I just find your descriptions to be objectionable like you say this;

Can we be human without clothing? — 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 just find your descriptions to be objectionable like you say this;

Can we be human without clothing?
— Possibility

but who is that even in response to? — Judaka

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.

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... — 3017amen

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.

FWIW, I don’t pretend to engage in anything more than speculative philosophy — Possibility

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?

With all due respect, none of this constitutes an argument. — Possibility

Exception taken as noted: it's called philosophical pragmatism.

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. — Possibility

See above. What am I not being honest about?

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. — Possibility

Should I interpret that as the repudiation of empiricism?

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? — 3017amen

Sure - but it’s only a life altering experience because it changes one’s approach, etc.

Exception taken as noted: it's called philosophical pragmatism. — 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.

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.
— Possibility

Should I interpret that as the repudiation of empiricism? — 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 am not wishing to interrupt any discussion which is ongoing and would like to see it opened up.
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.

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. — Jack Cummins

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.

I do like the idea of dolphin monkeys - trying to think what they might look like. Anyway, surely clothing has evolved along with the human need for protection and for practical purposes as we have moved into climates and taken up work that requires it?