Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Clothing: a philosophical enquiry
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Clothing: a philosophical enquiry - Page 2

post #16 of 32
10/4/12 at 10:31am
Thread Starter 

Come from behind the veil of cynicism,

and take the discussion in a direction allowing others to learn something worthwhile.

I imagine that you actually have some very well turned ideas about this topic.  Insights that you are invested-in.

 

Courage: go ahead and put them out there.  Raise the bar.

 

Regards.

Reply
Reply

Featured Stories on Styleforum

Drake's London at Pitti Uomo 83
Derek Rose at Pitti Uomo 83
Follow Styleforum on Facebook for the latest news and our random ramblings
post #17 of 32
10/4/12 at 10:32am
Thread Starter 

Come from behind the veil of cynicism,

and take the discussion in a direction allowing others to learn something worthwhile.

I imagine that you actually have some very well turned ideas about this topic.  Insights that you are invested-in.

 

Courage: go ahead and put them out there.  Raise the bar.

 

Regards.

Reply
Reply
post #18 of 32
10/4/12 at 10:48am
This discussion might become more interesting if the OP would actually pose a question or provocative thought, as opposed to saying, "Everyone, please come here and discuss... something."
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 32
10/4/12 at 10:48am
Thread Starter 

Lead on McDuff.  In a direction that you think will be helpful.

You're smart: put good suff out in the world.
 

Reply
Reply
post #20 of 32
10/4/12 at 10:51am
Genevieve has a thesis on the table. Even though she is but a cat, I think her thesis is a good jumping off point for discussion.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 32
10/4/12 at 10:53am
Thread Starter 

Greetings from the OP:

You're entirely correct. However,

It's worth lingering about the prospect of real content

before we get a serious.

 

Anyone who does have something to say, I imagine,

would like to see spoilers fall by the wayside before moving into the foresst

of possible sub-topics.

Reply
Reply
post #22 of 32
10/4/12 at 10:58am
Thread Starter 

Greetings:

See if if you can lay out that thesis with brilliant clarity (jargon free) for

for others, whose viewpoints could benefit from a little encouragement,

and simplicity.

Reply
Reply
post #23 of 32
10/4/12 at 11:08am
Premise 1: The being or essence of a thing is the idea God had in His mind when he created it.

Premise 2: The idea God had in mind is the best possible idea of the thing. (This follows from God's omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. That would require a separate argument, of course, but we'll take it for granted here.)

Premise 3: There is no better idea of clothes than "that which can be collected into a heap and peed on." (This is probably the most questionable premise, as it presupposes a strongly feline-centered point of view.)

Conclusion: Therefore, the being or essence of clothing is "that which can be collected into a heap and peed on."

QED.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 32
10/4/12 at 11:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Incandescent View Post

...

Conclusion: Therefore, the being or essence of clothing is "that which can be collected into a heap and peed on."

QED.

I take it back - we are getting somewhere here.

Mr. Barker (the dog) disagrees with the view of Genevieve. He would define clothes as that which can be collected in a pile and slept on. If we believe the substance of these views can be restated as "The essence of clothing is 'that which can be collected into a pile for an unspecified canine/feline purpose'" then the competing philosophies are in fact in agreement. If, on the other hand, we believe the point of each statement is reflected in the action itself ("peeing" vs. "sleeping"), then Mr. Barker and Genevieve will never be reconciled.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 32
10/4/12 at 11:28am
Ran it by Genevieve just now, but she got confused. (She is a cat, so her cognitive capacity is limited.) She couldn't understand why you'd want to sleep and pee on the same thing. (I tried to explain that you could sleep on it, then pee on it, so you wouldn't have to sleep on your own pee. But she fell asleep during the explanation.)
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 32
10/4/12 at 11:37am

Mr. Tweed,

It isn't that the thread idea is terrible; you can see from my first post on it that I bothered to respond seriously. But your deliberately elevated language, worsened in subsequent posts, is ridiculous and probably is what evoked the cynical and mocking replies.

 

And now to the heart of the matter:

I have no cat, so I cannot ask her.
I have no dog, so I cannot ask him.

My friends are all nudists,

so I cannot ask them.
So I ask the clothes on my back

and they reply with one word:
"sum"
 

EDIT: I lied. They didn't stop there. After responding to my query, they proceeded to insult my mother and her ancestry for several minutes before their tirade deteriorated into mumbles and finally incoherence; presumably they fell into a drunken stupor. I know not why they would do such a thing. Perhaps they considered my question imbecilic.


Edited by Claghorn - 10/4/12 at 11:49am
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 32
10/4/12 at 11:50am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claghorn View Post

Mr. Tweed,

It isn't that the thread idea is terrible; you can see from my first post on it that I bothered to respond seriously. But your deliberately elevated language, worsened in subsequent posts, is ridiculous and probably is what evoked the cynical and mocking replies.

 

And now to the heart of the matter:

I have no cat, so I cannot ask her.
I have no dog, so I cannot ask him.

My friends are all nudists,

so I cannot ask them.
So I ask the clothes on my back

and they reply with one word
"sum"
 

 

 

Clag,

 

I think you're view is probably representative of what's out there.

Perhaps you can take the original idea somewhere that suits yourself and others.

 

For now, I can't see a way forward that is worthwhile.

That's it for me

Good luck to all.

Reply
Reply
post #28 of 32
10/4/12 at 12:06pm
Some other socks for you gents to enjoy:


Reply
Reply
post #29 of 32
10/4/12 at 12:24pm
Thread Starter 

Well, I think you'll do better than I could with this thread. If you or anyone else decides to take it

it will be interesting to see if you can make headway, while avoiding the uncivil distractions that I now see were so predictable.

 

My Best.

Reply
Reply
post #30 of 32
10/4/12 at 4:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claghorn View Post

 
EDIT: I lied. They didn't stop there. After responding to my query, they proceeded to insult my mother and her ancestry for several minutes before their tirade deteriorated into mumbles and finally incoherence; presumably they fell into a drunken stupor. I know not why they would do such a thing. Perhaps they considered my question imbecilic.

Man, clothes just don't have a sense of propriety. I guess that's the source of the old saying "he swears like a garment."

There used to be a poster here called The Garmentine Rabbit who used to swear like a garment. I think he might have been banned.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat

Featured Stories on Styleforum

Drake's London at Pitti Uomo 83
Derek Rose at Pitti Uomo 83
Follow Styleforum on Facebook for the latest news and our random ramblings
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Clothing: a philosophical enquiry