The Power and the Glory

<p>Fred,<em> if nothing is sacred, then nothing is a sacrilege</em> . If nothing is a sacrilege, upon what basis can you object to anything that anyone might want to do with nude women, homeless persons, or victims of war?</p>

<p>From whence comes any sense of good and bad, right and wrong, if not from some sense of sacredness?</p>

<p>Life is sacred. Everything that I have said is derivative of that basic premise. Once you deny the meaningfulness of the "sacred," you have no real foundation for making any ethical judgments at all.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>And so, being attuned to the sacred, you conclude that a boob shot challenges social mores. The philosophy of Hugh Hefner (when he was a callow youth).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You still haven't answered my question. Why is no ethical issue in photography more compelling than nudity?</p>

<p>The reason I think photographs of homelessness and war are more compelling ethical issues than photographs of nudes is that they are often matters of life and death. Our callousness in snapping endless mindless pictures of the homeless and the need for more serious photodocumentation of homelessness from a non-voyeuristic perspective as well as the ease with which we photograph and glorify images of the young men and women we send off to war are of great ethical concern to me. I value quality of life (not so much life itself) and try to avoid causing suffering. Not because of anything sacred, but because a reasonable quality of life seems fundamental to humanity, and quality of life and lack of suffering feels better than their opposites. There's some utilitarianism in that, which I'm fine with.</p>

<p>While there are many ethical issues that can be brought up around nudity, public nudity, and the photography of those, those issues pale for me in comparison to the more significant ethical issues brought up by war, starvation, and lack of shelter in a civilized society. Nude photographs, in a long stretch, could be on some level the cause of mistreatment of women, etc. Such mistreatment might lead to rape and death. But it would be a long stretch to concern myself with Beepy's photos leading to the death of women. However, the uncaring and peeping-tommish manner in which many homeless people are photographed and the embedded chearleading that went on with many "photojournalistic" documents of the Iraq war have a much closer relationship to human suffering and death.</p>

<p>That's my reasoning for why I think there are more compelling ethical areas of photography than the nude or public nude. And now I await your reasoning for your statement that ethics are "nowhere more compelling" than with the public nude . . .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The reason I think photographs of homelessness and war are more compelling ethical issues than photographs of nudes is that they are often matters of life and death.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Matters of nudity and sexuality are matters of the <em>quality</em> of life, specifically, how <em>meaningful</em> life is.</p>

<p>Fred, you have asked me to answer a question. I have answered. You simply do not like my answer.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>This thread takes too long to load.</p>

<p>And so, being attuned to the sacred, you conclude that a boob shot challenges social mores. The philosophy of Hugh Hefner (when he was a callow youth).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Lannie--</p>

<p>If your answer is that the nude is related to sacredness, then my question would be why does sacredness equally apply to nudity and matters of life and death. If your answer for why nudity has the same ethical compulsion for you as homelessness and war is something other than "they all have something to do with sacredness," I can't find it. I feel like we've come this far and now you're completely copping out, refusing to answer the most basic and significant assertion you've made, on the relative importance of the ethical concerns of nudity. If you can't summarize that in a paragraph or two or point me to a specific post where you talk about why nudity is AS ethical a concern for you as war and homelessness, then I'd have to question either your sincerity or your credentials as any sort of practicing philosopher.</p>

<p><em>"if nothing is sacred, then nothing is a sacrilege</em> . If nothing is a sacrilege, upon what basis can you object to anything that anyone might want to do with nude women, homeless persons, or victims of war?"</p>

<p>What theology defines this mortal world as sacred and offenses against criminal and civil law sacrilege?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Don, that posting looks remarkably similar to your posting of 2:14 p.m.:</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2144640">Don E</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Jun 06, 2009; 02:14 p.m.<br>

And so, being attuned to the sacred, you conclude that a boob shot challenges social mores. The philosophy of Hugh Hefner (when he was a callow youth).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It was not profound at 2:14, and it is not profound at 4:42 p.m., except to remind me that I have been on this forum far too long today.</p>

<p>When I posted to this forum at 10:51 a.m. today, I had not idea that I would still be sitting here six hours later.</p>

<p>Time to leave. . . .</p>

<p>I hope you guys get it all figured out. I'm outta here. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you can't summarize that in a paragraph or two or point me to a specific post where you talk about why nudity is AS ethical a concern for you as war and homelessness, then I'd have to question either your sincerity or your credentials as any sort of practicing philosopher.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, I give a flying Fallujah what you think either of my credentials or of my sincerity. You are particularly obtuse today, and I cannot help you. <strong>We have spent not just a paragraph or two, but something over three hundred posts collectively on this thread spanning a total of twenty-six days.</strong></p>

<p><em>"Life is more than being alive. There are deep moral implications to the issues that we have raised about sexuality and nudity that go to the heart of what it is to be <strong>fully and authentically human</strong> ." --LK<br /> </em></p>

<p>Howzat?</p>

<p>---Lannie</p>

<p>It's lousy. I'm not being obtuse. As a matter of fact, it's quite clear.</p>

<p>You have argued, well I might add, why and how you see a connection between sacredness and nude photography. I disagree with you but understand your arguments about it, which are cogent and shared by others.</p>

<p>But late in the thread you introduced the idea that nude photography was as compelling a moral concern as homelessness and war. You have given no arguments to support that.</p>

<p>I am left thinking that you believe the moral implications of nudity and sexuality are as significant as the moral implications of war and starvation. If that's how you want to leave it, fine. But it's a position that seems to me needs some explaining. I am happy to drop it, however, if you're happy to leave it at that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But late in the thread you introduced the idea that nude photography was as compelling a moral concern as homelessness and war. You have given no arguments to support that. --Fred G.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, what I said on May 29 (by way of trying to extricate myself from the thread) was the following:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In other words, the ancient Greek maxim "Know thyself" seems nowhere more relevant or compelling than on the <strong><em>myriad issues</em> </strong> that we have discussed here. (Emphasis supplied on June 6, today.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This was said by way of trying to get myself off of the thread. I did not expect anyone to respond to it as stated, much less as restated <em>qua </em> mis-stated, as you have now done several different ways.</p>

<p>I do not know your motives, and I do not care to know them. I only wish to know mine, in accordance with the ancient Greek maxim "Know thyself."</p>

<p>I recommend the same for you.</p>

<p>I am leaving now.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>"Don, that posting looks remarkably similar to your posting of 2:14 p.m. It was not profound at 2:14, and it is not profound at 4:42 p.m."</p>

<p>It is not intended to be profound. They are questions regarding "sacred", "sacrilege" and other terminology you belabor others for 'not getting', but you are unwilling to explain. I can only assume you consider them self-evident and beyond dispute. Your weariness in participating in this thread, dealing with those who you think 'don't get it' is juvenile.</p>

<p>I will not ask you questions again. Academics Pfui. God envies your omniscience.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Don, what you said was the following:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And so, being attuned to the sacred, you conclude that a boob shot challenges social mores. The philosophy of Hugh Hefner (when he was a callow youth).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If that was a question, then it is unlike any <em>question</em> that I have ever seen. (It certainly was not a question about the nature of the sacred.) Even as a <em>statement</em> , I am not sure to whom it is directed, since I never said that "a boob shot challenges social mores."</p>

<p>Those are your words.</p>

<p>You have not asked any questions.</p>

<p>Goodbye, Don.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Lannie--</p>

<p>Your logic escapes me. When you made your "nowhere more compelling or relevant" statement, we hadn't yet discussed homelessness or war photos. You were clearly talking about the myriad nude-related issues that had already been discussed in this thread. If you are now trying to distance yourself from the claim you initially made that ethics was nowhere more compelling than in regards to the nude, good for you. It was an unsupportable claim. But please don't tell me I'm saying something that you didn't say. You clearly stated that "knowing thyself" and compelling ethics apply equally to nudes as to anything else. That seems to draw a moral equivalence between nudity and war, again, to me, an unsupportable claim. Rather than explaining and/or justifying this brazen statement, you have obfuscated and avoided the issue since I brought it to your attention. I agree with Don that you have chosen to insist that we just don't get you instead of either stating that you mispoke or explaining yourself in plain English, sticking strictly to the question: Why are the ethics of nudes equal in your mind to the ethics of war? If, in fact, you don't think the ethics of nudes is equal to the ethics of war, then your statement that ethics are nowhere more compelling or relevant than regarding the issues in this thread should be retracted.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But please don't tell me I'm saying something that you didn't say. You clearly stated that "knowing thyself" and compelling ethics apply equally to nudes as to anything else. --Fred Goldsmith</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>What </strong> <strong>I actually wrote on May 29 was the following:</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>In other words, the ancient Greek maxim "Know thyself" seems nowhere more relevant or compelling than on the <strong>myriad issues</strong> that we have discussed here. (Emphasis supplied June 6, today.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I prefer to be quoted precisely if I am going to be quoted. <strong>I do not know why you prefer to respond to your own very loose (but variable) paraphrases of what I have said when I have made it abundantly clear WHAT I ACTUALLY DID SAY, WORD FOR WORD.</strong></p>

<p>There's not a lot of wiggle room on this one, Fred: <strong>you misquoted me, several times</strong> , not just once. <strong>Having created this straw man of what you say that I said, you then proceed to attack that straw man--RATHER THAN WHAT I ACTUALLY DID SAY.<br /> </strong></p>

<p><strong>I HAVE NOTHING TO RETRACT. I STAND BY WHAT I SAID, AND WHAT I SAID ON MAY 29 IS RESTATED PRECISELY ABOVE IN BLACK AND WHITE FOR ANYONE WHO CARES TO READ.<br /> </strong></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A <strong>straw man</strong> <a title="Logical argument" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument" title="Logical argument" >argument</a> is an <a title="Informal fallacy" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy" title="Informal fallacy">informal fallacy</a> based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.<sup id="cite_ref-book_0-0" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#cite_note-book-0"></a> </sup> To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. --Wikipedia</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The larger context on Wikipedia can be found on that site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>"You have not asked any questions."<br>

"What theology defines this mortal world as sacred and offenses against criminal and civil law sacrilege?" Is not a question? Ok. Excuse me.</p>

<p>"Goodbye, Don."</p>

<p>You've given more farewell performances than an old rock band.</p>

<p> </p>