Clothing: is it necessary?
In the course of discussing Kant in another thread, a question came up pertaining to the apparent necessity of clothing. There was a suggestion that it may warrant a separate thread, so I’m giving it a go.
My own observation, to start with, was that a moral judgement against nakedness has been commonly misattributed to ‘God’ by Abrahamic religions, originating from a misinterpretation of mythology in Genesis. This naive first ‘judgement of good and evil’ by humanity forms a significant part of the creation myth.
I want to be clear that this is NOT a discussion about religious doctrine. I’m citing the Adam and Eve story in Genesis more as an early recorded etiological myth (from oral tradition) of cultural attitudes towards nakedness than as a text pertaining to any one religion or faith. So I don’t really want to get into broader biblical hermeneutics, but I won’t shy away from it, if it’s relevant. The main aim, however, is a philosophical discussion regarding an apparent perception of clothing as ‘necessary’, and the associated moral judgement against nakedness.
Is it to avoid moral ‘shame’ or fear that we insist on clothing? After all, being naked in front of someone else is the most vulnerable a person could ever be. No barriers, no shield, no interface, no pretence. And no weapons, either. Nakedness exposes us to every potential danger that we know: from cold and pain to assault, criticism and rejection. When we are naked, we have nothing to help us deflect or absorb the injury - we must bear it all, physically and emotionally.
If it is fear that drives the apparent necessity of clothing, then why the moral judgement?
My own observation, to start with, was that a moral judgement against nakedness has been commonly misattributed to ‘God’ by Abrahamic religions, originating from a misinterpretation of mythology in Genesis. This naive first ‘judgement of good and evil’ by humanity forms a significant part of the creation myth.
I want to be clear that this is NOT a discussion about religious doctrine. I’m citing the Adam and Eve story in Genesis more as an early recorded etiological myth (from oral tradition) of cultural attitudes towards nakedness than as a text pertaining to any one religion or faith. So I don’t really want to get into broader biblical hermeneutics, but I won’t shy away from it, if it’s relevant. The main aim, however, is a philosophical discussion regarding an apparent perception of clothing as ‘necessary’, and the associated moral judgement against nakedness.
Is it to avoid moral ‘shame’ or fear that we insist on clothing? After all, being naked in front of someone else is the most vulnerable a person could ever be. No barriers, no shield, no interface, no pretence. And no weapons, either. Nakedness exposes us to every potential danger that we know: from cold and pain to assault, criticism and rejection. When we are naked, we have nothing to help us deflect or absorb the injury - we must bear it all, physically and emotionally.
If it is fear that drives the apparent necessity of clothing, then why the moral judgement?
Comments (71)
Religions are generally completely wrong about the morality of sex though, so they’re also wrong about the morality of nudity. There’s nothing wrong with it.
They're also like carrying bags you don't have to hold. Which is neat. You can do all sorts of things with your average minimal outfit. Signal for help, cheer on a team, set a fracture, tie off a blood vessel, fend off an animal attack, neutralize an assailant, all sorts of neat things really.
In short, no, however with some folks you'd simply appreciate it.
What if an ancient race of dolphin monkeys existed and built vast civilizations and interstellar craft capable of exploring the multiverse- took one look at us humans- laughed, cried some, decided to toss us a few microchips and religions- then left. So that we would not be belittled by their awesomeness.
You couldn't disprove it.
And no animal that I'm aware of has created existential, life threatening, possibly catastrophic conditions in it's own environment.
That is Man's impact on Earth!
Clothes are also an incredible expression of oneself. I am not focusing on the judgements one may perceive from his peers regarding one´s clothes, like wearing a swimsuit inside an office, but rather the transformation of meer sheets of cloth into something new and spectacular. I have deep respect to fashion designers that aim that high
Is clothing necessary for what?
You and several other posters have pointed out functions clothing serves, but the question can lead in at least two way different directions:
If clothing serves more than one purpose, and that seems clear from your first post and others, we might get to say there are competitors that perform one function better or a couple, but clothing wins because it performs the most functions well enough. Only to do that bookkeeping, you have to decide how to weight the various functions as well as how candidates perform them. If you're weighting some functions at 0 -- not a goal we need to have -- that probably has a noticeable impact on your rankings.
But is that the conversation you wanted to have?
To clarify my question, then: Is there any purpose for which the wearing of clothing is necessary?
Clothing can certainly be practical, expressive, isolating, or subjectively preferred - but what I’m questioning here is its necessity.
Incidentally, the question pertains to a disagreement centred around the apparent necessity of a ‘physical object’ in human experience. My point is that we commonly assume ‘necessity’ where it isn’t warranted - it helps us to feel more certain in the world. The reality is far less necessary than we like to think it is, and is therefore less certain.
If A is existentially dependent upon B, then B is necessary for A.
There are far far too many A's that are existentially dependent upon clothing to deny the necessity of clothing.
Okay so the one thing at a glance that clothing does, and competitors don't, is cover your body. And then we start all over right? What is the function of covering your body? Are there functions of that that something besides covering your body could serve.
Protection from the elements leaps to mind. When sleeping, maybe blankets (and a house!) can replace clothing, but if you live in the Sahara or the Arctic, if you're outside you need clothing. Maybe one day that could be replaced by a "force field", as they say in the movies.
Of course, people don't have to live in extreme climates, but they do. In most climates, clothing is better. And the few climates where clothing isn't necessary just to survive, we do find indigenous peoples who don't much bother with it.
Even for those who live in the Sahara or the Arctic, covering the body is a function of the survival for the organism, and so we then ask: is this survival necessary, or is it a function of something else?
Well, the ongoing duration of my ‘life’ is vitally important... to me...
And this is where it gets interesting. We expect any physical aspect of our existence to reject an awareness that we lack necessity as a ‘physical object’, even though we understand this to be the case intellectually. It isn’t that the physical object doesn’t exist, it’s that any particular knowledge (potential) of its existence is a function of my experience. So what would I consist of, then, if no physical aspect is necessary to my existence...?
Yes, I do.
Quoting Possibility
Or at least some purpose for which wearing clothes is necessary.
What's the alternative, for wearing clothes to be "in itself" necessary? Like it's just a tautology that people wear clothes? That doesn't even make sense.
Quoting Possibility
Sure, people choose to do what they have to do if they want to ___. And they could choose not to, and go without whatever that is. Maybe they choose not to stay alive if killing someone else is the only way to do that.
Of course people are choosing, but that doesn't mean their decisions are arbitrary or without reasons.
Usually clothing is optional, but not always. Usually we choose to wear clothes; rarely are we driven by the environment to wear clothes. IF one lives in areas where the climate is severe (frigid at times, broiling at times, sandblasted at times, attacked by hordes of biting / stinging insects...) one must wear clothing to survive. On the other hand, there are places where wearing clothing won't save us. An alligator in the quiet, shallow bayou will enjoy waylaying and eating the unawares whether we are clothed or not.
Many people could literally 'de-vest" themselves, that is undress, without significant physical consequences. Even in Minnesota, there are 3 or 4 months when one wouldn't be overly uncomfortable going about naked. (It was 38 the other night; too cool for nude.). I've spent time in the summer being naked outside. Consequences? I didn't get arrested, but 40 years later I have more skin cancer than I would have otherwise had I dressed as I usually do.
Why is nakedness disapproved of? Because our favorite sins are usually committed while naked (for most people), and people in close and naked proximity are more likely to engage in sex than when they were wearing clothes. Gay nude beaches seem to generate quite a bit of sexual activity on site.
So, heterosexuals in French nudist camps behave like gay men when 'bathhouse' facilities are provided. They opt for the orgy pit PDQ. The morally uptight disapprove of orgies. An orgy requires nakedness. Therefore nakedness must be suppressed. Adam and Eve were naked, and look what happened to them!
I agree that we wear clothing under certain conditions to maintain bodily health, which is a function of our survival as a living organism. This is important to us, although not objectively necessary, as such. As mentioned to Srap, survival is a valued function of this temporal aspect of our existence, life, which isn’t necessary either, but merely a potential function of experience.
In the same manner, Nakedness garners moral disapproval when it transcends the function of sexual activity, for instance, which in turns garners moral disapproval when its potential transcends the function of procreation, which in turn garners moral disapproval when its possibility transcends the function of a loving relation. (@3017amen - this seems like a good moment for you to chime in...)
Which brings us back to Adam and Eve, whose newly acquired ‘judgement of good and evil’ was first exercised in realising their nakedness was just ‘wrong’ - with no justification, no divine revelation, no instruction. It’s easy enough to imply that they were punished by ‘God’ because they were naked, but a critical reading would suggest that their error was one of naive, ignorant judgement: their own negative feelings towards this appearance of fragile vulnerability moved them, with no other information, to judge this nakedness as ‘evil’, and will to hide it in ‘shame’.
Agreed. It is this subjective ‘reasoning’ that sometimes eludes conscious awareness, but that doesn’t mean it ‘just is’. My suspicion is that asserting a will that ‘just is’ may conceal a potential error in reasoning.
Quoting Possibility
I do not concur with the view that survival is not objectively necessary. If existence is merely a peripheral, subjective concern, then none of this discussion -- and much else -- matters.
The fact that we will cease to exist is what makes existence sine qua non.. If our existence was now and forever more, things would be different.
We should be aware that nakedness isn't the same issue for everybody the world over. Some people don't wear clothes. To them, wearing cloth covering seems exceeding weird. American anthropologist and artist Tobias Schneebaum encountered the Arakmbut tribe in South America. In the encounter, they gave him a very thorough going over, taking his clothes off, inspecting his body in detail, and going through his pack -- all out of intense curiosity.
The Arakmbut were naked cannibals, but Schneebaum wasn't eaten. He charmed them with a pad and a pencil (doing quick sketches of the people he had just met -- much to the naked cannibals' delight) and demonstrated things like a mirror and a zippo lighter which they took for flat out magic. Anyway, Schneebaum kept a few clothes during his year long stay, but otherwise went about naked, like his new friends. All this in the Amazon Jungle.
Lots of people in various cultures wear minimal clothing -- a loin cloth for men, for instance. Otherwise they are naked.
We (first worlders) do cover up ourselves. There's nothing wrong with that; it works for us. Except when it doesn't. As Noel Coward phrased it in a song, "Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the noon day sun." Most of Britain's sub- or tropical colonized people had the good sense to stay inside during the hottest part of the day. Not the English. They went out way-over dressed.
I have no argument with existence as sine qua non. My issue here is with survival - a living, temporal existence - being as such. In my view, the latter is a relative, multi-dimensional aspect of the former: a peripheral, subjective concern in relation to existence itself (objectively speaking).
Quoting Bitter Crank
I agree, hence the discussion.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Again, I agree. My issue is with claims that wearing clothing is deemed ‘necessary’, as if the will to cover up or adorn the body ‘just is’. I may not need to justify this choice to other ‘first worlders’, but that does not render it essential to human experience.
There is reason behind our will to cover up, conscious or no.
My approach the matter of clothing will be from a moral perspective which I surmise is your intent here.
Of course clothes are necessary for basic survival as other posters have not failed to mention - clothes are analogous to natural fur in that they protect us from the elements, keeping out the cold as well as the heat.
However, as the Biblical story goes, the first act Adam and Eve performed after partaking of the forbidden fruit was covering their nakedness with fig leaves and it was precisely this that clued God in to the fact that something was wrong in Eden.
Two things to consider here. Is it that God blew a gasket simply because of the disobedience, inferable from the fig leaves placed over the duo's private parts or because the couple had acquired knowledge of morality? In the former case, God is ired more by the disobedience than the moral knowledge gained by Adam and Even and in the latter case God is unhappy not because of the act of defiance per se but because Adam and Eve now possessed moral knowledge.
Which of the two possibilities is true? It matters because in one of them, Adam and Eve recognizing and feeling ashamed of their own nakedness isn't the problem at all, the disobedience is, and in the other, the world's first couple's shame felt because of their nakedness is the core issue, it serving as their first step into knowledge of morality.
Suppose, for the moment, that God punished Adam and Eve for the second reason - that they, once having eaten the forbidden fruit, gained knowledge of right and wrong, of good and evil. In other words, using fig leaves the way they did amounted to having understood a moral lesson, that lesson being nakedness is bad.
How is nakedness a bad thing?
You already mentioned how things could quickly go south if nakedness weren't prohibited as it is at the present, nudists being the exception. Other posters have mentioned that covering our bodies is a survival necessity but the weather isn't bad throughout the year and if the powers that be prohibits nakedness only for the reason that clothes preserve our lives, they should allow nudism during certain parts of the year when the weather holds up. This isn't the case and that implies that there are "other reasons" why nudism is banned or permitted only in certain secluded enclaves. This "other reason(s)", I guess, is that most people think nakedness is bad.
This should make you rethink (take a long, hard look at) the controversy surrounding the Muslim Hijab; after all, Western clothing seems to be, among other things, about concealing the body for moral reasons and the Muslim Hijab is designed to do exactly that, to perfection. Why get offended by someone who's doing a better job of what you yourself want to do?
Coming to the matter of necessity for clothing from a moral standpoint, all I can say is, given the negative ethical consequences of nakedness in the current social climate, something you seem to be completely aware of, clothes seem as necessary for morality as Hijabs are necessary for a stable Muslim population.
What counts as necessary?
You assert that ‘clothes are necessary for basic survival’, but many posters here have pointed out that clothes are needed to survive only in some circumstances, not all. There are, in fact, many human experiences in which nakedness is not even a health risk, let alone a risk to survival. Clothes are useful for survival, but not necessary.
As for Adam and Eve, there is a third option: ‘God’ is unhappy not because of the act of defiance per se, nor because Adam and Eve gained knowledge how or why (which they didn’t), but because Adam and Eve now possessed knowledge that - gained by awareness (their eyes were opened) - without any practical knowledge as such, and from that alone acted in moral judgement. It isn’t that they ‘knew’ that nakedness was bad, but that they determined it was bad from their initial experience. What they ‘knew’ was only that they were naked, that they felt vulnerable, and that they could respond. The how or why - knowledge gained only by experience over time, which was to be developed over thousands of years - was irrelevant to Adam and Eve in determining their interaction with the world. It seems to me that, for this reason, ‘God’ was unhappy.
So your statement that the reason nakedness is bad is because ‘most people think nakedness is bad’ only seeks to validate this error in judgement made by Adam and Eve, in an argumentum ad populum. The truth is that many people rather feel that nakedness is potentially bad in many situations, but it doesn’t follow from this feeling that nakedness is necessarily and inherently ‘bad’. The will to cover up is both problematic and hypothetical, if you think about it.
I want to clarify here that I’m not making an argument for doing away with clothing, as a rule. My point is simply to be aware that this will to cover up is neither necessary nor inherent to human experience. I don’t believe an experience of nakedness should necessarily be subject to moral judgement, but rather evaluated on practicality and potential health risks. That we continue to consider nakedness a moral issue seems to me a function of this inherent human fear of feeling vulnerable. Of course, I could argue that much of morality is a function of this deep-seated fear, but that may be another discussion.
With reference to the Hijab: there is covering up nakedness, there is concealing identity, and then there is protecting private property. These are separate issues. The potential threat of ‘negative ethical consequences’ still does not make this will to cover up necessary.
Pointing out that there are specific situations in which clothing is not required is not the same as showing that clothing is unnecessary. To do that, you'd need to show that there is never a survival advantage. That is obviously not true.
Personally, my clothing is necessary because no one other than me should ever have to deal with this middle-age spread
Well, I suppose one thought, of many, would be the so-called significance, or the philosophy behind the creation of that reality show 'Naked and Afraid' (?)
Anyway, I completed a 15-years in the making thought-experiment last summer, and to make a long story long, here's my story:
As a kind of qualifier to the OP, when I was a child, I remember how the actual thought of being naked seemed particularly disconcerting and somewhat shameful viz a grade school discussion that I had with a fellow classmate. He had told me that his parents came to wake him every morning naked. To me, I was very uncomfortable with his word-picture, yet he seemed perfectly fine with it, almost to the extent that it made me feel like I was the one, with the weird 'hang-up' instead of him. When the subject of nudity comes up, I usually always remember that little encounter.
Anyway, after that first discussion and realization of feeling a bit shameful or at least self conscious about my body, along with discussing other people's nakedness, now as an adult I seemed to have adjusted quite nicely to my birthday suit attire by taking care of my body (not that that's a prerequisite to feeling good about your body) by working out and keeping myself fit. Whether it was the experience of being a lifeguard/fitness center, or personal experiences out on my boat or in the hot-tub or pool (naked), I began to embrace my so-called nakedness by feeling more comfortable with it.
Accordingly, my first time sunbathing in the buff was by sheer happenstance during a day where it was so very hot and humid. While boating in broad daylight, I became so adversely uncomfortable to where out of frustration, I hastily tore-off my swimsuit to find relief from the heat. I must tell you, words cannot describe the liberating feeling I had when I subsequently jumped into the water, looked around at my beautiful surroundings (including my ex-wife) and felt like God came 'down from the heavens' as it were, to say that it was all ok, relax. It felt like the old movie Blue Lagoon with Brook Shields (sorry Brook). Wow, it was a euphoric feeling seemingly being caused by a phenomenon between my perception of nature and my vulnerability in it.
As the years went by, after I became single again, and while still enjoying nude sunbathing, an idea popped into my head about seeing what it would be like to experience a nudist colony. I reached out to a local place (they are much like campgrounds, with pools, clubhouses, activity centers, cottages, golf carts, etc.) and inquired about protocol. After the gentlemen described the rules, I said I would see him soon. Well, it never happened. I was scared or at least not ready. But I was intrigued with the entire thought process of how I would react to seeing other people vulnerable and naked, along with how my own thoughts and perceptions of it could somehow change me, and how I would be able embrace the whole experience. Could I handle that? Thus my thought-experiment.
I thought to myself, how would my normal abilities of social interaction be impacted by such a daunting experience? Would I be scared and become self conscious and uncomfortable, or would I embrace my natural way of being along with nature itself, and discover a sense of normalcy in my interactions with others? Or, would it become a sort of erotic sojourn where I would have to find a private moment to take care of my business?
Well, after that first phone call of inquiry, ironically enough, I started to have discussions about this particular Colony with other women who had visited and then shared their experiences. One was a social media friend (very attractive young woman) who went there regularly, while a few others told me it was a 'once and done' ordeal with their girlfriends. And so this intrigue never seemed to go away, until, last year.
And so I decided to go to the 'colony' by myself over a fourth of July holiday, and put my 'thought experiment' into action. Driving up to the place was like entering a medium security compound. I was nervous. Once I drove past the security gates and figured out where to check-in, I knew there was no turning back. There I was, filling out forms and exchanging personal information at the desk (driver license, etc.) all the while I'm clothed and men and women are naked looking at me. Needless to say my heart was racing. After I was advised of all the necessary protocols, I walked over to the clubhouse to disrobe and join the festivities at the swimming pool. Mind you, there was no alcohol allowed, and there were some families with children.
After the first 5-minutes of shock and awe, I actually seemed to calm down enough to start conversation with some men but mostly women. Before I knew it, I was my old self, interacting in a normal way and engaging with a smile, along with having light philosophical discussion about nudity itself along with some other lighthearted banter and otherwise normal conversation. I met so many 'normal people' who were quite experienced with other 'colonies' from around the country. It was intriguing. (Now did Mr. Happy get a little happy at times; you betcha. But I had a little white towel over Mr. Happy when I was sunbathing.)
Though I've never visited Europe and topless beaches, I kind of got a taste of what that experience might be like. To tell you the truth, looking back, it was really no big deal. It almost became like an experience you might have in a co-ed locker room where you just felt pretty much normal. I felt like I had successfully completed the thought-experiment by putting this idea into action. I'm glad I did it. My takeaway's were worth it. I experienced something within myself that I really can't describe. I dealt with my fears. Perhaps philosophically, you could say I had a type of religious experience, where I was with people who were equally as vulnerable and had no 'façade' to hide their own sense of truth. Accordingly, it became my truth and my truth only; a subjective truth. Yet I felt like in some ways, we were all in this together, exposing our vulnerability with each other. It was like we were liberated from our fears, and we somehow knew we had achieved something together. We were joyful in our nakedness.
The only strange thing that happened following that experience was that for about 2-weeks after, when I would see other people walking around in their everyday attire, it was as if I had x-ray vision. I cannot explain it, but everyone I saw, my mind was telling me..' yep, I know what you look like without clothes' . What a bizarre feeling.
What is my theory behind the necessity of clothing? To be continued...
The non-biblical reason for wearing clothing has more to do with climate than with gender. In the jungles of Africa, clothing is optional for those with dark skin. But in the deserts of the Middle East, clothing is necessary to provide shade from the unfiltered sun. Yet, even "half-naked" Africans typically, but not in all cases, wore loin-cloths to hide their genitals --- though not their breasts. In the middle-east, the desert equivalent of a loin-cloth is a Niqab face-covering, in addition to the shapeless body covering.
So, even where near-nakedness is acceptable, there seems to be some gender-related reason for covering the sex organs. But the original concern was probably not for offending the sensibilities of a sex-fearing god, but to avoid provoking spontaneous sex-acts that might upset the harmony of a tribe. In that case, it's an inter-personal Ethical issue, not a divine-human Moral problem that is being addressed by dressing the body.
Nevetheless, simple pragmatic reasons for cultural adaptations may eventually be translated into arbitrary religious reasons. Sex (jealousy, etc) is a common source of agitation & anxiety in humans, and the resulting Genophobia (fear of sex) may also be attributed to their anthro-morphic gods. Which may explain why local clothing customs would be incorporated into universal moral law. :smile:
I'm thinking of an archeological find of a cloth fragment preserved by chance in NW Europe; it was about 20,000 years old if I remember correctly, and it was woven with a plaid pattern--not exactly a rich plaid like Scottish clan plaids, but plaid, nonetheless--vertical and horizontal bands of colored thread incorporated in the warp and weft. The fabric required extra steps and more technology (like dyeing fibers), so the desire to wear haute couture has, apparently, been with us for a long time.
Going back to a slightly earlier time, a small carved fertility figure was found which incorporated a 'skirt' of knotted thread that was designed to reveal more than obscure. 5000 years ago the ice man who died on a glacier in the Alps was dressed head to foot in clothing which had been carefully made and patched as it wore out. Just guessing, but when we were troglodytes dressed in animal skins, I bet some animal skins were preferred over others, because they just looked good: "I have a very nice saber-tooth tiger fur while she has that hideous rotten mammoth skin.")
We can easily and effectively meet the survival aspects of dress, and have been doing so for a long time. For survival, we mostly don't have to wear clothes at all. But WE LIKE TO WEAR CLOTHES as a form of self-enhancement, and this seems to have been present for at least 25,000 years. Given a few thousand years of practice, clothing is probably not an option any more.
There is a little evidence that Neanderthals buried their dead with some ceremony--entirely unnecessary. A grave was found with flowers (long dead -- this goes back a very long ways). It is "little, very fragile evidence" of cultural practices, but it is suggestive.
It is necessary that we observe cultural imperatives. We produce the culture and then we obey it, and feel bad when we don't. We don't have the option of dropping all culture and reverting to some sort of innocent animal existence a la Rousseau AND remaining human. Producing and reproducing culture is evolutionary. Take language: we can't remain human without language. So, the languageless animal that looks just like us but has no language wouldn't be human. The look-alike animal that has no culture is likewise not human.
Now, there are areas of San Francisco where guys walk down the street naked. They aren't at all free of culture -- they are as cultured in their nakedness as anyone wearing the latest haute couture. They are both making a statement (not the same statement, but not altogether different, either). "Vestis virum reddit!" the Romans said. Clothes make the man. Put a purple banded toga on that schmuck and he looks like a Senator."
You wouldn't want to see Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell walking around naked in the US Capitol. It would not only be a fatal breach of culture and couture, it would be an absolutely horrifying sight. Clothing saves us from all that.
Maggie Kuhn, the founder of the Grey Panthers (a senior citizen group) once said that they could bring the Vietnam war to an end by threatening to have a few thousand old people undress on the Mall.
Clothing began as a survival adaptation. Prehistoric humans needed it to protect them from their environment. As hierarchies formed and communities enlarged, clothing took on a secondary utility in providing an outward symbol of rank or power. That secondary use remains to this day, most obviously in military uniforms but also in designer labels, etc. A tertiary function arises and is codified in religion as a means for the elites to control sexuality among their subject populations (e.g., your Adam and Eve example). This function is still heavily entwined in modern religious practices, but the ebbing of religious belief has resulted in a transition toward greater comfort with nude and semi-nude states, while still retaining clothing (or its naked surrogate, fitness) as a badge of rank.
I would liken it to bathing. It is not strictly necessary for survival, although it certainly can play a contributing role to a longer life in most environments. It is also not strictly necessary for membership in a community, although its absence here is a much greater liability.
:ok:
Quoting Possibility
How did it come to pass that they "determined it (nakedness) was bad"[/i] if not by some criterion of morality? In other words, they had, at the very least, acquired some knowledge of morality, whatever system of morality it was that considers nakedness as immoral.
Quoting Possibility
I'm making an argument to the best explanation. There are no reasons other than a moral one why nudism isn't allowed during weather conditions perfect for some naked frolicking at the beach or wherever one fancies.
Quoting Possibility
You have a theory but I don't know how well it'll stand up to careful scrutiny. I mean, look, there are tribes in the tropics like in the Amazon and African rainforests who don't wear any clothes at all and then, moving toward the higher latitudes we have Eskimos in the Arctic who are, well, dressed in many layers of clothing from head to toe. What explains this pattern? Can your theory that we're fearful and feel vulnerable in a psychological sense, as you seem to be implying, explain this phenomenon? The best explanation seems to be that people aren't afraid of nakedness but they are afraid of hypothermia. For your theory to be reasonable, peoples everywhere, in the tropics, in the mid-latitudes and in the frigid zones, should have a clothing industry at some scale. This isn't the case.
Quoting Possibility
If you think it's vulnerability and the associated fear that causes us to wear clothes then it follows that the Hijab is the perfect design to address that vulnerability and allay the fear that comes with it.
Thank you for your comments. I pretty much agree with your assessment here. We use clothing as a tool: for survival, for symbolic expression, for an appearance of value/potential. Culturally, we have come to rely on clothing less for protection (except in extreme climates) and more as a ready-reference for conceptualising social interactions - even though the information it provides is uncertain, and more indicative of wilful intention than ‘fact’.
On experiencing nakedness, without clothing to guide us, we are confronted with not only a form of ‘experiential blindness’ (we lack these conceptual ‘tools’ that enable us to position an appearance of potential/value in relation to social reality) but also a resulting experience of high arousal (a high prediction of effort required to resolve this) and indeterminate or conflicting valence (potential for delight and/or danger?). Depending on how we perceive our relation to surrounding potentiality and past experiences, we may conceptualise this ‘nakedness’ in a complex variety of ways, from a friendly invitation or expression of freedom, to an innocent mistake or threat of offence.
The simplest resolution, of course, is to go with ‘all nakedness is bad’, and this is what usually occurs, particularly as an automatic response. But in view of the variety of possibilities, this is a cop-out, and only increases ignorance, isolation and exclusion (which in turn inflicts suffering). FWIW, if our aim is for accuracy in our interactions, and a reduction of suffering in the world as a whole, then I think it’s a worthwhile use of our energy and intelligence, for example, reserving judgement on nakedness (recognising that the will to cover up is not essential/necessary to the human experience), and being open to more of the potential information available, instead of subsuming predictions under moral judgement because it’s easier. And I’m not just talking about nakedness here. In a world where so many suffer needlessly, it seems to me worthwhile perceiving the potential for a little discomfort in ourselves in order to increase awareness, connection and collaboration with the world. I’m certainly not expecting everyone to do this - only those who recognise its value and potential...
The ‘bad’ I’m referring to is an interoception of negative affect in the body, and is not necessarily conscious. This negative valence would be sufficient to unconsciously establish a basic, non-linguistic conceptual structure against a repeat of this internal event. It’s a determination by action from feeling, without actual thought or self-reflection. Most social animals are capable of this. It is Adam and Eve’s apperception of this feeling as a goal-directed emotion concept (“We were afraid, so we hid”) that demonstrated what ‘knowledge’ they’ve gained, and what they’re still missing. They don’t know nakedness as bad or immoral - at most they know that they felt afraid, which caused them to hide (or that they intended/willed to hide, which they attributed to a feeling of fear).
Quoting TheMadFool
Sure - it’s a case of subsuming any appearance of ‘nakedness’ under a moral judgement - but there’s more to an experience of nakedness than ‘frolicking wherever one fancies’. Check out 3017amen’s lengthy personal account above. The possibility of pure, non-conceptual delight enables some experiences of nakedness to transcend this moral judgement, rendering the statement ‘nakedness is bad’ as problematical.
Quoting TheMadFool
I think you misunderstand me, here. My argument is not that we’re afraid of nakedness, but that we’re afraid of our vulnerability. This fear of vulnerability (to the weather) motivates Eskimos to dress in many layers of clothing, while tribes in the tropics don’t bother.
Quoting TheMadFool
My view is that our fear of vulnerability can motivate ignorance, isolation and exclusion, which contribute to suffering - but it can also motivate us to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, which alleviates suffering. So I disagree that our purpose is to allay this fear, but rather I believe this vulnerability is necessary, and that our fear is essential to human experience. It is how we interpret our fear that counts - do we subsume all fearful experiences under moral judgements, or have the courage to perceive the possibility of the sublime in human experience that transcends morality?
This is not necessarily a call to act on that possibility, but (pace Kant) to engage the faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement in ‘free play’ at this level, enabling a critique of conceptual, value and morality systems, for instance.
My take on this is very simple. Adam and Eve underwent a change - that change has to do with the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In essence, there's a before and an after as the far as the forbidden fruit is concerned. Before, Adam and Eve didn't care about their nakedness, After (consuming the forbidden fruit), they did. What caused this transition from not caring to caring about their nakedness? The tree of knowledge of good and evil. Ergo, this change in attitude in Adam and Eve toward their nakedness must be caused by knowledge of good and evil (morality). In other words, Adam and Eve discovered that nakedness is bad.
Quoting Possibility
Quoting Possibility
Surely, then, by your own admission,nakedness is bad. Why else would you say "we must bear it all". Last I heard, we don't bear enjoyable experiences, they're not burdens to bear.
Quoting Possibility
Why are we vulnerable? Because we're naked, right?
Quoting Possibility
Why is do you think "...this vulnerability is necessary.."?
I appreciate you adding the scare quotes. I agree that clothing has been commonly perceived as ‘necessary’ for millennia within many cultures, for the reasons you touch on here: survival, diversifying to aesthetic value/potential, diversifying to intentional expression of ‘self’. I will concede that clothing is often judged as hypothetically ‘necessary’ within particular cultural experiences. But just because it is, does not mean it should be.
Quoting Bitter Crank
My question is, though: how bad is feeling bad? Isn’t it less a question of whether dropping ALL culture is an option, but whether we recognise that a particularly hypothetical cultural imperative is really a choice that we make because we don’t like the alternatives? Do we even recognise the alternatives as such, or simply obey because it’s easier? We reconstruct culture every time we exercise this choice as a choice - not as blind obedience.
I disagree that a human-looking being without language cannot be human, and therefore need not be treated as if they were human. You’re drawing an arbitrary line in the sand, not for truth but for pragmatic purposes - which is fair enough, but I think it’s important to recognise that they’re not the same thing.
My argument is not to somehow get ‘free’ of culture, but to transcend it (again, not the same thing). To recognise that we do make and remake culture by understanding that the choices we make are not forced upon us. We have the capacity to increase awareness, connect and collaborate - and in doing so, to realise that covering up is only perceived as ‘necessary’ within a particular and hypothetical cultural construct. Covering up isn’t necessary to human experience in general, let alone to existence itself, objectively speaking. Then we can ask ourselves honestly why we insist on it, and if it holds us back to impose it on every potential experience of nakedness.
The choices you make are forced upon you, your preference for wearing clothing isn't required. Similarly, the types of clothes you wear are often not choices for you to make either, or rather, the consequences for defying expectations are too severe for you to sensibly decide to defy them. The "insistence" on clothing is actually just norms operating seamlessly created by people conforming to and following social rules and the law. Is there a practical incentive for anyone to want this changed?
You’re assuming the necessary truth of ‘nakedness is bad’, and then trying to justify the statement. You might as well be doing apologetics.
There are two main forms of ‘knowledge’:
1. facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
This type of knowledge is acquired through a temporal process. It requires effort, often repeated, over a duration.
2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
This second type of knowledge is gained from an appearance. It requires attention (“their eyes were opened”) and can be instant, like an ‘ah-ha’ moment of sudden realisation or awareness.
So it seems clear to me that it’s this second form of knowledge that is gained by Adam and Eve: awareness of fear, gained from an appearance of nakedness. Their knowledge that ‘nakedness is bad’ is limited to singular situation. This is not knowledge of a ‘moral system’ as such. From awareness-type knowledge we begin to construct a moral system of value-attributed concepts, which we would test and refine in relation to the first type of knowledge, acquired through effort to interact (often repeatedly) over time. But only positive value-attributed concepts are refined in this way. When a negative value is attributed (eg. ‘Nakedness is bad’), we avoid future interaction, and any possible knowledge to be gained from a similar experience is then ignored, isolated or excluded, based on this singular experience (which I can almost guarantee would have consisted of a mixture of both positive and negative feelings, even if overall its quality appeared negative).
Quoting TheMadFool
Nakedness is not necessarily bad. Injury is bad - it is this we must bear if it occurs when we’re naked - but injury from nakedness is only bad as a hypothetical relation.
Quoting TheMadFool
It can seem that way: we feel vulnerable because we’re naked. But the truth is that we’re still vulnerable in so many ways, even when fully clothed. We’re vulnerable because we’re alive. It is in the appearance of nakedness that we so unavoidably perceive this vulnerability as a negative experience, which if we conceptualise as self-attributed ‘fear’ would only affirm it. So instead we attribute this negative quality to the concept ‘nakedness’, which we then strive to avoid, lest we are confronted once again with the truth that this vulnerability is inherent to all living beings.
Quoting TheMadFool
As an integrated temporal existence, our vulnerability is unavoidable. No life is impermeable, immune to the potential for damage, or for a death considered ‘premature’. By living, we necessarily open ourselves up to change, harm and death at some point. That’s life. But the potential that openness brings - to live, to become, to desire, connect, collaborate, delight, learn, understand and imagine - seems to me worth being vulnerable.
(In all honesty, even life is a limited perspective, but I thought this would be challenging enough...)
They’re not choices laid out for you, sure - but they’re still choices you make, whether you do so consciously, or according to socially constructed concepts you’ve integrated through language and experience (including avoiding threatened punishments).
It’s not about whether we want it changed - it’s about recognising that we can change it, and being honest about the real reasons why we don’t want it changed. It’s about evaluating behaviour that defies expectations, not on its deviation from the ‘norm’, but on the extent to which it alleviates/contributes to suffering, through awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion in the world.
I'm not assuming anything. Something happened to Adam and Eve that made them go from stark naked to strategic parts covered with fig leaves. That something was knowledge of morality. Am I wrong then to infer that nakedness is bad/immoral?
Quoting Possibility
Nevertheless, moral knowledge, right?
Imagine two people X and Y and they never did F before and then they experience M after which I start doing F. The cause of X and Y doing F is M, correct? It fits the bill insofar as a causal agent is being considered. In other words, F is a matter of M. Replace X with Adam, Y with Eve, M with morality, F with covering private parts with fig leaves, and it becomes clear that covering private parts with fig leaves is a matter of morality. Put simply, nakedness is immoral, at least for Adam and Eve.
Quoting Possibility
I thought knowledge is justified, true, belief.
Quoting Possibility
I beg to differ. Moral theories, all of them, are exceptionally clear and specific about the immoral (negatives) and are hopelessly vague about the moral (positives) indicating, by my reckoning, a greater familiarity and deeper understanding of the negatively valued than the positively valued.
Quoting Possibility
I suppose the "positive" feelings Adam and Eve experienced were sexual in nature. That's not how morality works. Morality is, to my knowledge, marketed as something that transcends the physical, sexuality and all.
Quoting Possibility
So, this is some kind of a psychological phenomenon in which we, for some reason, associate all our fears with our naked bodies? Our state of complete undress then perceived as us utterly defenseless? :up: If this is what you're getting at then, please ignore the rest of my post.
Quoting Possibility
What "choices"? To go to the supermarket naked? It's against the law. What choice are you talking about?
Quoting Possibility
Nono, you cannot reasonably talk about "we" when talking about interactions between humans and their systems. Clothing isn't necessary but it's preferable for most people that things stay the way they are, what are you going to do about it? Talk about "we" when it includes people who do and don't want to challenge these norms? "We" needs to at least be a group within society.
I agree with this interpretation of awareness. I think there are two metaphors in Genesis that relate to that awareness.
The common theme to both the allegorical tree of knowledge and shameful nakedness is self-awareness and self-consciousness respectively.
The tree of knowledge itself and lack thereof, provided a simple word picture for a metaphorical sense of finitude that we have only through our self-awareness. Meaning, as compared to lower life-forms who presumably don't have higher levels of consciousness and self-awareness, we have become aware of the concept of imperfection. And that speaks to the same sense of ignorance in all forms of temporal existence as presented to us in feeling our existential angst relative to the human condition.
To broad-brush it, whether it's a lack of perfection associated with our interpersonal struggles to seek satisfactory happiness, or deficiencies in our vocational needs or professional lives/science and a lack of knowledge and understanding about same, the natural world that we find ourselves in is in fact incomplete (Godel and Heisenberg).
Then there is self-consciousness coming from that same source of self-awareness. In this instance, I am self-conscious of my body. And I feel vulnerable to shame because I cannot choose otherwise. Moreover, I am now selfish through my self-awareness. I now have insatiable needs and I live a constant life of striving (Maslow). A feeling of existential angst has power over me (Ecclesiastes).
You are not what you could be, and you are not what you ought to be. And of course, what you are not you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you. The chasm between what you are and what you ought to be is as unreconcilable as unresolved paradox from the so-called self-referential statements of Being (Liars paradox).
Covering yourself with clothing is a right response to this—to conceal it, and some argue, to confess it. In any case, we're aware of it, self aware. Henceforth, you shall wear clothing, not to conceal that you are not what you should be, but to confess that you are not what you should be. We have now become humble.
Fast-forwarding a bit, we do have opportunities to shed this facade (nudist colonies), in order to provide for a false sense of innocence. Hence my own personal experience (the foregoing thought-- experiment) of feeling joyful in that nakedness, and a feeling of no shame and no vulnerability. A liberation of sorts (both a discovery and uncovery of a truth/ Being), but a temporalness nonetheless...
It isn’t about ‘wrong’, it’s about accuracy. You’re inferring from the word ‘knowledge’ that all of it is justified, true belief. But is it? The knowledge they gain is of ‘good’ and ‘evil’, not about it. They know a distinction exists between their own ‘good’ feeling and ‘bad’, that’s all. Everything else is incorrect inference on their part - cognitive bias. Morality - as a set of principles or codes for ‘good’ and ‘bad’ behaviour - is then constructed from this initial faulty reasoning, to be refined and corrected according to further knowledge, acquired through practical, theoretical and apparent experience over time.
Quoting TheMadFool
It often appears that way, but what moral theories do is clearly define the lower limits of unacceptable behaviour - the event horizon, so to speak.
Quoting TheMadFool
Not all of the positive feelings would be sexual in nature; much of it would be aesthetic. But one would need to interact more with the experience in order to distinguish between these feelings, which would entail getting past this ‘nakedness is bad’ judgement.
Morality does seem to be marketed as an a priori knowledge that ‘just is’. After all, it’s grounded in interoception of affect (which we are only recently beginning to understand) and our many cognitive biases. When we get past this essentialist view of morality, and see it instead as a constructed system of value-attributed behaviour concepts, then we can engage in a disinterested harmony of our faculties (imagination, understanding and judgement) in relation to behaviour.
Quoting TheMadFool
What is it with subsuming experiences under ‘psychological phenomenon’, as if that justifies indeterminate reasoning? It’s not about defenselessness, but about being open to reality. We put up walls and make laws and employ police and lock our doors and put on clothes and restrict online access to our information, and convince ourselves that we’re not vulnerable because we have all of this - but we are. Because at the end of the day, we live only to the extent that we interact openly with the world - and none of this will actually stop directed, intentional and motivated harm, or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. What is moral judgement, but an attempt to define the event horizon of our vulnerability?
What's the difference between "wrong" and "inaccurate" and "imprecise" to add? As far as I can tell, you're on a path that takes you to meta-ethics, about the very meaning of right and wrong - the foundations of morality so to speak. You think that Adam and Eve caught but a glimpse of morality and from that brief encounter all they could discern was the what? (such and such behavior is good, such and such behavior is bad) but they failed to find out the why? (why is such and such behavior good and why is such and such behavior bad). The full extent of moral knowledge is yet to be revealed/discovered - a work in progress even as I speak. Am I on the right track?
Quoting Possibility
Good analogy. Is the emphasis on a [moral] point of no return a reasonable approach to the issue of right and wrong? I guess it makes sense to red-flag extreme immorality - it dissuades us from going to those dander zones in a manner speaking.
Quoting Possibility
I think there's only a thin line between aesthetic appreciation and sexual arousal as far as our bodies are concerned. I guess I'm speaking from a lack of experience than from experience here? I'd like to know what kind of experiences enable a person to disentangle aesthetics from sex. The two seem inseparable. If this is off-topic, please ignore it.
Quoting Possibility
You said we're deeply concerned about exposing ourselves because it causes fear for the reason that in the nude we're vulnerable. I just took what you said to its logical conclusion - nakedness represents either the event horizon of our vulnerability or is the canary in a coal mine of our vulnerability - it demands immediate action, constant attention.
I agree I hate it when that happens (just being lighthearted) !!
Yeah I think there were some previous comments about the so-called pragmatics of clothing relative to protection, safety needs, and so forth. Much like pubic hair, I would think that it also offers an added degree of protection.
But after reading your comment I couldn't help but think about the modern day reality show called naked and afraid. I wonder what the philosophy was behind creating such a scenario? Metaphysically, it's testing one's own will to survive while incorporating the sexual energy between man and woman, through the aesthetical element...
I'm sure it runs through one's mind as to whether the sexual energy is enough to engage in intercourse.. Nonetheless, it's an interesting tension between the will to survive and the will to procreate.
What, you don’t think it’s still a choice: to abide by that law OR to bear the consequences? Just because we longer make these choices consciously, doesn’t mean we don’t still make them as part of our process of determining action.
Quoting Judaka
Do ‘we’ need to define a position in relation to these norms? And who said I wanted to do anything about it? The question was simple enough: is clothing necessary? Your answer appears to be no, and I agree. This is about awareness of value and potentiality structures in relation to determining behaviour, regardless of moral position. Yes, most people prefer that things stay the way we believe it should be, which is not so much that ‘nakedness is bad’, but that I am not confronted with an experience of nakedness (mine or anyone else’s) against my will. But why is that? Is nakedness actually harmful in itself, or is it the potentiality perceived in nakedness that we find offensive or threatening? And on the flip side: if it is my will to experience nakedness that would cause no actual harm to others, am I denied that freedom on ‘moral’ grounds, and if so, how accurate is that judgement? How realistic is it to meet these demands, given that each of us has a unique will? And how open can we be to reasoning that positions our own will in a disinterested collaboration?
As an example...
Quoting Kevin
Kevin says he has zero interest in seeing the locals naked, and yet there are enough with a strong interest in being naked at the beach to warrant a space that enables this. He might assume that they want him to see them naked, but many of them probably don’t care who sees - that’s not their aim. Even though they’re able to find the positive in being seen, I would argue that the real delight in nakedness comes from the intensity of being open to the entire experience.
Let me be specific, there is a choice but the pattern of people choosing to obey the law in this instance is so concrete that this pattern becomes more powerful than the choice. The choice is just an intellectual exercise, the pattern is what makes reality the way it is. You are talking about a form of self-harm which is psychological, economic, social and so on, and we cannot expect this to result in anything except what it has resulted in, people choosing not to self-harm in this way. In other words, the "freedom of choice" here is an inconsequential, insignificant force which accounts for nothing and does nothing except justifying being able to label it "a choice".
Quoting Possibility
I was not addressing your desire, I was addressing your claim that "we" could do something about it. Some people would like to repeal certain laws outlawing public nudity and some people want to keep them, thus the "we" becomes a bit silly for me, this is not a helpful way to speak.
I think in individualistic societies like in the West, there's a balance between your freedom and your imposition on others. The key issue here is not whether you should want this freedom but there is an imposition on others, is that a reasonable way of looking at it and which should trump the other? Kevin says he doesn't want to be nude in public or see others nude in public and random nudist says they want to be nude in public and screw Kevin. A nudist beach seems like a compromise to me, you have a designated spot where you can be nude in public without imposing your nudeness on others. I don't feel as if I know enough about the issue to explore it in depth.
Interestingly, we can also observe social animal responses to ‘imperfection’ or a sense of ‘less than’ at the level of value/potential, as if they too may be vaguely ‘perceptive’ of it (though not as a concept/prediction, and not in self-reference). This is the distinction between perception and apperception. It’s like anomalies that we keep excluding, until they’ve amassed enough that we can no longer ignore them, and recognise patterns starting to emerge.
Quoting 3017amen
In fact? The appearance of the world according to our facts is incomplete; according to our predictions, it’s merely uncertain. It’s because of a reliance on ‘fact’ as a foundation that this troubles us so much.
Quoting 3017amen
It appears ‘right’ to an incomplete apperception - and somewhere along the way, we forgot how to be humble. Confessing it begins by stating “We were afraid, because we were naked, so we hid”, and continues with an answer to the question: “Who told you that you were naked?” Because it isn’t that we ‘just know’, it’s that we use the faculty of judgement without any practical or theoretical knowledge (ie. understanding) whatsoever - I have the capacity to judge potential and value based on how the world appears to me, including feelings I don’t even understand. So we judge, and in our false confidence of modernism we believe ourselves justified in this, because who’s going to say that we should be patient and strive to understand first? After all, who knows more about the world than we do? So, confess to whom? Each other?
You keep repeating this quote from Maslow, but I disagree - you can perceive to understand what you are not. You just can’t expect to achieve it alone, and you can’t always state it as ‘knowledge’. This is what imagination is for, why we share the depth of our experiences, expressing them in words, art, movement and sound. Not just to be aware or connect, but to collaborate with what we are not. We don’t need a full working knowledge necessarily, but just to keep in mind what my teenage daughter repeats ad nauseum: ‘don’t judge’. This generation are learning to go beyond ‘confessing’ to each other: recognising NOT that they are not what they should be, but that what they currently understand is incomplete, uncertain - insufficient for these judgements that close the door to understanding.
Quoting 3017amen
I would argue that it’s not so much ‘no vulnerability’ - openness gives us a sense of increased capacity to anticipate and manage our physical vulnerability, or transcend this temporalness (and by transcend, once again, I don’t mean deny or escape - only to recognise that we are more than our temporal existence, and therefore not bound by it). It seems to me, though, that your preference is instead to regress your awareness, to retreat into ignorance and deny this vulnerability, and in doing so to retrieve a false sense of ‘innocence’. I’m thinking you might have missed the point of it being a thought experiment...
Sorry. Someone had to say it.
Seriously though, it's not worth getting my ass beat by my wife on the rare occasions where I get semi erect in public due to an uncontrollable physiological reaction when confronted with someone I find attractive. Really, really not worth it.
I only get naked in public for a fight, while saying "I fuck what I beat". This is just an intimidation tactic to try and avoid the fight though as few people want to mess with a crazy person. No one has done it back yet though which would be equally terrifying to me!
Yes, meta-ethics is where I’m headed, but I would argue that human experience is the foundation of morality - that it’s constructed as part of our conceptual systems, from a vague interoception of affect. All Adam and Eve could discern was a negative feeling, where there wasn’t one before. You’re assuming that ‘moral knowledge’ was out there to be ‘revealed/discovered’, but my view is that it’s a condition of our inter-subjective relation to the world, to be hypothesised, tested, refined and corrected over time - a work in progress as we speak.
Quoting TheMadFool
It’s not so much the point of no return, but the point beyond which our efforts to understand appear to threaten our own relative [moral] position.
Quoting TheMadFool
You’re delving into a topic here that 3017amen and I have been discussing for some time on another thread - from which this thread is tangential. You’re welcome to join us there.
Quoting TheMadFool
It demands effort and attention, yes - but it needn’t be something to avoid. Do you see science giving up on understanding black holes? There is a path to be negotiated between fascination and fear, between increasing awareness, connection and collaboration and seeking refuge in exclusion, isolation or ignorance. I’m not suggesting we do away with clothing, that we march straight into the coal mine alone - only that we stop denying our own vulnerability by sacrificing canaries...
But you are addressing desire here - what I’m referring to is understanding, regardless of law or will. So it makes little difference to the discussion whether anyone wants to repeal laws or keep them, and dichotomising in this way fails to take into account those who enjoy nakedness yet, regardless of laws, would not choose to knowingly subject someone else to an experience of nakedness against their will.
Quoting Judaka
Your opinion of the random nudist is showing as a blatant disregard for others - if that were the case, then having a nudist beach available would make little difference to their behaviour. A nudist beach is viewed as collaboration for some, isolation or exclusion for others. That you see this as an indication of what side of the law they’re on is interesting.
I think you're confusing learning morality with knowledge of morality- the difference between the two being that the former is dynamic - morphs over time - and that the latter is static - unalterable. The learning process is characterized by changes, big and small, results of new understanding and this appears to us as if we're building a moral edifice from scratch, so much so that it might even seem that we're inventing morality as we go along. This isn't true.
First understand that morality, if it has a rationale, should resemble an axiomatic system with a few basic postulates that underpin a body of do's and don't's of a moral nature. Morality sits there, complete and whole, in, what some might even say, the Platonic world of forms, perfect in every way, waiting to be discovered.
Were this not true, morality would be a subjective affair - people would invent rules and issue injunctions of any kind, their whims and fancies ruling the roost. This is clearly not how people view morality - they see it as consisting of truths based on some rational foundation i.e. people think of morality as objective.
Quoting Possibility
Kindly explain.
Quoting Possibility
But the canary is there precisely because we recognize our vulnerability.
I’m not confused - this is where we disagree. Don’t get me wrong - I do agree that any supposedly moral system should aim to be axiomatic, eternally viable and perfectly complete. But I disagree that morality refers to a pre-existing body of ‘knowledge’ waiting to be discovered. Rather, it’s an inter-subjective value system we are in the process of constructing and refining from our collective human experience of the unfolding universe. Over the centuries and millennia it has been re-defined by changes, big and small, results of new understanding, etc - and if it were truly ‘objective’ then it wouldn’t necessarily exist. Because any system of relating to the world objectively would not advocate exclusion, isolation or ignorance on the grounds of value.
Quoting TheMadFool
No, we project this perception of vulnerability onto the canary, and then save ourselves when it dies - no consideration for the bird, no responsibility for its death. That’s not accepting our vulnerability at all.
If what you say is true then, as I said, morality is, well, man-made in the sense it's just one of those systems of rules we build to make living easier. By that logic slavery or murder or rape aren't actually immoral - they're just agreed upon to fall in the category of bad deeds. Yet, moral systems, all of them, use a happiness/suffering paradigm, and we know for certain slavery, murder, and rape, all, induce suffering in the victims and their loved ones. In other words, morality is objective to the extent it's based on a hedonistic metric and being so must count as a discovered item.
Quoting Possibility
You are missing my point, which is to refute what you said when you said "it's about recognising we can change it", I am addressing desire only to address reality. What else is your point? That views on nakedness aren't part of the laws of the world but just based on culture and preference? Why would that even need to be said?
Quoting Possibility
Do you mean the nakedness of the nudist or forcing someone to be naked who wanted clothing? If it is the former, then that's how it is already, be naked in your house nobody cares and if it is the latter then I disagree and I never imagined the law would be "you must be naked in public".
Quoting Possibility
I can't make sense of this statement.
Quoting Possibility
It is meaningless to be a nudist if you can be naked in public only in circumstances where you have to be. I am not saying that being a nudist means wanting all laws about the necessity of clothing repealed but obviously, there has to be something, is that not correct?
Actually I think it is you who is denying your vulnerability. And that was evidenced by your foregoing arguments concerning denial over the objectification of women.
Further, and don't take this the wrong way, this is another reason why I respect Maslow (and Pragmatist William James), as he was a psychologist turned philosopher; not just all theory and philosophical jibberish. He put practice into theory. Just like my theory was put into practice by visiting the nudist colony. Whereas you my dear, are all theory.
I would recommend either applying for the reality show 'naked and afraid' or simply visiting a nudist colony then come back with relevant facts from your experience.
Moral systems are man-made in the same sense that the laws of physics are man-made. They are constructed conceptual systems to make living understandable from our perspective. The main difference is that morality is still bound by human interoception of affect, because we struggle to imagine a qualitative value system in which this happiness/suffering paradigm is irrelevant. So our moral systems are applicable within a human interactive context, but beyond this they can say nothing accurate or objective about our relation to existence.
The Copernican Revolution was more than rejecting the assumption that the Earth is motionless - it led to rejecting the assumption that our perspective of the physical universe is a necessarily central orientation. Kant’s own attempt at a similar paradigm shift was hampered by his essentialist perspective of human reason. Without Darwin’s Evolution of the Species, he still assumed that our human perspective of the unfolding, temporal universe was a necessarily central orientation - and his metaphysics reflected this. To complete Kant’s Copernican Turn, we must first complete Darwin’s, and then de-centralise human reasoning itself. Only then can we re-examine an objective critique of moral systems.
It does not follow from this that slavery, murder or rape aren’t immoral - only that there’s more to human experience than what we can conceptualise according to morality. Regardless of whether nakedness is conceptualised as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, our relation to the experience is more complex, and our capacity for nakedness transcends the moral concept itself. My argument is simply to recognise that morality is not the ‘event horizon’ of human experience that we make it out to be. Our capacity to imagine a non-conceptual or disinterested experience of nakedness (for instance) allows for ‘free play’ between the faculties of understanding and judgement.
But disinterest is not denial. We are vulnerable - more than we’d like to admit. However, this appearance of vulnerability we experience is also inclusive of potential and possible harm, and the forms in which they appear are further away from us in reality than they seem.
Consider moral systems as analogous to the geocentric model that acts as an horizon: bringing order and sense to an unknowable reality based on observations from a fixed, central orientation. The cosmos appears as a container, and the stars line its walls, for all we knew. Two steps must occur for the paradigm shift: first, imagine that this supposedly fixed position is actually in motion itself (this is what Kant was aiming for); second, imagine that this supposedly central orientation is merely a particular position - one of, rather than singular or universal.
The result is a recognition that this aspect of reality is not as unknowable as we once thought. What was once the 3D horizon (our observation/measurement of space) becomes a particular variable perspective in a container with a broader 4D horizon (our empirical knowledge of the unfolding universe), which is itself a particular variable perspective in another container with an even broader 5D horizon (our conceptual reality, or our inter-subjective understanding of the potential universe). Dare we take this further? If we can engage imagination to understand the most remote potential of the universe, what is stopping us from understanding the scope of human potentiality, without necessarily going there? In other words, what can we learn about ourselves and our capacity - beyond this horizon of moral judgement - from the shared experiences of those who perceive (or are confronted with) this human potential for nakedness; even for slavery, murder or rape?
So when I ask “Is clothing necessary?” the challenge is not to answer with reasons why we need it, but to imagine who we are beyond it...
To refute claims to universality, to inherence, in the statement ‘clothing is necessary’. To critique the moral judgement surrounding ‘nakedness’ as a concept. Reality is not necessarily about what we do, but what we are capable of.
Quoting Judaka
I also disagree with the latter. But these are not the only ways to experience nakedness. My point is that the human experience of nakedness is more complex than morality or the law implies. When we recognise that clothing is not necessary, then this complexity becomes obvious, and we are faced with the reality of our human potential, for better or worse.
I have never encountered an example of someone thinking clothing is necessary. I also have not really encountered anyone saying that the issue of whether clothing should be mandatory is complex. Most people would just say "ew" and that's done and dusted. Sure, some factors like religion make it complex but religion does that with many concepts. Why do you think this is a complex issue and why should people even care?
With all due respect, none of this constitutes an argument. You’re taking aim at my speculative approach because I challenged yours. I’m not expecting you to agree with me, but I did expect more from you than this.
A visit to a nudist colony neither constitutes proof of your theory, nor a thought experiment in itself. It’s a particular subjective account. Useful, but only if you’re willing to be honest about your experience and accept the challenge of an alternate interpretation.
Consider the possibility that your ‘thought’ process consisted only of subsuming ‘feelings’ under your theory. Now, consider the possibility that your theory might be inaccurate, and allow your full experience to challenge this original thinking, instead of submitting to it. In other words, engage all three faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement in the process of critiquing your own theory in relation to your experience - that’s what they’re for.
FWIW, I don’t pretend to engage in anything more than speculative philosophy. All I have is inter-subjective experience and my faculties, in the end. Philosophical theory put into practice is living and interacting with the world - I’m doing that just fine, thanks, but I certainly don’t consider any ‘facts’ of my experiences to be proof of my theories.
It was in response to the statement made in another thread - to be honest, I didn’t expect this much discussion on it. I thought it was well understood, and that the statement was an attempt to shut down part of a more complex discussion on the necessity of the ‘physical object’ in human experience.
We often take for granted or assume certain limitations or essentials in the human experience at an interpersonal level. That ‘nakedness is bad’ is one of these automatic responses even though, in thoughtful discussion, we can acknowledge the narrowness of this position.
What intrigued me here, though, was how many responded initially by justifying it as a limitation, and then took some discussion before admitting for the record that it isn’t really necessary. The question isn’t ‘whether clothing should be mandatory’, but whether it is either essential or necessary to human experience, existence or survival as a whole. Can we be human without clothing? If it isn’t necessary, then what is it about nakedness that threatens our humanity, such that we are so hesitant to admit this? The answer lies as much in what humans are capable of, as in our vulnerability as a result.
Moral judgement on clothing/nakedness presents an horizon, beyond which some would rather not risk ourselves. We won’t learn much from the horizon (except to face our own fear and fascination), but I don’t believe it’s necessary to actually cross this horizon ourselves. It is our capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration with others - genuinely and beyond moral judgement - that enables us to better understand the complex, inter-subjective relational structure between our various limitations and the diversity of what we’re capable of.
I just find your descriptions to be objectionable like you say this;
Quoting Possibility
but who is that even in response to?
Perhaps the reason why people can't answer why clothing is necessary is that there was never any incentive for them to ask themselves this question, they never had a choice anyway. Their compliance is mandatory, their opinions aren't of any relevance to the enforcement of either the law or social convention. However, clearly, the law and social convention are what make clothing necessary and then you can ask "why have they made it necessary?". Which is more of a history question, I suppose, than a philosophical one. Various body parts are considered sexual and therefore inappropriate to show in public, in some of Islam, it seems even just showing a woman's face is too much. I am not familiar with the history on it but I know that laws creating a necessity for clothing in public predate Christianity, I guess one could read up on it if they're interested.
I’m not sure why this needs to be in response to anyone.
I suppose it does seem like I’m asking pointless questions. It’s not that people can’t answer why clothing is necessary (it seems that’s the easy part) - instead they struggle to recognise that it really isn’t: they’re not willing to unravel this learned compliance and examine the fear of pain, humiliation and lack at the heart of it. Why bother? We constructed law and society to shield us from this reality - I get that - but the reality exists despite our attempts to hide from it. I don’t agree that it’s a history question, mainly because I’m not after the logical ‘why’ that justifies the law, but our relation to the reality that the law conceals - the one we explain away.
I guess I’m asking for more self-reflective honesty than most people can manage, or believe they need to. It can venture into psychology, too - which many seem to think takes them out of the philosophical domain, for some reason.
Still, I appreciate you commenting.
I've watched a few episodes of that show, and I don't really see the significance of them being naked other than it increasing the likelihood to be harmed by natural elements and making the challenge more difficult. I think sexual energy or the desire for sex decreases under extreme distress which seems to be a part of that show; and it's the paradox that of westerners being naked yet completely sexually disinterested in each other that awes most viewers and attracts the audience. But I think it actually demonstrates your earlier point, that nakedness does increase likelihood to be harmed by natural elements and diminishes your safety, but this was done in the wilderness so there is that.
In this context, that's kind of sad. To become another person for a day, might yield interesting results. Think of it this way, does having a life altering experience change one's approach, perspective, or philosophy about a given subject matter?
Quoting Possibility
Exception taken as noted: it's called philosophical pragmatism.
Quoting Possibility
See above. What am I not being honest about?
Quoting Possibility
Should I interpret that as the repudiation of empiricism?
Sure - but it’s only a life altering experience because it changes one’s approach, etc.
Quoting 3017amen
What you wrote in response to my post was not. I presented my issues with your theory as a way to re-examine the experience, and in response you attacked my theoretical approach, instead of addressing the issues. I’m not offended, I’d just prefer you to address the issues.
Your theory put into practice once is not the same as Maslow’s years of practice put into theory - it seems to me a reverse of his methodology. Your experience was useful to you in that it achieved its set purpose: to subjectively validate your particular theory in your experience. While I applaud your courage, personally relate to the ‘facts’ of your experience and find them pertinent to the discussion, for me it does not follow that your theory is correct.
Quoting 3017amen
That’s not how I intended it - perhaps I was a little too sweeping in my generalisation, or perhaps you’re reading more into it than is there (incidentally, I believe the validity of empiricism is dependent on what one understands to be ‘experience’, but let’s not stray even further off topic). The ‘facts’ of a single experience cannot ‘prove’ a metaphysical theory - they can be interpreted to support it as one of many possible instances. Your limited introspection is the main source of empirical support for your theory, which is interpreted by you through the lens of your philosophical pragmatism before you articulate it here, so of course it supports your theory as described. Frankly, I’d be surprised if it didn’t - it would demonstrate a cognitive dissonance on your part. These ‘facts’ cannot be presented by you independent of your subjective lens. I can relate to them from my position, but my interpretation will be different. Likewise, I can describe my personal experiences (and I have done in previous discussions with you) to support my own theory, but it doesn’t follow that I have proven my theory with the ‘facts’ of my experience, because you will invariably interpret them in a way that counters mine and supports your own. So, just how useful is personal experience in such a discussion, except to shore up our own positions in our minds? I don’t realistically expect you to take up the challenge I suggested, because we both appear to be on the defensive here, which is getting us nowhere. I think it was William James who said something like: the harder we try to avoid error, the more likely it is that we will miss out on truth...
I read Amen's response to you yesterday and I was astounded by it, as the whole stance was one of passive aggressive.
Two weeks ago I was engaging with both of you in a discussion about Jung and Kant. I bowed out of this because I decided that my own gender issues were not an appropriate part of the debate you were having.
I do not wish to say too much because this a philosophy forum, but sex and sexuality is an undercurrent of all debates in life. So, all I will say is that perhaps it is better if we are clothed rather than naked philosophers. I disclosed too much in my initial posts, but above all, we have to remain clothed and be mindful as we dialogue in the fundamental philosophical debates.
Clothing provides us with protection from our
vulnerability, physically and psychologically, Independnt from our bodies and other people aesthetics, as well as the fragility of our emotions, as well as beyond heterosexuality and the binary of gender, this is central to rational philosophy. Philosophy, whether in favour of rational arguments or empirical cannot cast this aside without disregard for our fundamental humanity.
I wonder if clothes are layers upon structures. Perhaps philosophers have clothes, which are the words and concepts they use to hide the naked materials of questions about the human condition.
The aim is not to cast it aside, but to recognise it and account for it in our interaction with the world. If we would relate to an aspect of reality in exactly the same way without clothes, then clothing has no bearing on our understanding of reality.
Perhaps, in a sense, when the philosophers stand naked rather than veiled in layers of clothing they will come closer to levels of thought and truths which are not seen usually. It may make themselves and others feel uncomfortable but we may learn from lack of comfort. The harshest experiences can teach us so much, so perhaps we need to stand naked in the cold of winter.