tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461948747659071092.post2535837988148811083..comments2023-09-29T02:49:02.989-07:00Comments on An Emphatic Umph: The Logic of Sports, or Understanding Phenomenology via BaseballDaniel Coffeenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03912050391869734890noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461948747659071092.post-87910695411343837522015-07-07T07:27:09.954-07:002015-07-07T07:27:09.954-07:00Excellent, yes. And thanks for the reply. Though g...Excellent, yes. And thanks for the reply. Though guess I should have figured that much already.<br /><br />The spirit of the staircase told me that the point might have been that one had to have played philosophy to really understand what phenomenology was. And come to think of it, I'll bet that's probably the case, and that the baseball analogy is instructive on both levels of discourse.davidlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04754707934311038544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461948747659071092.post-72980347802442532542015-07-06T09:57:53.146-07:002015-07-06T09:57:53.146-07:00That's a fantastic story — perfect, really. It...That's a fantastic story — perfect, really. It IS confusing. And yet it makes sense, it all makes sense, once you play, once you've played for a while. The rules come from experience; understanding comes from experience. And phenomenology is the logic and philosophy of what happens, what is happening: it is the logic and philosophy of experience. <br /><br />Which is not to say that all there is is experience, no concepts, ideas, rules, principles. It's to say that concepts etc don't come first. And that those concepts etc are an experience, as well. <br /><br />How's that?<br /><br />Daniel Coffeenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03912050391869734890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461948747659071092.post-16708820582786576922015-07-06T07:47:54.051-07:002015-07-06T07:47:54.051-07:00Still in it. I like that. I am reminded of a time ...Still in it. I like that. I am reminded of a time as a child when my brother and I were playing baseball with a neighbor friend (as much as one can play baseball with three people). When the friend was batting we called a strike on his first foul. He protested. It was not a strike. We explained that it was. His second foul was met with a strike call and his annoyed acceptance.<br /><br />When my turn at bat came, my friend pitching, I fouled with two strikes, to which he triumphantly declared he'd struck me out. My brother and I explained, albeit with the unavoidable grins at the irony of it all, that the third strike can't be a foul (though I believe I had only understood it as being that every foul after two was not a strike). He was incredulous. We were making it up as we went along! Our grins couldn't help but turn to laughter. Again, the irony. At that point, how could we not have been making it up?<br /><br />I still don't get phenomenology, though.davidlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04754707934311038544noreply@blogger.com