Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q50,61: Difference between revisions
copy markup from Q3900 |
m Reversedragon moved page Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q5061 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q50,61: Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
== Main entry == | == Main entry == | ||
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_ML"> | {{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_ML"> | ||
{{li|start=y|I=F2/ES|Q=50,61|Q2=5061|h4= Lived Experience is indisputable }} / You can't contradict lived experience -> false on a technicality because it can and will be disputed constantly. this is the problem. the problem is that Lived Experience is already getting disputed, which is part of what made people think up the concept in the first place, but if you propose Lived Experience to solve that problem, it will perpetually be unable to prove itself using itself because the problem {{em|is}} that people can't be forced to consider it proof. | |||
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=50,61|Q2=5061}}Lived Experience is indisputable / You can't contradict reality (sense) -> I think this is what people are really trying to say. if you were saying "you can't contradict lived experience" about an earthquake, it would be about observations of reality. and I think that whenever "lived experience" is used about social phenomena, it's being used almost exactly the same way. one Black person makes observations that either are or become observations about other Black people; a transgender person makes observations that either are or become observations about transgender people. | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
| Line 11: | Line 12: | ||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
<ol class="hue clean field_ML"> | <ol class="hue clean field_ML"> | ||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> --> | ||
--> | |||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
== Wavebuilder combinations == | == Wavebuilder combinations == | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
{{E:Q618/ES|--}} | {{E:Q618/ES|--}} | ||
--> | --> | ||
== | == {{int:hue-prototype-trads-topics-or-genres}} == | ||
<ol class="hue clean terse field_ML"> | <ol class="hue clean terse field_ML"> | ||
{{li|start=y | {{li|start=y | ||
|I=S1/ES|Q= | |I=S1/ES|Q=42|Q2=42}}{{TTS|ES|E-S}} / [[E:Q42|existentialism]] | ||
{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=38,00|Q2=3800}}{{TTS|ES|E-S}} / [[EC:9k/RD/Q3800|lived experience]] | |||
{{li|I=S1/EC/ML|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|EC|E.C.}} / 1900s Materialism | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
Latest revision as of 02:30, 2 September 2026
Main entry
Lived Experience is indisputable
/ You can't contradict lived experience -> false on a technicality because it can and will be disputed constantly. this is the problem. the problem is that Lived Experience is already getting disputed, which is part of what made people think up the concept in the first place, but if you propose Lived Experience to solve that problem, it will perpetually be unable to prove itself using itself because the problem is that people can't be forced to consider it proof.- Lived Experience is indisputable / You can't contradict reality (sense) -> I think this is what people are really trying to say. if you were saying "you can't contradict lived experience" about an earthquake, it would be about observations of reality. and I think that whenever "lived experience" is used about social phenomena, it's being used almost exactly the same way. one Black person makes observations that either are or become observations about other Black people; a transgender person makes observations that either are or become observations about transgender people.
Related
Ideologies, topics, or genres
- / existentialism
- / lived experience
- / 1900s Materialism