Philosophical topics

[BSR]

Following a suggestion by interest1 I put the debate on social contract that MBD and myself have started in the rather inappropriate randomness thread... and take the opportunity to open the philosophy thread .

Hey BSR,

(And sorry to everyone for returning in a somewhat oblique manner to the marriage discussion.)

First I ask: is the concept of 'social contract' forever constrained to the realm of the "highly theoretical?" I think it's possible to make a convincing argument that the highly theoretical can structure social organization and therefore become an "instrumental" concept, that is to say, that it has actual effects on the ground, and not merely a theoretical one.

To give an example: most people who live in societies governed by laws have chosen to give up some bit of their free will in order to benefit from the sorts of "protections" and "order" a legal system attempts to put into place...in any case, I think that the 'social contract' is codified in societies in the form of laws and political organization.

To work through another example: Why do people go to jail instead of committing suicide? Some believe that prisoners who go to jail are paying a "debt" to society. The very idea that one can accrue a debt to a society at large and that this debt can be negated by a stint in jail -- and this is often noted by the prisoner himself (or at least I've seen on late night television jail exposés) -- demonstrates that the prisoner believes he is part of something larger. He goes to jail because he knows that he has acted against commonly (thought not exhaustively) held values and thus must endure the consequences.

Do you agree, or what do you think? It's a good question -- I wish I'd seen it earlier!

xoxo

MBD

Ha, I'm glad you answered

I'm not sure the following will be really a proper answer but maybe it will make my former comment clearer:

-i referred to the social contract classic theories, like those of Hobbes and Locke. According to them the society as a whole is a product of a social contract, which is to be understood as both its hypothetical origin (providing a possible historical starting point) and its foundation (providing a legitimacy for the social fact). I'm quite convinced by Hume's critic that points out that to pass a contract you need to already live in a social form. It's a circular argument very close to the one Rousseau uses about the origin of the language (to agree on the convention that the word 'dog' names a dog you need to speak in a language, thus there is no first overall convention about the meaning of words).

-i'm aware of recent attempts like Rawls's to use the social contract theory as a means to evaluate distributive justice models, but it is here only a theoretical tool or thought experiment, not a description of the way things happen in the real world.

-not sure i would give too much credit to the reality of the free will either btw , given the last developments of cognitive / neurobio research... see for instance works by Haim Sompolinsky if you're into that sort of stuff.

-i need to think of the examples you mention...

-...but maybe you're simply not endorsing the thesis that society is based on a social contract, and in that case we just do not speak of the same thing!

I got that - I'm coming from a classical liberalism background, and all the critiques thereof (principally from the critiques, to be honest.) I also agree -- to a point -- with Hume's critique of Rousseau's belief that humans are born free -- this is the origin of Rousseau's fascination with the 'noble savage' - the bon sauvage, and with the slave no? Of course, his interest in the noble savage is limited to the issue of where the savage fits into an evolutionary teleological model of societal development.

What Hume misses perhaps is that Rousseau would have very well agreed with him on his stance that one must exist in a social form in order to make a social contract. Rousseau, it should be noted, differentiated between the naked society and the legitimate society. The noble savage of course belonged in the category of those who lived in illegitimate society whereas later, more advanced societies belonged, naturally in the legitimate society, where its members have agreed to a social contract.

This distinction renders Hume's frustrating tautological position moot, viz., Rousseau's logic is as follows: men have first to live in elementary society before evolving to legitimate, democratic society, therefore he is already a member of a "type" of social form.

In any case, I disagree with what I think you are saying about the highly theoretical nature of the social contract. It's not a surprise that Rousseau, Montaigne, Locke, Hume, etc are becoming interested in these questions as Western man is encountering people living in forms unfamiliar to them through their excursions to the New World; in other words, I am insisting that theory must, and has always been founded on the empirical. If not, we're trapped in the limitless possibilities inherent in the method of 'thought experiments' - the nightmare of Shroedinger's cat ad infinitum.

I'm uncertain if this advances our mutual understanding about the issue of the social contract. Perhaps you can articulate the question in a different form? In whatever case, you're much smarter than I, and I'm certain I'll have to continue to think about the issues (I think) you're posing.

Peace out,

MBD

I'll answer this week-end, currently on a trip... brain is not working.

[MetroBulotDodo]

Ha ha! I'm glad you started the thread because I would have called it something terrible, like "The Philosopher's Corner."

I'm looking forward to your reply BSR!

Thanks interest1 for suggesting this.

MBD

[MetroBulotDodo]

Other philosophical categories I think we could continue to discuss:

Free will
Something with which some of us are all too familiar: debt
Gifts - working from the classic question posed by Marcel Mauss, that is, what is it that compels humans to return a gift given with a gift in kind?


MBD

[gavagai]

I'd say maybe we should not discuss debt on here. But if we do I suppose we should discuss guilt and envy...I'll be back with some real philosophical quiddities...

[docus]

All good suggestions, and perhaps this could also be a place to explore the old authenticity debate.

[Pumpfish]

Is there a flaw at the heart of "fashion"?

Can you have enduring "fashion" or is obsolescence inherent?

If "new" matters in fashion, is it inevitable that anything not "new" is devalued?

[Faust]

Depends on how old is old. Good fashion is like good art - it reflects the zeitgeist. It tells you something about the world. So, at some point Chanel was revolutionary exactly because the zeitgeist has changed and she was the one who reflected it. But then Chanel became irrelevant bourgeois stuff and somebody else came along and did something that reflected the zeitgeist at the time. And so on, and so on.

People don't just rave about something for no reason (I am talking about those who express their opinions honestly), there is something in the clothes that speaks to them. And one of those things I think is the ability to catch the spirit of the time. That's why many in the 90s praised Helmut Lang and Jil Sander who put a knife into the vulgarity of the 80s flashy excess.

[Pumpfish]

I'm stuck back on a definition and associations of "fashion".

Some members here embrace the word, others shun it.

Personally it has primarily negative associations. Disposable, narcissistic. Is this unfounded?

Is a fashion deisgner less than a designer?

Is a fashion enthusiast less than a design enthusiast?

[Faust]

I prefer to worry about people.

[Analytic Philosopher]

Is there a flaw at the heart of "fashion"?

What does this mean? Literally, no. But I take it you're not asking whether or not fashion has a congenital heart defect.

Can you have enduring "fashion" or is obsolescence inherent?

Surely this will depend on how you choose to define the concepts of enduring and obsolescence. At first glance, though, it seems to me that yes, some obsolescence is inherent (in the ordinary language use of inherent), but that doesn't mean that nothing endures.

If "new" matters in fashion, is it inevitable that anything not "new" is devalued?

Originality matters in every art form, but I don't see how the devaluation of anything not new, as you put it, follows from that. Unless, of course, you think that all previous art has somehow been devalued by the further development of the art world.

I'm stuck back on a definition and associations of "fashion". Some members here embrace the word, others shun it. Personally it has primarily negative associations. Disposable, narcissistic. Is this unfounded?

Is this unfounded? Of course it's unfounded. At least if you're looking for a definition of fashion, that is. Being disposable or narcissistic is neither necessary nor sufficient for being fashion.

As I see it, trying to define fashion is going to be very similar to defining any other art form or medium. Which is to say that ultimately you're going to have to choose between the following two options: (1) making your definition heavily intentionalist, in which case you won't be able to include any conditions that appeal to quality, or (2) making your definition qualitative, in which case you'll probably have to throw out a lot of things that are usually called fashion, because they won't immediately conform to the qualities that you've chosen to be representative of fashion.

Is a fashion designer less than a designer?

This seems like a more circular way to ask whether or not the act of creating fashion is somehow less than than the act of designing. Putting it that way, though, the question strikes me as a little silly. Unless, of course, you have a compelling argument as to how creating fashion is somehow less than the act of designing.

Is a fashion enthusiast less than a design enthusiast?

Like the question above, this seems like a more circular way to ask whether or not the appreciation of fashion is somehow less than the appreciation of design. Again, this question strikes me as a little silly, but I'm open to hearing any argument that you might have.

[trentk]

What does this mean? Literally, no. But I take it you're not asking whether or not fashion has a congenital heart defect.

(joking aside, this forum seems to lean towards the continental. I'm glad to see an analytic philosopher on board.)

[Faust]

aren't people already always worrying about themselves, or about what lacks to them to be really happy ? anyway, i think we could do both

Tell that to the millions of Africans dying of hunger and world not giving a shit because everyone secretly knows that there are not enough resources to go around. Sorry, the animals come after. I cannot reconcile the fact that there are millions of people starving in the world and the privileged moralistic fussiness about food choices. To me that's just another form of bourgeois naivete. Read The Grapes of Wrath and see how millions of American lived a mere 80 years ago. You think they'd give a fuck about the cow's feelings?

[Pumpfish]

At least if you're looking for a definition of fashion, that is. Being disposable or narcissistic is neither necessary nor sufficient for being fashion.

No, but I'm asking if they are dominant traits. Things which often distinguish and are identified commonly with fashion. I think there is a lower burden of proof.

As I see it, trying to define fashion is going to be very similar to defining any other art form or medium. Which is to say that ultimately you're going to have to choose between the following two options: (1) making your definition heavily intentionalist, in which case you won't be able to include any conditions that appeal to quality, or (2) making your definition qualitative, in which case you'll probably have to throw out a lot of things that are usually called fashion, because they won't immediately conform to the qualities that you've chosen to be representative of fashion.

This is a false dichotomy.

If you take art to require two actors, pitcher and catcher, the pitcher can be interntionalist, and the catcher qualitative.

"it's fashion because I say it is, and I bloody made it", says the fashion designer. "it is fashion, because it carries the attributes I associate with fashion", says the punter.

[Faust]

hum, I don't see where I've started to speak about food my friend ... I'm not vegan, did not want to talk about this. aren't you making any kind of abusing generalization ?
Anyway, even if it was about food, I don't understand why we should have to make a choice. Can't we think about human AND animals either ?
And we're not 80 years ago... today, we (I mean the naive and privileged occidental bourgeois) have the possibility of making conscious choices. The issue of resources is complex, but livestocking is also heavily consuming.
However, I guess this is not the good thread to talk about this !

No, it's a good thread. We've also had this discussion before a few times - if you do a search, it will definitely pop up. Of course we can make conscious choices and we must. I suppose I am having a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to all the vegetarian moralizers out there.

[Patroklus]

It's very likely that vegetarian diets would have a lower opportunity cost than omnivorous diets. There's also a lot to be said about factors other than a lack of food which are contributing to the problem.

The thing is that I agree with you in a broad sense about vegan crusaders, but it doesn't seem like you've actually thought about the issue very much and vitriol isn't a good substitute for empathy.