Happy Valley Photo Essay

[_Jersey Girl]

I guess I sort of understand why you continue to deny being Oxygenadam, Simon, even though it's beyond obvious that you're lying. I personally think you'd be better off if you'd just tell the truth--i.e., you'd feel better, and you would stand less of a chance of actually blowing up and doing something that you genuinely regret and can't undo.

I half wonder if you're caught in that Mormon trap of "repentance," where a part of you wants to just confess, but another part is terrified that you'll be forever "held accountable" for having told that little fib.

I don't think you're paying attention to what Belmont stated. Unless I missed something, I see no place where he denied being Oxygenadam.

Could you show me where you think he denied it?

[_Simon Belmont]

Could you show me where you think he denied it?

I do deny it. He is not me, and I am not him. It won't matter soon, anyway.

you would stand less of a chance of actually blowing up and doing something that you genuinely regret and can't undo.

No! You don't get to insinuate that I would "do something I would genuinely regret and can't undo." Sorry, but I can't let you off the hook with remarks like that. I'd never knowingly participate in anything that would harm another person, ever. If you have to stoop that low to get under my skin then you have a serious problem.

[_Jersey Girl]

Belmont

I do deny it. He is not me, and I am not him. It won't matter soon, anyway.

I stand corrected. Apologies.

[_Kishkumen]

I do deny it. He is not me, and I am not him. It won't matter soon, anyway.

So you just modeled your writing style, values, and M.O. on him. I can't say that makes much sense.

I'd never knowingly participate in anything that would harm another person, ever. If you have to stoop that low to get under my skin then you have a serious problem.

Well, kudos to you, Simon. Meanwhile, as you inadvertently leave destruction in your wake, everyone can rest easy that you meant nothing by it. Guffaw.

[_Melchett]

Yes yes, who didn’t see you going there? Existentialism is a term that retroactively applies to his work, just like Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, because it’s used to group a bunch of philosophers who deal with similar topics. Spinoza never identified with the word “rationalist”, and thought Descartes was a beast, but he still gets grouped with him because this how the history of philosophy decided to do it.

I'm "going there" because it's the only place to go. Just because later philosophers and writers "grouped" Heidegger with the existentialists does not mean he was one or saw himself as one. He was a phenomenologist, for sure, but I (and many others, including himself) would not classify him as an existentialist. Anthologies of existentialism include Heidegger because of his contributions to the school of thought.

Google is wonderful.

Nope, and neither have you. Being and Time is one of the most difficult philosophy texts out there, and to even begin to understand it properly requires a solid knowledge of German philosophy starting with Hegel and moving on.
You might own the book, you might have read a summary of the book, you might have even tried to read the book years ago, but you haven’t read the book as it was meant to be read, firmly within the context of German Idealism.

Yeah, I know you're a pretentious kid who thinks he can understand things others can't. I've studied Being and Time, and I've studied the German philosophers. Have you? I've also studied the French philosophers, have you? Do only you know how to read books "as they are meant to be read?" That's the beginnings of a logical error there, mon ami.

Simon knows how to say 'my friend' in French. Have you actually read the works of the French school in the language it was written?

Which German philosophers have you read, and in what context?

Well, Simon, it is not like you really try. You know you are lying. You don't really care to put any effort into anything you write. You're basically here to castigate people lamely and waste everyone's time because you think that is the "right thing to do." I wish you would take Elder Oaks' counsel and either shape up or drop out of apologetics. You're not helping at all as things stand.

I'm not really "in" apologetics. I've never written an apologetic piece, attended a FAIR conference, subscribed or submitted to the MI publications, or anything like that. I mean, yeah, a big part of my "mission" here was getting rid of "Joseph" -- not getting rid in a violent way, just shutting him up -- which I had an integral part in doing. My second objective was to show that the few who constantly Internet stalk DCP and post multiple threads about him are behaving like idiots (I'm looking at Infymus, Joey!!!!!!, and of course Scratch). I guess I can't do much more in that respect.

*shakes head*....

[_Doctor Scratch]

you would stand less of a chance of actually blowing up and doing something that you genuinely regret and can't undo.

No! You don't get to insinuate that I would "do something I would genuinely regret and can't undo." Sorry, but I can't let you off the hook with remarks like that. I'd never knowingly participate in anything that would harm another person, ever. If you have to stoop that low to get under my skin then you have a serious problem.

So, what? You're going to "accidentally" screw up and get yourself into trouble?

[_MrStakhanovite]

I'm "going there" because it's the only place to go.

No, you are going there because it’s the only way you can defend DCP, who must be defended at all costs.

Just because later philosophers and writers "grouped" Heidegger with the existentialists does not mean he was one or saw himself as one.

Plz lrn 2 reed:

Yes yes, who didn’t see you going there? Existentialism is a term that retroactively applies to his work, just like Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, because it’s used to group a bunch of philosophers who deal with similar topics. Spinoza never identified with the word “rationalist”, and thought Descartes was a beast, but he still gets grouped with him because this how the history of philosophy decided to do it.

But hey, I’m not alone here:

Like “rationalism” and “empiricism,” “existentialism” is a term that belongs to intellectual history. Its definition is thus to some extent one of historical convenience. The term was explicitly adopted as a self-description by Jean-Paul Sartre, and through the wide dissemination of the postwar literary and philosophical output of Sartre and his associates—notably Simone de Beauvoir, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Albert Camus—existentialism became identified with a cultural movement that flourished in Europe in the 1940s and 1950s. Among the major philosophers identified as existentialists (many of whom—for instance Camus and Heidegger—repudiated the label) were Karl Jaspers, Martin Heidegger, and Martin Buber in Germany, Jean Wahl and Gabriel Marcel in France, the Spaniards José Ortega y Gasset and Miguel de Unamuno, and the Russians Nikolai Berdyaev and Lev Shestov. The nineteenth century philosophers, Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche, came to be seen as precursors of the movement.

SAUCE

Existentialism is a catch-all term for those philosophers who consider the nature of the human condition as a key philosophical problem and who share the view that this problem is best addressed through ontology. This very broad definition will be clarified by discussing seven key themes that existentialist thinkers address. Those philosophers considered existentialists are mostly from the continent of Europe, and date from the 19th and 20th centuries

SAUCE

and there is of course, what I showed DCP when he made his ridiculous claim many months ago:



From this book, by a leading scholar of Existentialism

Heidegger was against Marxism Simon, he published critiques of Marx himself, and do we find Heidegger in any Marxist Philosophy anthologies? No? Why do you suppose that is? According to your logic and an obscene ignorance you share with DCP, you seem to think Heidegger is grouped in with Existentialism because of his criticism of Sartre.

He was a phenomenologist, for sure, but I (and many others, including himself) would not classify him as an existentialist.

Who are these others Simon? Roll out your citations. Let me see that grand list of names of people who would agree that Heidegger was not an existentialist.

[_Simon Belmont]

Well, kudos to you, Simon. Meanwhile, as you inadvertently leave destruction in your wake, everyone can rest easy that you meant nothing by it. Guffaw.

Destruction? By posting on a messageboard? Are you kidding?

[Guest]

So, what? You're going to "accidentally" screw up and get yourself into trouble?

Destruction? By posting on a messageboard? Are you kidding?

Do you remember how Infymus said that he got screwed out of job opportunities due to DCP posting his emails over on SHIELDS? And how you thought that was funny and justified? I wonder, Simon, if one of these days, you're going to get angry/upset enough that you wind up crossing a line that can't be uncrossed--that you make some threat or do something that smacks enough of illegality that it turns your world utterly upside down.

But this is wandering off on a tangent somewhat. My real point is simply that you'd be a lot less likely to encounter something like that if you'd just be honest.

ETA: If I recall correctly, Sockpuppet also said that he lost a couple of clients due to a TBM monitoring the board and "ratting" him out.

[_Kishkumen]

Destruction? By posting on a messageboard? Are you kidding?

Hey, man, I would guess that you believe you take the spiritual welfare of others seriously, but if you insist that you do not, far be it from me to tell you otherwise. So you are immoral. OK.