Clothing: a philosophical enquiry

[Brian Tweed]

who will join in reflection upon underlying issues and questions of value, principles, and meaning.

 

[Claghorn]

Whether or not clothes mean anything as a reflection of the person depends entirely on whether that person intended the clothes to mean something. The more thought a person puts into what they are wearing that day, the more the clothes will be a reflection of who they are. It will reflect it in two ways:

What they are trying to acheive
How well they managed to achieve it

Mitigating this judgement will be:
The amount of effort they are willing to commit to dressing themselves
Budgetary constraints
Location

 

[Trompe le Monde]

i "get into" clothes because i am bored and am looking for things to waste money on


e.g. when im bored on the internet, and run out of electronics and gadgets and toys to buy, i start looking at clothes




and thats as deep as i get

 

[acidboy]

yeah nice first post dude

 

[MrG]

Originally Posted by Tyler Durden

The things you own end up owning you.

 

[Brian Tweed]

My invitation is not those for whom a philosophical mindset is absurd and beside the point.
I am interested in talking to those who find it bracing and dignified to question themselves on matters from surface appearances to the depths
of their awareness of mortality.

Is this about clothing? It can be. There are many ways to travel into areas of the mind that hold hidden energies to be used in
the fullness of living well. Clothing is our interest here. Considered philosophically.

How fully conscious would we like to be about the things we think of as beautiful, or useful? Do we take our choices at face value?
Do we understand how we attach meaning to our aesthetic and sartorial preferences. Are these choices freighted with unstated
values that are worth discussing with interested others?

This is the stuff that interests me. I wouldn't for a minute push anyone in a direction that is not natural for them.
Comrades open doors for each other. Punters stand by and declare the enterprise corny or worthless.

Are you with me on this distinction?

 

[YOLO EMSHI]

You sound like the guy in class who is always asking questions like "So really, what IS philosophy? But, WHY do we even exist? How do we REALLY communicate language? Is there REALLY such a thing as objective truth? HOW do we even know we exist?"

 

[Blackhood]



You sound like the guy in class who is always asking questions like "So really, what IS philosophy? But, WHY do we even exist? How do we REALLY communicate language? Is there REALLY such a thing as objective truth? HOW do we even know we exist?"

A fuckhead, you mean?

 

[Brian Tweed]

Hello,
what are your own questions?, as reflected in your aesthetic choices? enter into dialog.

 

[L'Incandescent]

As is well known, in his Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant introduces a distinction between phenomena and noumena. Whether these categories are to be understood as ontological or epistemological is an important and unsettled question. Nonetheless (i.e., irregardless), we cannot even begin to engage in philosophical dialogue until we decide whether to discuss clothing as it is given under the legislating power of the faculty of understanding (with the help of the imagination, which schematizes the understanding's categories, as should go without saying) or whether we prefer to discuss it as it would be given independently of the categories of the understanding. And if we choose the latter route, we need to reach some kind of consensus on the means by which the intellect would conceive these noumenal clothes. Perhaps reason inevitably loses itself in antinomies whenever it tries to think clothing all the way to the unconditioned. But you know what, perhaps it doesn't too. I look forward to much healthy discussion on these points, and others as well.

 

[Fang66]

[VIDEO][/VIDEO]

 

[Claghorn]



As is well known, in his Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant introduces a distinction between phenomena and noumena. Whether these categories are to be understood as ontological or epistemological is an important and unsettled question. Nonetheless (i.e., irregardless), we cannot even begin to engage in philosophical dialogue until we decide whether to discuss clothing as it is given under the legislating power of the faculty of understanding (with the help of the imagination, which schematizes the understanding's categories, as should go without saying) or whether we prefer to discuss it as it would be given independently of the categories of the understanding. And if we choose the latter route, we need to reach some kind of consensus on the means by which the intellect would conceive these noumenal clothes. Perhaps reason inevitably loses itself in antinomies whenever it tries to think clothing all the way to the unconditioned. But you know what, perhaps it doesn't too. I look forward to much healthy discussion on these points, and others as well.

******* hilarious.

How does your cat feel about this?

 

[L'Incandescent]

Genevieve approached the issue from a pre-Kantian metaphysical point of view. Here's what she said:

Betimes I turn my gaze inward and contemplate what is contained in the idea "clothing." And when I do so, I perceive clearly and distinctly that "clothing'" cannot be separated in thought from the idea '"to be peed on." That which cannot be collected into a heap and peed upon is not clothing and can never be clothing, for God cannot create that which can only be thought as a contradiction.

 

[Claghorn]

Genevieve approached the issue from a pre-Kantian metaphysical point of view. Here's what she said:
Betimes I turn my gaze inward and contemplate what is contained in the idea "clothing." And when I do so, I perceive clearly and distinctly that "clothing'" cannot be separated in thought from the idea '"to be peed on." That which cannot be collected into a heap and peed upon is not clothing and can never be clothing, for God cannot create that which can only be thought as a contradiction.

Genevieve,

Are you then an Aristotelian, asserting that the form of clothing is "that which is to be peed on" and that the cloth itself is material substratum? What if something can be rent asunder with your claws and worn by He-Who-Gives-Food, but for some cause cannot act as a receiver of your urine?

Sincerely,
ACL

 

[Brian Tweed]

Lead on McDuff.