Clothing: a philosophical enquiry

[Brian Tweed]

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.

 

[Brian Tweed]

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.

 

[mcbrown]

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."

 

[Brian Tweed]

Lead on McDuff. In a direction that you think will be helpful.
You're smart: put good suff out in the world.

 

[L'Incandescent]

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.

 

[Brian Tweed]

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.

 

[Brian Tweed]

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.

 

[L'Incandescent]

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.

 

[mcbrown]



...

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.

 

[L'Incandescent]

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.)

 

[Claghorn]

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.

 

[Brian Tweed]

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.

 

[Blackhood]

Some other socks for you gents to enjoy:

 

[Brian Tweed]

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.

 

[L'Incandescent]



 
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.