Applause....I know, I know..........

[french frank]

Aristotle v. Hobbes?

Perhaps we could move the debate on to a philosophical plane:

If Aristotle is right, and that man is a ‘social animal’, a city dweller, naturally disposed towards the community and cooperative activity for the common good, he would need no other argument than that his behaviour disturbed other members of his community (or society at large).

But if Hobbes is right, and that man puts his wants as an individual before those of other individuals - believes in short that there is no such thing as society - he will never understand why he should sacrifice his instincts to those of others.

How does this relate to the current issue? I'll expand on just one argument, since it embodies the polar opposites:

Maintaining silence is part of a social act, in the sense that if one individual chooses to break the silence he breaks it for all the rest. Not clapping when others wish to clap would not be antisocial since it doesn’t prevent anyone else from doing so.

It is in this sense that man can also be a ‘political animal’ – for the community (the Aristotelian model) or for himself (the Hobbesian).

[MrGongGong]

I'm no Philosopher but I think that's what one might call a false dichotomy FF

[french frank]

I'm no Philosopher but I think that's what one might call a false dichotomy FF

The dichotomy in this case is that individual noise necessarily precludes communal silence. It's one or the other.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Except, perhaps, that there might be people who wish to clap not as individuals, but as a social demonstration to the Musicians that their efforts and achievements have been appreciated?

[MrGongGong]

The dichotomy in this case is that individual noise necessarily precludes communal silence. It's one or the other.

(sorry) what's the context?

[DracoM]

The dichotomy in this case is that individual noise necessarily precludes communal silence. It's one or the other.

Excellent point.

[french frank]

Except, perhaps, that there might be people who wish to clap not as individuals, but as a social demonstration to the Musicians that their efforts and achievements have been appreciated?

But the same applies if the society of clappers (or Society of Clappers) is small compared with the rest. There has to be some concept of what a (clear) majority feels.

[MrGongGong]

There has to be some concept of what a (clear) majority feels.

erm

Your "clear majority" would probably agree with mr Ingham

[french frank]

erm

Your "clear majority" would probably agree with mr Ingham

Context, Gongers: Mr Ingham is not involved in the matter of applause at the concert - a concert which he is unlikely to attend since he can't tell an opera from a ballet.

The 'social act', I would say, has to have some notion of 'the common good' - so a small group may be a community but cannot be taken as representative of society in general.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

One smoker (or ghetto blaster) in a crowded train is going to affect the entire coach.

[Flosshilde]

But the same applies if the society of clappers (or Society of Clappers) is small compared with the rest. There has to be some concept of what a (clear) majority feels.

That's clear nonsense. A majority of whom? (or who, or what). People posting on this thread? A minority of people who are members of the forum. Members of the forum? A minority of people attending a concert. People attending a Prom concert? A minority of people listening to the concert. People listening to the concert? Probably a minority of people interested in classical music. So, really, if your majority (clear or otherwise) is a majority of people posting on this thread then it is a clear minority compared to the number of people who applaud at a concert.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

That's clear nonsense. A majority of whom? (or who, or what). People posting on this thread? A minority of people who are members of the forum. Members of the forum? A minority of people attending a concert. People attending a Prom concert? A minority of people listening to the concert. People listening to the concert? Probably a minority of people interested in classical music. So, really, if your majority (clear or otherwise) is a majority of people posting on this thread then it is a clear minority compared to the number of people who applaud at a concert.

The vast majority of those attending prom concerts do not clap between movements, and those who do soon cease their intrusions. It's usually a one or two people, whose actions inevitably egg on a number of others.

[Flosshilde]

If you really believe that, I refer you to #2, which is the culmination of goading on the issue before this thread began. It appears that MrGG wanted this discussion, just so he could have a scrap.

Umm - could you explain that, & where this supposed 'goading' took place? Post no. 2 was a response to the first post (naturally) which, if goading took place, was responsible for it. Given that there is an annual thread about applause, with much the same arguments, the person starting a thread this year must have been aware of the probable course & nature of any subsequent discussion, & possibly wanted to provoke it?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But the same applies if the society of clappers (or Society of Clappers) is small compared with the rest. There has to be some concept of what a (clear) majority feels.

Indeed - but this is moving away from the Aristotle/Hobbes polarised groups that you offered in #144 (I grossly oversimplify). It's not necessarily the case that people clap between movements because they put their individual wants before a larger society. Some of them are acting in what could be described as an "Aristotelian" desire to act in a social/communal (/civil/polite) manner.

That their actions might have consequences that others would regard as anti-social is another matter - it isn't necessarily a case here of Aristotle vs Hobbes, but of how Aristotle is interpreted by society and the communities that make up society.

[Flosshilde]

whose actions inevitably egg on a number of others.

Obviously trouble-makers, who deliberately set out to provoke & upset