am "fighting life" by negating common vain ideals and pleasures. I have more sympathies for the Cynic than the Hedonist, although I'm more of a believer in a life orbiting around aesthetics rather than asceticism. Edit: I could've made it easier in my post by saying what I have broken from (partly) is society's impact on my will rather than society itself. The values most people are raised upon are not necessarily bad, in fact they are helpful to becoming part of society. If for example you were raised as a Christian but later became an atheist, sure you broke free of your upbringing and like I said it maybe a tremendous personal accomplishment. However there's no reason to view others according to how you live. A person can have wonderful parents and was raised on conventional values that help him to live a fulfilling life. That person probably doesn't feel the need to transform himself. Someone else may have grown up in an abusive household so he'd want to put his past behind. Neither life is better than the other. Neither life is more fulfilling than the other. I disagree about the individuality you describe. Everyone is unique. Just because someone does not transfigure himself does not make him any less of an individual. To repeat myself, if you are not a criminal, an insane person, or a genius, you are not more of an individual than anyone else. The life you experience is similar to those around you. Your basic values, sexuality, sense of beauty, obligations, bodily pleasures, they are parts of every person molded by family and society most people do not and can not ever change. Your ambitions, political stance, hobbies, personal philosophy, those are the superficial make up that can be rewritten upon will. They do not change your basic experience. You may read Marquis De Sade and listen to horrorcore, but you're still having sex like everyone else and not murdering people, you're not that much different. When I mentioned cynicism I am referring to a deep mistrust in life, a quality you seem to advocate. Those who are not cynical tend to be more accepting, and less suspicious. Someone who takes life at face value is not necessarily a philistine, he may merely understand there is nothing behind the world you are so suspicious of, and therefore not care either way. You don't want to force your truth upon others, but you are disgusted by those who live differently than you. There is certainly more than one way to live for everyone. No one, especially not the moral philosophers have the authority to place value on life, to dictate what is the good life and what is not. If you want to doubt something, start with stoics.

"The values most people are raised upon are not necessarily bad, in fact they are helpful to becoming part of society. If for example you were raised as a Christian but later became an atheist, sure you broke free of your upbringing and like I said it maybe a tremendous personal accomplishment. However there's no reason to view others according to how you live. A person can have wonderful parents and was raised on conventional values that help him to live a fulfilling life. That person probably doesn't feel the need to transform himself. Someone else may have grown up in an abusive household so he'd want to put his past behind. Neither life is better than the other. Neither life is more fulfilling than the other."


I guess we will have to agree to disagree, because I have observed otherwise. They are useful to become a part of society, but they never allow one to express his full potential. Reformation and proper education, on the other hand, makes one a humanist, which is indefinitely more valuable to both the individual and society. But it requires effort and god knows we don't like that word nowadays. The easy way is the common way.

Sure, I'm not here to argue who can lead a fulfilling life and who can't. I'd rather argue who behaves in a way that makes him an improver rather than a swine. Swines can be happy, too, but this never was the question.

"I disagree about the individuality you describe. Everyone is unique. Just because someone does not transfigure himself does not make him any less of an individual. To repeat myself, if you are not a criminal, an insane person, or a genius, you are not more of an individual than anyone else. The life you experience is similar to those around you. Your basic values, sexuality, sense of beauty, obligations, bodily pleasures, they are parts of every person molded by family and society most people do not and can not ever change. Your ambitions, political stance, hobbies, personal philosophy, those are the superficial make up that can be rewritten upon will. They do not change your basic experience. You may read Marquis De Sade and listen to horrorcore, but you're still having sex like everyone else and not murdering people, you're not that much different."

Since when does being different equate being more of a person? You talk to me as if I was the 15 year old kid who blasts Marilyn Manson on a constant basis and hates everyone and feels superior to his mates because he's in pain and understands very little of himself. Was I to take any of it personally I would find it offensive and insulting. I don't really understand what you're trying to do here, are you trying to make me realize something? Should I boast about myself and distinguish myself from others as being better? Why has this become so personal suddenly? I would rather leave the self-righteousness to others who know no better. My ambitions, political stance, hobbies and personal philosophy you know nothing of. My philosophy is organic, and based on vital belief - yet you speak to me as if I had subscribed to some dogma or word tawdry phantasmagoria.

"When I mentioned cynicism I am referring to a deep mistrust in life, a quality you seem to advocate. Those who are not cynical tend to be more accepting, and less suspicious. Someone who takes life at face value is not necessarily a philistine, he may merely understand there is nothing behind the world you are so suspicious of, and therefore not care either way. You don't want to force your truth upon others, but you are disgusted by those who live differently than you. There is certainly more than one way to live for everyone. No one, especially not the moral philosophers have the authority to place value on life, to dictate what is the good life and what is not. If you want to doubt something, start with stoics."

If you had said a mistrust in others, or in common ideas, maybe, but life? not the case, or I wouldn't still be here. I am indeed often disgusted by the actions of people, I am disgusted by evil actions and this does not exclude my own. Yes, there are many ways to live life, does that mean that I should be tolerant of the actions of everyone, and never express my opinion, or never act on what I believe to be just? I'm not sure what you are trying to do again, turn me into someone passive who smiles at everything and just "trusts life" - whatever that means?

Kindly keep your advices for me to yourself. If 'everyone is unique', I don't get why are you trying so hard to make me realize how similar I am to others?

LP lost the post before this one when I tried to edit it so I had to rewrite most of it.

Fashion is a legit art, there's no reason to think it's not. You're basically being condescending. Just because something isn't trendy does not mean it's not good. Fashion designers can't undervalue art and beauty because fashion is an art. You're basically saying you don't agree with their aesthetic sense therefore they are philistines. It's like saying I hate impressionism so I don't regard Monet as an artist, he also undervalues art and beauty, because my idea of art and beauty are different. This entire thing has just been about people who have different values than you and Baal but you insist you're actually justified in condemning the value of others because you see things differently.

On August 24 2010 15:30 BangYu wrote: After wearing abercrombie since highschool, im trying to switch my style. Something to like express? I like a lot of their clothes but was wondering where do you guys shop. How much you drop on clothes. And if any of you have any nice stores/sites that arent too expensive u like to shop at.

can't go wrong dressing your age. basic gap, banana republic, urban outfitters vintage tees, munsingwear, fred perry , decent phone(with text preferably touchscreen lol), watch is optional, uncombed hair look
i think you'll blend in, live a normal life and prob have a girl or two . gg thread

On August 29 2010 01:13 zulu_nation8 wrote: LP lost the post before this one when I tried to edit it so I had to rewrite most of it. Fashion is a legit art, there's no reason to think it's not. You're basically being condescending. Just because something isn't trendy does not mean it's not good. Fashion designers can't undervalue art and beauty because fashion is an art. You're basically saying you don't agree with their aesthetic sense therefore they are philistines. It's like saying I hate impressionism so I don't regard Monet as an artist, he also undervalues art and beauty, because my idea of art and beauty are different. This entire thing has just been about people who have different values than you and Baal but you insist you're actually justified in condemning the value of others because you see things differently.

'Fashion is a legit art' is this a fact or your opinion? There is a reason for me to think that it is not. Whether you share it or not, who cares? I can write a whole paragraph on what I believe qualifies as real art and why, but it's useless. You're only throwing generalizations constantly, and taking what I say and making it into something else having me rectify everything. My idea, no matter how much I hate generalizing, is that most people who are into fashion are materialists, and most materialists are philistines. You are free to disagree - there is no way for me to prove this, so arguing about it all day is not getting us anywhere. But if you want to prove me wrong, please show me a few philosophers or great spiritual figures who were also fashionable, if not then please don't bring it up again.

I am not condemning any goddamn thing - go wear whatever you want and see how I care. The only reason I came into this thread was because of Baal. I had no interest in this discussion at all before his argument. You are being so unbelievably defensive for someone who's not even into fashion.

"You're basically saying you don't agree with their aesthetic sense therefore they are philistines. It's like saying I hate impressionism so I don't regard Monet as an artist, he also undervalues art and beauty, because my idea of art and beauty are different."

As usual, it seems, it's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying in fact that these people are artists, but that their art is ugly, has no meaning, is not vital and is factually nothing more than an exhibition of incapacity when compared to the great works of art, and so is anything that does not survive trends.

Loco when I say your ambition and political stance I don't actually mean Loco's ambition and political stance, I was speaking in general. I mind as well have replaced "your" with "someone's".

When you call people philistines and materialists and talk about spiritual values and living a fulfilling life I interpret that as you regarding your own values as superior. Not a very farfetched leap I made. I don't know why you're upset. This was never personal. I gave the examples to prove a point. I don't care what your political ambitions or personal philosophies are.

What does it mean to hate evil actions? Your values are your own, what you regard as evil is your own matter. You seem to think very subjective matters like living a life can be universally judged. My point is it can't. You shouldn't be tolerant for the sake of it but because you realize certain things can not be judged.

If you want to suddenly act like I'm trying to insult you then do what you want.

On August 29 2010 01:40 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On August 29 2010 01:13 zulu_nation8 wrote: LP lost the post before this one when I tried to edit it so I had to rewrite most of it. Fashion is a legit art, there's no reason to think it's not. You're basically being condescending. Just because something isn't trendy does not mean it's not good. Fashion designers can't undervalue art and beauty because fashion is an art. You're basically saying you don't agree with their aesthetic sense therefore they are philistines. It's like saying I hate impressionism so I don't regard Monet as an artist, he also undervalues art and beauty, because my idea of art and beauty are different. This entire thing has just been about people who have different values than you and Baal but you insist you're actually justified in condemning the value of others because you see things differently. 'Fashion is a legit art' is this a fact or your opinion? There is a reason for me to think that it is not. Whether you share it or not, who cares? I can write a whole paragraph on what I believe qualifies as real art and why, but it's useless. You're only throwing generalizations constantly, and taking what I say and making it into something else having me rectify everything. My idea, no matter how much I hate generalizing, is that most people who are into fashion are materialists, and most materialists are philistines. You are free to disagree - there is no way for me to prove this, so arguing about it all day is not getting us anywhere. But if you want to prove me wrong, please show me a few philosophers or great spiritual figures who were also fashionable, if not then please don't bring it up again. I am not condemning any goddamn thing - go wear whatever you want and see how I care. The only reason I came into this thread was because of Baal. I had no interest in this discussion at all before his argument. You are being so unbelievably defensive for someone who's not even into fashion. "You're basically saying you don't agree with their aesthetic sense therefore they are philistines. It's like saying I hate impressionism so I don't regard Monet as an artist, he also undervalues art and beauty, because my idea of art and beauty are different." As usual, it seems, it's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying in fact that these people are artists, but that their art is ugly, has no meaning, is not vital and is factually nothing more than an exhibition of incapacity when compared to the great works of art, and so is anything that does not survive trends.

I think Kierkegaard was pretty fashionable. Why can't people like clothes and be spiritual, intellectual, creative, and whatever virtues you abide by, what is wrong with simply having nice clothes?

And yes you seem to not like a certain art because it disagrees with whatever idea of aesthetics you have. I don't wanna argue about the definition but basically you are prejudiced towards fashion.

On August 26 2010 04:24 Loco wrote: seems to me that he doesn't buy it that you are wearing certain clothes for the unique purpose of functionality in your life, because that would sound as if you were suddenly placed in a moment and time and you had to act a part as a life. seems much more likely that your job, friends and activities revolve around where you are placing your values and it is those very values that are being targeted here because they are deemed to be contemptible. it would be hard to believe for anyone that a person who spends so much money on material possessions and decorating oneself doesn't have his self-worth revolve around it, and also very unlikely that he's not really conforming internally while conforming externally.

I think that's condemning

On August 29 2010 01:50 zulu_nation8 wrote: Loco when I say your ambition and political stance I don't actually mean Loco's ambition and political stance, I was speaking in general. I mind as well have replaced "your" with "someone's". When you call people philistines and materialists and talk about spiritual values and living a fulfilling life I interpret that as you regarding your own values as superior. Not a very farfetched leap I made. I don't know why you're upset. This was never personal. I gave the examples to prove a point. I don't care what your political ambitions or personal philosophies are. What does it mean to hate evil actions? Your values are your own, what you regard as evil is your own matter. You seem to think very subjective matters like living a life can be universally judged. My point is it can't. You shouldn't be tolerant for the sake of it but because you realize certain things can not be judged. If you want to suddenly act like I'm trying to insult you then do what you want.

I have not taken any of it personal - but it seems like it was your purpose for it to be so.

I am not a saint, apostle or a gospeller - I am never superior. For me there is nothing but my way, so it would be hypocritical of me not to believe that others have only their way as well. My Ideals (whether I live up to them or not) are better than the common ones, but that does not make me superior.

I do not believe in amoralism, neither do I believe in an indistinguishable good and evil; therefore I believe in my own abilities to judge what is good and evil, and live accordingly. You are not teaching me anything when you tell me that what I regard as evil is my own matter. And yet, no matter how much you would try to convince everyone here that rape is not evil, you would fail, even though 'evil is subjective'. You can say these things, and be a spieler, but if tomorrow you go out and see someone kicking his dog to death - you would not have this talk with the person in question, and you would feel it is your duty to intervene if you are even half a man.

On August 29 2010 02:01 zulu_nation8 wrote: Show nested quote + On August 29 2010 01:40 Loco wrote:   On August 29 2010 01:13 zulu_nation8 wrote: LP lost the post before this one when I tried to edit it so I had to rewrite most of it. Fashion is a legit art, there's no reason to think it's not. You're basically being condescending. Just because something isn't trendy does not mean it's not good. Fashion designers can't undervalue art and beauty because fashion is an art. You're basically saying you don't agree with their aesthetic sense therefore they are philistines. It's like saying I hate impressionism so I don't regard Monet as an artist, he also undervalues art and beauty, because my idea of art and beauty are different. This entire thing has just been about people who have different values than you and Baal but you insist you're actually justified in condemning the value of others because you see things differently. 'Fashion is a legit art' is this a fact or your opinion? There is a reason for me to think that it is not. Whether you share it or not, who cares? I can write a whole paragraph on what I believe qualifies as real art and why, but it's useless. You're only throwing generalizations constantly, and taking what I say and making it into something else having me rectify everything. My idea, no matter how much I hate generalizing, is that most people who are into fashion are materialists, and most materialists are philistines. You are free to disagree - there is no way for me to prove this, so arguing about it all day is not getting us anywhere. But if you want to prove me wrong, please show me a few philosophers or great spiritual figures who were also fashionable, if not then please don't bring it up again. I am not condemning any goddamn thing - go wear whatever you want and see how I care. The only reason I came into this thread was because of Baal. I had no interest in this discussion at all before his argument. You are being so unbelievably defensive for someone who's not even into fashion. "You're basically saying you don't agree with their aesthetic sense therefore they are philistines. It's like saying I hate impressionism so I don't regard Monet as an artist, he also undervalues art and beauty, because my idea of art and beauty are different." As usual, it seems, it's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying in fact that these people are artists, but that their art is ugly, has no meaning, is not vital and is factually nothing more than an exhibition of incapacity when compared to the great works of art, and so is anything that does not survive trends. I think Kierkegaard was pretty fashionable. Why can't people like clothes and be spiritual, intellectual, creative, and whatever virtues you abide by, what is wrong with simply having nice clothes? And yes you seem to not like a certain art because it disagrees with whatever idea of aesthetics you have. I don't wanna argue about the definition but basically you are prejudiced towards fashion.   On August 26 2010 04:24 Loco wrote: seems to me that he doesn't buy it that you are wearing certain clothes for the unique purpose of functionality in your life, because that would sound as if you were suddenly placed in a moment and time and you had to act a part as a life. seems much more likely that your job, friends and activities revolve around where you are placing your values and it is those very values that are being targeted here because they are deemed to be contemptible. it would be hard to believe for anyone that a person who spends so much money on material possessions and decorating oneself doesn't have his self-worth revolve around it, and also very unlikely that he's not really conforming internally while conforming externally. I think that's condemning

It would be if I was speaking for myself rather than Baal. Baal is condemning here, I am not Baal. Re-read the post. I might not value it but I do not condemn people who do - I would rather just not have anything to do with them - as I'm sure in most cases they wouldn't like to have anything to do with a person who dresses like a poor man, i.e; myself. There is too much that I personally disagree with, and if I was to actively condemn it all I would waste all my energy on that alone. Much better is it to condone and move on.


"I think Kierkegaard was pretty fashionable. Why can't people like clothes and be spiritual, intellectual, creative, and whatever virtues you abide by, what is wrong with simply having nice clothes?"

Having 'nice clothes' is different from putting fashion at the forefront of one's life and where you spend most of your money. This, to me, is contemptible, not just having nice clothes. If you do not realize this difference then I am sorry, I do not wish to argue this any more.

"And yes you seem to not like a certain art because it disagrees with whatever idea of aesthetics you have. I don't wanna argue about the definition but basically you are prejudiced towards fashion."

Yes, however you want to put it, I am difficult when it comes to art.

yes dude, i agree rape is evil, fashion can be subjective though, thus the discussion. Most people don't give a shit about clothes so you're actually conforming. If you really feel it's your duty to intervene when people spend money on consumer products then I don't know what to say. Leave those people alone I guess.

On August 29 2010 02:22 zulu_nation8 wrote: yes dude, i agree rape is evil, fashion can be subjective though, thus the discussion. Most people don't give a shit about clothes so you're actually conforming. If you really feel it's your duty to intervene when people spend money on consumer products then I don't know what to say. Leave those people alone I guess.

I give a shit about clothes. I want them to be simple, plain, unobtrusive and keep me either warm or well ventilated when it is warm outside. It would be inconvenient if the only clothes I had access to did not fit these criterias; therefore I care about clothes, so I am not conforming after all it would seem.


"" If you really feel it's your duty to intervene when people spend money on consumer products then I don't know what to say. Leave those people alone I guess""

On August 28 2010 17:41 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On August 28 2010 17:00 Night2o1 wrote: The human brain isn't built to be rational, and there's no rule that says everything in life has to be rational. Every person has their own idiosyncrasies and most of the time these individual traits are going to be harmless. Trying to run around ironing out everyone's personalities isn't going to help anything. Why can't you just let people in here discuss the topic they are interested in and GTFO instead of AW'ing the fuck out of every thread by bringing up an argument and turning the threads topic into 'what does baal think of this subject'. I completely agree with you about rationalization, but I believe you are mistaking if you believe that having a consumerist lifestyle has anything to do with one's own idiosyncrasies. It is not unique to his own, it is a borrowed habit coming from socio-cultural values. For that reason it is something that is embraced or abandoned. Baal is in a heroic mission in his mind to help people realize things about themselves that they are oblivious to, and sadly that is not his job and only arouses antagony. I have been guilty of the same. He doesn't mean any wrong with it.

This should tell you that I do not believe it is my duty, nor should it be anybody else's, but I have indeed been guilty of it in the past and have rectified my behavior.

The difference between me and Baal it would seem is that I can condone and be tolerant of whatever people do, for as long as it causes no injury to anyone or anything, whereas Baal in his mind has the answers and if people are not living vis-a-vis his ideals and values, they are directly the cause of all that is wrong with the world and since he believes in an utopia, he feels like it is his duty to rectify them and make them realize things to have a better community, and if others would do the same we would have a better world. Very idealistic. This is only my impression though, I might be wrong. I differ because I am a strong believer of teaching by the act instead of the word, which explains why I am not in favor of any militanism.

Last post. I know you believe differently. But whether people live materialistically or spiritually, religiously or non religiously, intellectually or like a philistine, does not matter to me. I think they can all be good and fulfilling. Stoics actually seem to be the ones who don't give a shit about anything except for virtue/vice. Of course what I regard to be virtues are different but fashion would seem to fall under the indifferent.

Stoics have perhaps been the most misunderstood philosophers in modern days. It is no wonder most people believe that being stoic is all about repressing emotions and having a stiff upper lip. I do not believe you are doing them justice by not studying the great Roman Stoics, i.e; Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, more in depths, and all my favorite modern philosophers seemed to have a lot of sympathies for them and believe much of what they were saying was right-minded, especially my favorite pessimists, Cioran and Schopenhauer.

I'm not one to defend others, but I do know that they were everything but people who didn't give a shit. They gave a shit about what mattered the most, human freedom, and they lived - embodied - their philosophy until their last breaths. They were noble people. Are you also against Buddhism and other such enlightenment philosophies because they 'do not give a shit about anything'? Just curious. Seeing as how this no longer relates to fashion at all you might just want to PM me.

Ive never seen so much text on one page

thread had an awesome ending too

On August 29 2010 01:13 zulu_nation8 wrote: When something is trendy it is always horrible.

Stayed away for a while. But I just had to fix that.




edit: original

On August 29 2010 01:13 zulu_nation8 wrote: Just because something isn't trendy does not mean it's not good.

When something becomes a trend. It starts to detoriate.