NATURE

File: 2076876_sitting-pretty1_jfxeaqbh63vorhnrwcs4oomcjqoxpy7q62c4u66siw3t6qwph3oq_757x567.jpg (114KB, 757x567px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 757x567px

it's called /forestdruidcore/ it was also called /wildernesscore/ back in the day

File: 2076877_shelter-from-the-storm_jfxeaqbh63vorhnrwcs4oomcjqoxpy7q62c4u66siw3t6qwph3oq_757x567.jpg (152KB, 757x567px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 757x567px

>>12195638

>>12195638
that isn't what i was talking about

File: 1467009462982.jpg (306KB, 1200x874px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 1200x874px

>>12195645

File: 1462296026263.jpg (107KB, 433x664px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 433x664px

>>12195646
yeah it is, faggot

>>12195627

SOMETHING APPEARS GOOD NOT BECAUSE IT IMITATES, OR REFLECTS, THE NATURAL, BUT BECAUSE IT OPTIMALLY ACTUALIZES AN IDEAL.

THE FACT THAT SOMETHING IS "NATURAL" DOES NOT NECESSARILY ENTAIL THAT IT WILL BE AESTHETICALLY PERFECT; AESTHETICS ITSELF IS ROOTED IN THE IDEAL, NOT IN THE NATURAL/PHYSICAL, THEREFORE, TO ACHIEVE AESTHETIC PERFECTION, ONE SHOULD STRIVE TOWARD OPTIMALLY ACTUALIZING AN IDEAL.

NATURE IN ITSELF IS AESTHETICALLY INDIFFERENT; IT IS THE IDEAL WHICH TRANSFORMS THE NATURAL INTO SOMETHING AESTHETICALLY PERFECT.

File: 1441513556983.jpg (132KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1440x1080px

>>12195656

>>12195653
i could wear this IF IT WASNT THE YEAR 2017

File: hut.jpg (781KB, 2573x1715px) Image search: [Google]

781KB, 2573x1715px

>>12195661

>>12195657
yes

but i'd argue that nature is the base for any ideal

anything ideal is the ideal because its natural to that ideal

File: cody.jpg (87KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 600x400px

>>12195666
go innawoods and you'll look fine. probably best to wear a less long scarf and a better bag though
>>12195671

File: IMG_0111.jpg (922KB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

922KB, 3264x2448px

>>2017
>>adult
>>not being in the wilderness
>>mfw no peaceful solitude
>>SHUT FUCK UP FAMILY GUY
>>mfw I'll never be a qt in the forrest
>>will never be alone
Nothing better than short shorts and forest green clothing in the forest lads

>>12195656
no it isn't

>>12195697
I will now enter the Wild and die just like the kid from into the wild. Fucking kill me

>>12195656
No, it's not.

>>12195657
Now look at the pictures, try to find something that is not aesthetically perfect and realize that the ideal comes from nature.

>>12195713
this

someone gets it

>>12195698
>>12195706
samefag

File: 2017 17.jpg (1MB, 2592x2027px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2592x2027px

Now this is a trend I'd like and that should annihilate all others and rule the earth forever

>>12195722
nope

>>12195681

NO.

THE IDEAL IN ITSELF ENTAILS TRANSCENDENCE OF NATURE'S INERTIA, THEREFORE, ACTUALIZATION OF AN IDEAL NECESSARILY ENTAILS GOING AGAINST NATURAL TENDENCY.

THE IDEAL MOVES UPWARD; THE NATURAL MOVES DOWNWARD; THE IDEAL IS ROOTED NOT IN THE NATURAL, BUT IN THE ETERNAL.

ALSO, YOU SEEM TO BE ERRONEOUSLY REGARDING THE WORD "IDEAL" AS MEANING "PERFECT", OR "OPTIMAL"; "IDEAL" MEANS "RELATING TO AN IDEA, OR TO THE LEVEL OF IDEAS".

YOU ALSO SEEM TO BE ERRONEOUSLY REGARDING THE WORD "NATURAL" AS MEANING "APPROPRIATE", OR "SUITABLE"; "NATURAL" MEANS "RELATING TO NATURE/PHYSIS, OR OF A PHYSICAL ORIGIN".

>>12195744
Dude, go read some Jaan Valsiner.

>>12195744
arguing about definitions is honestly retarded

we both mean the same fucking thing who cares what it's called

File: IMG_1251.jpg (117KB, 795x1005px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 795x1005px

>>12195744
>Basing your fits on notional things like this
Whew

>>12195789

ACCURATE TERMINOLOGY, AND KNOWING THE MEANING OF THE WORDS THAT ONE USES, ARE CRITICAL TO DIALECTICAL CONCURRENCE, AND NECESSARY FOR ANY RELEVANT DIALOGUE TO OCCUR AT ALL.

SEMANTIC MISUNDERSTANDINGS, HOWEVER SMALL, MAY LEAD TO GREAT DISCURSIVE MISUNDERSTANDINGS.

ALSO, I AM NOT ARGUING THE MEANING OF THE WORDS; I AM CLARIFYING, AND CORRECTING YOU, TO MINIMIZE SEMANTIC NOISE IN OUR DISCUSSION AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE; THERE IS NO NEED FOR YOU TO BECOME DEFENSIVELY HOSTILE.

>>12195805
Which doesn't change the fact that the idea is still based on our perception, the perception of nature.

>>12195798

?

>>12195812

NOT ALL IDEAS ARE DERIVED FROM PERCEPTION OF THE NATURAL.

AESTHETIC PERFECTION IS ACHIEVED BY ADAPTING THE NATURAL TO THE IDEAL, NOT CONVERSELY.

>>12195813
>>12195817
Just go read the author I told you, will give you something useful, truthful and original to spout.

>>12195805
i can't even take you seriously

your all caps and desperate need to show your vocabulary comes off as ridiculous

i can tell the type of person you are it makes me question why you are even on fashion board if you have such a fixed and rigid way of thinking...

i'd love to see you outfits

>>12195817
Take a chill pill, you Autist Arab

>>12195744
"IDEAL" MEANS "RELATING TO AN IDEA, OR TO THE LEVEL OF IDEAS".

ONE OUGHT NOT EMPLOY OUTDATED PHILOSOPHICAL DEFINITIONS APPLIED AMBIGUOUSLY UNTO CULTURAL IMAGEBOARDS TO PERTAIN THE ALLUSION OF INTELLIGENCE AND EXTROSPECTIVE DEPTH.

>>12195744
Not in maths it dont homeboy

>>12195876
KILL YOUR SELF

>>12195657
false, the ideal you are talking about mathematically is phi, the golden ratio, and yes nature approximates this ratio in the form of fibonaccis sequence using fractal self-similarity to maximize efficiency, growing in complexity to resemble phi.

not to mention yes, the seasons themselves and the flora and changes that occur are constantly echoed in fashion. see: spring flowers - pastels, bright punchy summer shit, autumn jewel tones, winter neutrals

go visit nature, it's good for you

File: derjava.jpg (229KB, 1094x724px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1094x724px

>>12195627
If you are talking about colour schemes, than nature is not the only source for that. For example, I have a postcard, a watch from swatch and a Soyuz-Apollo pin that prominently feature the colours red, blue and white. I base an outfit on that. Look books are not entirely useless, as you can see what colour combinations are used.

>>12195657
there was a less pedantic way to make that point, I think

>>12195813
actually I'd agree with him that not all ideas come from how we view nature. For example, the idea of "negation" is a purely human-created concept. There is no "no" found in nature.

>>12195824
it's like every fourth word is completely unnecessary