To me, the distinction is whether we put in effort in our dress. It doesn’t matter what we look like; it matter that we spent resources to look like that.

People in many industries wear ties to work. I used to wonder what the point is of a tie, or a good suit. I don’t think it’s just fashion, but what? My take now is that it implies you care about how you’re seen by others - that you’re actively going to burn some of your time and money to demonstrate your vulnerability to your reputation. If someone who hasn’t washed and wears pyjamas gets in a fight in the street with someone in a suit, the person in the suit has more to lose. And that means if I want to make a business deal with one of them, I’m going to feel much safer dealing with the person in the suit because if they do wrong by me, they have reputational face to lose. (Or at least that’s the implication).

So yeah, I also agree with the GP. I think putting effort into the appearance of our cities and ourselves is effort spent signaling to each other that our society is worth investing in. It can go too far, and it was fun wearing pyjamas out on the street during covid. But I’m glad to live in a place that removes graffiti and where people sometimes dress up to go out.

Some people think that aesthetics is entirely subjective. This is the default view of Western liberal democracies, especially among people that haven’t really thought much about the topic.

Some people, including a lot of philosophers and art theorists that can be considered “experts”, disagree. I would consider myself in this camp, although not a credentialed expert by any means. And no, I’m not “projecting my aesthetic” on to others, simply defending the idea of norms and expectations. This is a very different thing.

As I said in another comment, if you can’t get beyond the idea that Value is not entirely subjective and that everything isn’t just “your opinion, Dude,” then no argument is probably going to convince you of anything. Hence you will just end up in a situation like the OP posted about.

>Some people think that aesthetics is entirely subjective. This is the default view of Western liberal democracies, especially among people that haven’t really thought much about the topic.

Don’t do this. It’s a weaseling way to claim the person you are discussing things with isn’t thinking.

Do you think the following is fair?

Some people think that freedom of expression in appearance is unimportant. This is the default view of authoritarian societies, especially among people who have not really thought much about the topic.

How do you know what the objectively correct attire is and how did you measure it? And if you don’t know what it is then why would you say pyjamas aren’t it? Norms and expectations have varied wildly not just geographically in the present day but over time as well. To the point it was and actually is common to physically harm people.

Just because multiple scales of value exist does not imply that all scales are equal or meaningless entirely.

Right but that’s a non-answer because norms change over time and place and that can only happen if people are allowed to change them over time and place. All you’re saying is that it’s subjective in a clouded way. At best you’re basically being left behind the cultural norm and probably should catch up.

No, it just means that norms should align with values. I have certain values and think that caring about aesthetics (personal appearance, nice architecture, clean spaces, beautiful art) results in a society that is better for me and other people.

Yes, it’s your subjective opinion you want to force on everyone else but previously didn’t want to admit is the case because it shows there is no actual argument as to why anyone else should agree. Like the clashes over wearing headscarves in Iran where people are literally being killed an imprisoned over that subjective value disagreement.

“Everyone should share my values” is essentially an extreme position.

Thinking that it’s beneficial for people to live in beautiful buildings without pollution is my subjective opinion?

But you’ve changed the subject. We were discussing what people were wearing.

And as obvious yes if you personally think that it’s very acutely your subjective opinion. You are literally telling us your opinion. You couldn’t get a clearer example of something that’s subjective.

There’s a worrying level of philosophical paucity here.

What is “beautiful” is, like, the textbook example of a subjective opinion.

No, not really. The concept of beauty has a long philosophical history and many knowledgeable and intelligent people have written books on the topic. As I said above, the people who think this stuff is entirely subjective tend to be ones that haven’t engaged much (or at all) with previous thought on the topic.

> The concept of beauty has a long philosophical history and many knowledgeable and intelligent people have written books on the topic

Which is not incompatible with it being subjective. In fact, many of those “knoweldgeable and intelligent” people have written specifically on its subjectivity, and others explicitly on specific, e.g., of a specific culture and time, subjective standards.

People who wax philosophical almost entirely about what the inherent subjectivity of aesthetics means for our experience as subjects, individually and collectively.

This line of reasoning is unsound because it attempts to universalize particulars wrt aesthetics. Universalizing particulars is what Lacan would call psychotic. The antidote here is a good dose hysterics.

What should one do if they find that the aesthetic norms practiced by the people around them don't align with anyone's values?

Is there room in your clean, well architected, art-endowed society for protest? If not, what keeps the norms in-line with the (presumably drifting) values?

>beautiful art

Wow, you just keep digging deeper. Pray tell, what makes some art beautiful and other art not?

I think we ought to distinguish between the case where the person has thought through their decision to wear pajamas in public and is doing it as an attempt to challenge existing norms, versus the case where they didn't even give it a thought.

Because if that's what they're doing, then I'm 100% with you. Hanging onto existing norms is just opting out of the conversation about what the norms should be.

I suspect, though, that gp is objecting to a different sort of opting-out--one where you're either blind or apathetic to the consequences of your actions.

I guess what I'm saying is, it depends on the pajamas.

But norms change because it becomes normal to do it which requires people do it without thinking about it. By definition.

If people only do subversive things intentionally nothing changes. That’s in fact what the conservative view wants, safe “change” that doesn’t actually matter. Which is why for example Iran is cracking down so hard on the recent protests because they desperately need for the norm not to change.

I feel like there's more middle ground than you're acknowledging.

Yes, people eventually start doing a thing because it's the new normal--but it doesn't happen spontaneously. Some emergent leader decides to wear pajamas to the office (or whatever) and then the barrier is lowered and others follow suit because the leader had a point and then eventually being comfortable in public is the new normal. But that emergent leader is required, no?

Somebody has to do it first.

I've been witnessing this in my neighborhood. Some apartment complex put up a fence and now the route to the grocery is long and circuitous because we can no longer cut through the apartment complex's parking lot. Some hero dismantled the fence to make a hole and now the whole neighborhood is reopening the hole when the complex repairs it. I'm happy to participate in the maintaining the new normal, but I wasn't the hero that set it up in the first place. I'm in that guy's debt.

Some people not only think that that aestethics is entirely objective (which may or may not be true), but also think that their perception is somehow authoritative on the matter!

Their opinion is that everything they like is objectively beautiful, and everything they don't like is objectively ugly.

How narcissistic do those people have to be to hold themselves in such an unrealistically high regard?

You've made a massive leap here. Of course there is an argument that aesthetics aren't entirely subjective.

Are there any noteworthy philosopher who says (in effect, obviously not this exactly) people shouldn't go around in pyjamas?

Aesthetics isn't really that subjective - at least not as subjective as modern philosophy likes to claim. This is why it is possible to produce a radio station or build an art museum. You actually can guess what art a large number of people people will like.

Still, people can have disagreements about the exact ranking of whether Monet's water lilies is prettier than the Mona Lisa or vice versa (or take any Jackson Pollack if you want to extend the analogy). We all agree that they are more beautiful than Timmy's finger painting. Even Timmy's parents. The fact that there isn't one strict ranking doesn't mean that there is nothing objective.

The same objective standards, and subjective disagreements, apply to clothing and personal appearance.

You can look really good with disheveled hair and pajama pants, but that mostly comes down to things like having clean, intact clothes, not smelling bad, not displaying offensive imagery, etc. Similarly, you can be repulsively ugly in a designer suit - just rip it in a few places and let the color fade. Your preference for one look or the other doesn't mean that there are no objective standards whatsoever.

>What someone wears is a part of their self-expression.

It's not just part of their "self-expression". It's a reflection on the broader community as a whole.

To give a concrete example, I personally think highly of black Africans in Australia because they're always well-dressed, well-groomed, physically fit and clean.

Back when I lived in Sunshine (area formerly inhabited by white trash, being rapidly gentrified by migrants), the gaunt, green-faced, drug-addicted beggars and whores with welts all over their skin would reflect badly on me. It was a big enough deal that I just needed to go one suburb over and suddenly would be treated well.

Call people like this a bigot or shallow or whatever you want, but this is the global norm and almost everybody seems to understand it except young Westerners.

Is pijamas in public OK or is it OK to wear what is not considered OK?

Maybe someone’s aesthetics say it’s ok to live in a neglected building close to falling apart or drive a beaten up car.

I’d say it’s much more pleasant to be in a community where aesthetics do matter. Styles do differ, but neglect is not a style by itself.

> What someone wears is a part of their self-expression

Disagree. I generally wear jeans, t-shirt and jumper. It literally has nothing to do with self expression.