Kolese asked:

I'm curious to know whether there is philosophical basic for naturism or the nudist "style of life". Were
there any prominent philosophers who discussed the idea of naturism/ nudism?

============

Modern Western naturism/ nudism originated in late nineteenth century German "Freikorperkultur"
(Free body culture). This movement certainly sought a philosophical, or at least intellectual, basis for
its activities. I understand that its key texts were Nacktkultur(Naked Culture) by Heinrich Pudor
(1865-1943) and Richard Ungewritter's Die Nacktheit(Nakedness). Although Pudor was a professor
of social science, I do not know how far either work may be regarded as philosophical.

However, some notable philosophers have discussed the idea of nudism, or at least have questioned
why we should always wear clothes. For example, Michel de Montaigne (1533-92) uses the topic to
advance the moral and cultural relativism that characterizes his Essays:

"Whatever I shall say upon this subject, I am of necessity to invade some of the bounds of custom, so
careful has she been to shut up all the avenues. I was disputing with myself in this shivering season,
whether the fashion of going naked in those nations lately discover'd, is imposed upon them, by the
hot temperature of the air, as we say of, the Moors and Indians, or whether it be the original fashion
of mankind; men of understanding, forasmuch as all things under the sun, as the holy writ declares,
are subject to the same laws, were wont in such considerations as these, where we are to distinguish
the natural laws from those have been impos'd by man's invention, to have recourse to the general
polity of the world, where there can be nothing counterfeited. Now all other creatures being
sufficiently furnish'd with all things necessary for the support of their being, it is not to be imagined
that we only should be brought into the world in a defective and indigent condition, and in such an
estate as cannot subsist without foreign assistance; and therefore it is, that I believe, that as plants,
trees, and animals, and all things that have life, are seen to be by nature sufficiently cloathed and
cover'd, to defend them from the injuries of weather:

"Proptereaque fere res omnes, aut corio sunt, Aut seta, aut conchis, aut callo, aut cortice tectae
—L Lucret. l. 4."

Moreover all things, or with skin, or hair, Or shell, or bark, or Callus cloathed are. so were we: but as
those who by artificial light put out that of the day, so we by borrowed forms and fashions have
destroy'd our own. And 'tis plain enough to be seen, that 'tis custom only which renders that
impossible, that otherwise is nothing so; for of those nations who have no manner of knowledge of
cloathing, some are situated under the same temperature that we are, and some in colder climates.
Had we been born with a necessity upon us of wearing petticoats and breeches, there is no doubt,
but nature would have fortified those parts she intended should be exposed to the fury of the
seasons, with a thicker skin, as she has done the finger ends, and the soles of the feet.

From 'Of the custom of wearing cloaths' (Essay XXVII), Cotton translation."

A more protracted philosophical treatment of nudism may be found in Thomas Carlyle's (1795-1881)
Sartor Resartus.This eccentric, but at one time very popular, book purports to be a commentary on
the life and work of the fictitious 'Diogenes Teufelsdrockh', supposedly the originator of an extensive
philosophy of clothing. This satirical device permits Carlyle to simultaneously advance a case for the
revolutionary social effects of nudism ("adamitism", as he calls it) in the arguments of his alter ego,
while he, as 'editor', affects to be shocked by such conclusions. The following gives a flavour of
Carlyle's argument, and of his style:

"Much also we shall omit about confusion of Ranks, and Joan and My Lady, and how it would be
everywhere "Hail fellow well met," and Chaos were come again: all which to any one that has once
fairly pictured-out the grand mother-idea, Society in a state of Nakedness, will spontaneously suggest
itself. Should some sceptical individual still entertain doubts whether in a world without Clothes, the
smallest Politeness, Polity, or even Police, could exist, let him turn to the original Volume, and view
there the boundless Serbonian Bog of Sansculottism, stretching sour and pestilential: over which we
have lightly flown; where not only whole armies but whole nations might sink! If indeed the following
argument, in its brief riveting emphasis, be not of itself incontrovertible and final:

""Are we Opossums; have we natural Pouches, like the Kangaroo? Or how, without Clothes, could we
possess the master-organ, soul's seat, and true pineal gland of the Body Social: I mean, a PURSE?""

Nevertheless it is impossible to hate Professor Teufelsdrockh; at worst, one knows not whether to
hate or to love him.

From Sartor Resartus,Book 1, Chapter X."

For more contemporary academic readings on nudism you might try Cec Cinder, The Nudist Idea
(1998); Aileen Goodson, Therapy, Nudity & Joy(1991) or William E. Hartman, et al, Nudist Society
(1991).

Andrew Aberdein