Dan…
Let’s get this discussion rolling please…
( knowing that Dan is the primary intended object to carry this on, I take up the gauntlet for some reasons.)
Let’s!
In my mind the hardest nut to crack within the realm of ideas OS the associated prejudice guilt up of eons of identity politics.
Im advocating the necessity of short cuts, retro remnaissace of philosophical antology.
For starters, let’s look at the underlying hate formed out of individuation’s many mansions, where the slower integral attempts go through myraid levels of association/disassociation.
The permutations e assumption attempting to overcome the various guesses of how and where the bubbles of voluntary and involuntary backward switches may be found, causes the modern and very popular notion of possible formation of short cutted/gutted emotional baggage.
Most of these form into thoughtless attempts of gravitron type sinking feelings , but some woll simply adopt the vogue between the hard and the softer resolute formative unsureness that increasingly try tk verify ‘reality’, as we know it.
easy ideas, hard ideas, totally unintelligible ideas 
"PHILOSOPHY
Intelligable-
able to be understood only by the intellect, not by the senses."
Dictionary of Philosophy
Sorry Biggy, sugned,
Shemp
easy ideas, hard ideas, totally unintelligible ideas, pathetic attempts at being “clever” ideas.
Thanks. You keep me young. 
Although i mentioned you as an example of a nihilist,
i was more intending to talk about all nihilists, and nihilism alone as itself.
Maybe I should not have mentioned you.
My philosophy has to do with reviewing and supporting the sometimes obvious forces that make life good.
Nihilism is not about good, or the good life.
It’s crap.
And you don’t need a “context” to know that.
Iambigious says:
“easy ideas, hard ideas, totally unintelligible ideas, pathetic attempts at being “clever” ideas.”
Thanks. You keep me young "
Yes unintelligible ideas are a clever way to try to ease up deficits in common sense.
Poor Wittgenstein’s meant well to try to be clever, but after all, truly tried to keep thought meaningful in context. And after all is not a well intended effort to transcend bars to easier solutions akin to the exact objective to understand weather hard and easy can make sense to all concerned?
Such efforts cut short many unending gaps by diminutive meaning reductions which turn out to counter-effect such a process?
That may create an illusion like a fountain of youth, but leave cosmetics to apologetical inferences , to well meaning thinkers.
Besides, how long can those affects last? Certainly not to the point when those babies reach common sense with it’s indelible nausea of existentially reactionary thoughts.
PS I may yet not be down yet, but certainly not out?
You noted that…
“Nihilism has more than one flavor,
but it is an easy, useless idea.”
Okay, let’s focus in on my flavor. Given the sort of things that Satyr and his clique/claque discuss at KY – race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, Jews, natural vs. memetic behaviors etc. – let’s explore in more depth why you believe it is a easy, usless idea. Why it’s a weak idea…flabby and short-sided. Or in in regard to another flavor instead.
Compared and contrasted with a few of your own “wild ideas” relating to those subjects. Or to a particular context in which value judgments come into conflict.
Something, anything that is not encompassed in the general description intellectual contraptions that Satyr sustains in post after post after post there.
Oh, and a favor please. Since here at ILP, Carleas and you haven’t set things up so that others can pummel me with any number of accusations and criticisms while not allowing me to either post myself or to respond to the posts of others, I’d appreciate it if you would suggest to Satyr that he not “rig” the “discussions” there.
Alan Sokal to Meno:
Amateur!
[size=50][he imagined][/size]
Why? I already said why.
Nihilism is the death of meaning.
Meaning is the father of thought and action.
It’s easy to die unless you have survival instinct.
Do nothing and soon you’ll be dead.
Most nihilists are only partially nihilistic.
They aren’t suicidal.
But they are in many ways meaningless.
About what I expected: easy ideas, hard ideas…grappled with in general description intellectually constructed ideas.
Well, anyway, if you are ever willing to bring this down to exchanges pertaining to particular contexts involving race and gender and sexual orientation and genes and memes and all the other stuff that passes for nihilism over at KT – or in your head – we can perhaps sustain a very different discussion indeed.
And no one who doesn’t think exactly like we do will be banned from contributing. At least I hope that’s the case.
Iambigious says:
"Well, anyway, if you are ever willing to bring this down to exchanges pertaining to particular contexts involving race and gender and sexual orientation and genes and memes and all the other stuff that passes for nihilism over at KT – or in your head – we can perhaps sustain a very different discussion indeed.
And no one who doesn’t think exactly like we do will be banned from contributing. At least I hope that’s the case."
Here is the latest contribution to Dan’s thread over at KT:
What on earth do you make of this? I mean in regard to nihilism and “the truth”…in regard further to easy ideas and hard ideas. How would you relate this to experiences in your own life? Again, in particular, experiences relating to the things that you will that come into conflict with the things that others will.
Power over yourself here in what sense…given what set of circumstances?
As for hope being “the ideological projected placement of power into nothing, i.e will to nothingness”, please cite some examples of this from your own interactions with others.
As for removing the “burden of responsibility” in regard to conflicting wills, one shortcut is to become a moral and political objectivist. No more agonizing over what one’s responsibility must be. It’s simple: to think and to feel and to say and to do the same things that Satyr would. Let moral nihilists wrestle with the burden of ambiguity, ambivalence and uncertainty in a far more problematic world.
Note to Kvasir:
Come on board here. The discussions aren’t rigged at ILP so I can reasonably assure you that those you don’t share your own opinions won’t encounter this:
[b]Permissions in this forum:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum[/b]
ambigous says:
"Well, anyway, if you are ever willing to bring this down to exchanges pertaining to particular contexts involving race and gender and sexual orientation and genes and memes and all the other stuff that passes for nihilism over at KT – or in your head – we can perhaps sustain a very different discussion indeed.
And no one who doesn’t think exactly like we do “will be banned from contributing. At least I hope that’s the case.”
me no says:>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
At least shows some measure of doubt…
Any rate , bringing it too excessively down to earth will immediately require a visit to the optometrist to check for myopia.
If it’s overt referentiality that pups up as an issue consequently, that may result in a condition aligned to an absurdly reduced overreach.
But there really is nothing at odds with trying to level out missed understanding, it always has been the way we are
Well, I certainly “missed understanding” this.
Why? Just lucky I guess. 
Hmm…
I have absolutely no idea why this just popped up into my head but it did: I miss turtle.
True story. Really, he did. Just like that.
Nature, perhaps, doing it’s “thing” in a wholly determined universe?
Wow, how can “reality”, reality and/or “reality” itself not just boggle your fucking mind?!!!
As far as Kvasirs quote is concerned, I is tautological, and proves nothing. Well, it is one strike on Your side.
And remember , i’m trying to be on Your side, cause pretty much wer’e on the same page, albeit appearently, and that counts.
Okay, let’s switch gears here. In many of your posts, you refer to me as You with a capital Y. Or here Your.
What’s up with that?
Also, really – really – try to be considerably more perspicuous in your explanation. I just grow tired of cringing after reading what to me is unintelligible intellectual gibberish.
This post is actually rather clear but there is no substance to speak of.
Still, in regard to “I is tautological, and proves nothing”…given what particular context that you might think of?
Instead, I react to you as I react to him: what on earth are they talking about?
If you cannot piece a context together, from the above arguments, then your lateral thinking is sorely missing… a context can be concrete or hypothetical, or both.
I’ll leave that to Dan… it’s his argument with you, not mine.
Iaambiguous says :
“Still, in regard to “I is tautological, and proves nothing”…given what particular context that you might think of?”
With all considered, the i within the context he uses:
To recall Kvasir:
“Kvasir wrote
Those who will and those are willed, as Nietzsche says as well, in regards to this subject. Power over oneself is the only tangible power one can have. Hope is the ideological projected placement of power into nothing, i.e will to nothingness. A coping mechanism as well, to remove the burden of responsibility”
meno. says:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Apart of the con textual problem, the other problem dealing with intensionality comes up here.
Between the literal and lateral arms o that draw up signals that exist in the present, and signaling that is protracted into the higher levels of ‘objective’ phenomena , that Russel along with Ayer based on Kantian notions; tried to project into that future-was ‘determined’ by higher conscious bars to this type of evolution or reassamblage, re-integration if you will.
I brought this up with a Nitzchean here from Holland , while ago, in the title 'will to power or power to will, but the discourse proved unresolved.
But the contextual uncertainty is driven by the hHeideggarian confusion over Dasein, that can be interpreted between the two forms he provides, and can be understood as a projected objective, or an an intrinsic paradigmn.
This is repeated by Delouse in his variable ontology: (note to d63 -if he comes across ), on the varience and typification between the ontological certainty and ontic uncertainty.
Now this,gain is not an objective criterion into which I tempt you to follow, but consist best as notes to myself
in progression for the underlying strata of essential stuff with which to try to re-create a meaningful continuum there and back
As much as the nibelungen subsisted before archaic faith that nihilism’s attempt to re-represent , in joyful and not in pessimistic modes, try I get out from under a seemingly insurmountable sorrow of a Young Werther which foreshadows it.
I refer You to d63’s present forum on Delouse’s quoted text.
I think there may not be much literary semblance between Delouse and that of Heidegger, but certainly there may be a constructive paradigm that draws both within the same line toward objective continuum.
The tautology I mentioned on passing, is more coincidental then definitive, but worthy of notice.
A hard idea goes something like this:
Almost any thing is possible if it has enough causal forces supporting it.
A easy idea goes like this:
Nobody / nothing matters.
Another hard idea is:
Moral truth is possible, even though it is very hard to get it just right.
And an easy idea:
There is no such thing as truth.
Strength enjoys feeling itself when it is in action.
So, the hard ideas can be more appealing than the easy ideas.
A strong mind is more ideal than a tired old mind.