Homo Faber and Clothing

A difficulty in conceiving clothing as both a need and an implement is likely rooted in a deeply-ingrained concept of Human as Homo Sapiens, in which the species is conceived as distinctive because of its Knowledge, and that Knowledge is conceived as essentially contemplative or theoretical.  Accordingly, while clothing is easily conceivable as a unprecedented vital need, i. e. in most cases, a thinker needs to be wearing at least something, any use of an implement involves only applied Knowledge, and, thus, is conceived as inessential.  In contrast, the concept of Human as Homo Faber entails that its existence is essentially Practical or Technical.  On that basis, clothing, as the primary stratum of Human engagement with its environment, is both needed for that engagement, and needed qua Practical or Technical.  In other words, given the revision of the traditional concept of Human, it is as an implement that clothing is a vital need.

Clothing, Implement, Need

An implement is an extension of the human body that mediates a modification of its environment.  Thus, clothing is the fundamental implement.  For, it is, merely insofar as being worn, an extension of a body.  Furthermore, it facilitates any extension of occupancy by enabling adaptation to an environmental change, either a variation in a given environment, e. g. a change of weather, or travel to a new and different environment.  In all cases, that extension is the precondition of specific extensions, of the use of specific implements, e. g. a coat put on in order to go outside and shovel snow.  Now, clothing is a vital need for Humans, which distinguishes the species from others.  Thus, it is a need to extend, not merely to maintain or replenish, which is how needs are typically interpreted.  Thus, clothing is indicative of a growth principle, e. g. Evolution, rather than a mere Survival principle.  It is also an implement the use of which is a vital need, and not merely a means to satisfying a vital need.

Utility and Evolutionist Economics

Utilitarianism conflates the criterion of Value--Pleasure--with the preeminent bearer of Value--Usefulness.  Thus, Utility and Pleasure-causing are synonymous in the doctrine, as is evident when Mill struggles to distinguish 'higher' and 'lower' pleasures.  Accordingly, Utilitarianism is merely a variety of Hedonism.  Now, some clothing is, because of the way it feels on the skin, pleasurable.  But otherwise, the Utilitarian concepts of Utility and Usefulness are inapplicable to clothing.  For, the value of clothing usually consists not in its feeling on the skin, but in its effectiveness in facilitating adaptation to an environment--work-boots in mud, a business suit in an office, shorts on a tennis court, a space suit on the Moon, etc.  Thus, traditional Utilitarianism is inadequate to an Evolutionist concept of Economics, which entails an essential relationship between a Producer/Consumer and an Environment.  But that inadequacy does not necessarily apply to the concept of Utility that Utilitarianism distorts--Usefulness, in its ordinary meaning, which can characterize the value of clothing in the promotion of Evolution, e. g. Armstrong's spacesuit that allows him to take a giant leap for the species.

Clothing, Adaptation, Economics

Among the vital Human needs, clothing is distinctive, because it is in immediate contact with an environment.  Hence, it must be adapted to an environment in ways not required of other vital needs, e. g. clothing must be specifically waterproofed against wet conditions, but any food eaten, though in a waterproof container, is the same as that eaten in dry conditions.  So, the versatility of clothing must correspond to the versatility of Human functioning.  Now, whether or not other species can function, as humans can, in  conditions that are as varied as hot, cold, dry, wet, etc., there seems to be none that can also do so extraterrestrially.   So, insofar as the principle of Human History is Evolutionist, i. e. the development of an unprecedented versatility, the production and consumption of clothing must be the foundation of an Evolutionist Economics.

Surplus and Value

Surplus-Value is usually analyzed as the difference between the value of a manufactured product and the value of the raw material prior to the manufacturing process.  However, there is a more fundamental analysis, as is signified by the hyphen--differentiating the surplus in the material, i. e. how it has been modified, and the value of that surplus.  So, that Labor is the source of the modification, does not entail that it has value.  Rather, it has value only insofar as the finished product has use.  In other words, the formulation of the concept 'source of Value' is ambiguous--it might signify the cause of a valuable modification, but it might also signify the act by which Value is ascribed to something.  Thus, absent a disambiguation, the Labor Theory of Value and the Use Theory of Value are not inconsistent.  However, given the clarification, they are, and the latter seems correct.  Which does not undermine the Marxist diagnosis of Exploitation as stealing from the Labor that increases Value by the modification of the given.

Human, Economics, Clothing

According to Smith, Humans are distinguished from other species when negotiating exchanges, while, according to Marx, they are distinguished when producing the means to satisfy basic needs.  These premises ground their respective focuses in Economics--Smith's on the concept of a Market, Marx's on the Means of Production as the medium of Exploitation.  But each also strays from their original vision--Smith's Market becomes an arena of not Exchange, but of Profit-seeking, and Marx advocates the elimination of Human Labor.  Now, as has been previously discussed, the distinctive Human need is, instead, clothing, and the distinctive Human thumb facilitates the solution to that need.  Thus, a concept of Economics that is derived from what is distinctively Human is most clearly evidenced by the production and consumption of clothing.  Accordingly, Smith's concept of Human is derivative, exchange involving clothing presupposes its manufacture, and Marx would eliminate his by replacing workers with machines.

Eden, Clothing, Evolution

Probably because of the traditional Theological focus on Reproductive processes, the absence of some details in Genesis 3 has usually been overlooked, e. g. how Adam and Eve know how to sew, what materials they use to accomplish that, etc.  But the perhaps most significant lack is of an explanation for why they do not need clothing.  Now, one natural account is that the climate in Eden does not require any such protection, e. g. it is constantly warm enough, it does not rain, etc.  But, on the basis of that premise, the logic of the subsequent events potentially changes.  For, preceding the temptation of the serpent might thus be a wanderlust, which would entail travel to a different climate, and, hence, to where clothing might be needed.  Accordingly, leaving Eden is not an unintended consequence of straying from assured survival, but, rather is the initial impulse to begin with.  In other words, once a plausible explanation for the nakedness of Adam and Eve is accepted, Genesis can transform into a proto-Evolutionist account of the earliest days of Human History--the instinct to transcend the given, the zoologically unique need for clothing, the uniquely versatile thumb, knowledge of the use of that thumb to manufacture clothing, and, the eventual departure from Eden.  Perhaps after Evolutionism has been more fully absorbed into Human culture, such a radical revision of one its most influential documents might become more widely accepted.