How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?

All I can really do here however is to ask, “what on earth does this mean”?

What are you telling us about me such that if we chose to discuss your assessment as it pertains to a context we might all be familiar with, we would learn something such that it would/could be construed by all of us as “wisdom”?

In other words, how might “once you figured out the consequences of attributing life with ideals you decided to just float in the brokenness and annoy people with the fact of the failure of phenomenology to replace what is real” be reconfigured into a description of actual behaviors. Behaviors that I chose which precipitated conflicting moral reactions.

And, sure, in order to come closer to an ontological and/or teleological understanding of phenomenon, we would need to be privy to an understanding of why there is in fact something instead of nothing.

On the other hand, going on the record here, I’m not.

“a description of actual behaviors. Behaviors that I chose which precipitated conflicting moral reactions.”

You would have to tell me who you are and tell me about some of those actual behaviors.

I got my family names on my username and plenty of pictures and videos showing who I am. I could be found and spoken to about my actual behaviors.

I would need that kind of exposure. You know? Because otherwise I would be making stuff up.

My point however revolves more around making that crucial distinction between what one particular sentient being believes “in her head” about ideal forms and ideal facts, and what she is able to demonstrate phenomenally to others is in fact an ideal form or an ideal fact to all sentient human beings who wish to be thought of as rational.

Out in a context that most of us will be familiar with.

And philosophy, contrary to popular belief, is not about making stuff up.

Hold on now, I edited my last post instead of quoting it by mistake. That can happen “down here.” 'Me a minute.

So who is this one particular sentient being?

Convincingly now, I will not bother with hypotheticals given your insistence on particularity.

How about Don Trump? He is surely a sentient being that all of us here are familiar with.

He wants to build a wall along the Mexican border to keep the illegal aliens out.

Now, the actual building of the wall as a “phenomenon” is embedded in engineering and construction and all those either/or relationships that must be taken into account when projects of this sort are attempted.

But there is also the phenomena revolving around political protests/demonstrations in which flesh and blood human beings from opposite ends of the political spectrum argue that the wall ought to be built or that the wall ought not to be built.

Now, wisdom embedded in the construction of the wall is calculated objectively: the wall is either structurally sound or it is not. The wall is either effective in keeping the illegal aliens out or it is not.

But: what constitutes wisdom when the discussion/debate shifts to whether or not the wall ought to be built?

Given that different folks come to very different conclusions: immigration.procon.org/view.ans … nID=000778

How might phenomenal interactions here actually be distinguished?

Let the record show that the gentleman declined to pursue the issue he raised and raised the case of the magnifiscent Donald Trump.

So what would be wise for who here?

“How might phenomenal interactions here actually be distinguished?”

By who?

Let the record show that regardless of who it is, it is still the gentleman who is interested in the question of how they might diatinguish some such from some other, and to satisfy his stated interest in wisdom it is his particular person that must be known to your humble servant.

Given the gentleman’s insistance on the importance of particularity.

Let the record show indeed. :wink:

Does the record bother you?

Say, enough not to continue on our investigations?

Because you seemed very interested about it just a moment ago.

Just in case, forget the record.

"So what would be wise for who here?

‘How might phenomenal interactions here actually be distinguished?’

By who?"

That is: by what particular person?

It never ceases to amaze me how these ponderously “intellectual” folks continue to come up with truly twisted ways in which to wiggle out of bringing their technical skills [and “analysis”] down to earth.

The point here [presumably] is to pin a phenomenon down epistemologically. To capture it in a bunch of words defining and defnding another bunch of words.

I give them a particular. But it’s not the right particular. My particular is flesh and blood. Their particular is anything but.

Or, sure, maybe I’m not broaching the particular here correctly. Why don’t one of you try.

Anything to actually bring the discussion out into the world that we, you know, live in.

My friend, my good friend, what is particular about this?

“How might phenomenal interactions here actually be distinguished?”

That is almost the definition of abstract, lacking flesh and blood. Who is it that wonders what who might distinguish?

You know, in terms of flesh and blood?

See, they seemingly can’t help themselves. All they can do [apparently] is to bend over backwards to keep the exchange up on the sky-hooks.

Maybe it’s a genetic thing embedded in the actual DNA of the inveterate scholastic.

Hell, I can’t even get him to grapple with the phenomenon the whole fucking world is obsessed with these days: Trumpworld.

"See, they seemingly can’t help themselves. All they can do [apparently] is to bend over backwards to keep the exchange up on the sky-hooks.

Maybe it’s a genetic thing embedded in the actual DNA of the inveterate scholastic."

I am not lying. I am not being fasciecious. This is exactly what I think about you whenever we have an exchange. And also on this particular occasion.

“Hell, I can’t even get him to grapple with the phenomenon the whole fucking world is obsessed with these days: Trumpworld.”

Even this!