easy ideas, hard ideas

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. :wink:

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.

Again, here’s the thing, Dan.

Or, rather, here’s the thing given my own subjective reaction to the points you make above.

Easy ideas, hard ideas, with you they are almost always encompassed in general description abstractions. Or psychologisms. At least with respect to the posts that I read from you.

What particular context in which what particular causal forces make what possible? Now, in the either/or world that can be something simple like how a screwdriver works. And then all the way up to Einstein’s theories of relativity. From objective science enabling us to create extraordinary engineering feats and technologies to the world of the very, very big and the very, very small. The parts where certainty gives way to all manner of fanciful theories.

Ah, but in the is/ought world?

Again: you choose the context, the behaviors and the conflicting good. We can then examine and explore each other’s distinctions between easy and hard.

As for your rendition of the “easy” idea from nihilists that “nobody/nothing matters”, I know just how futile it will be to explain [once again] the distinction between essential and existential meaning. Even after I do, tomorrow or next week you will be back claiming that all nihilists insist that nobody/nothing matters.

I agree. Moral truth – objective, even universal moral truth – is certainly possible. For example all you need do is to believe in a God/the God/your God, right? You don’t even have to demonstrate that in fact He does exist…merely have faith that He does. Same with, philosophically, deontology. Or, politically, ideology. Or wrap your self-righteous arrogance as Satyr does around genes and nature.

On the other hand, with someone like me, you are going to have to bring those dogmas down to Earth, and, given particular sets of circumstances, defend those fonts when confronted with the components of my own moral philosophy.

Which, again, Dan you won’t do.

And neither will Satyr. The only difference being that over there, Satyr has for all practical purposes banned me from the discussions.

So, if you want to construe some nihilists as insisting that nobody or nothing matters, or that there are no moral truths – or no God – then in regard to those who claim that, I’m on your side. I’m a moral nihilist only because [in a free will world] “here and now” no one has been able to demonstrate to me of late that their own objective morality or their own God is the real deal.

We’ll need a context of course.

I try hard not to be arrogant.
Have I failed?

“Conflicting goods” doesn’t disprove anything, either.
Basically, people can disagree about stuff.
That’s all.

Dan…

At least try to see this from my own frame of mind.

I respond to your points above as follows…

And your sole response is this:

But, okay, it’s all I have, right?

So, have you failed to be arrogant? Back again to subjective political prejudices rooted in dasein but, yes, from my own point of view, when you assert that…

[b]“Nihilism has more than one flavor, but it is an easy, useless idea.”

"Having a weak mind makes weak ideas more appealing.
A strong mind wants to do work, and can do work.
A weak mind cannot do much work, and dislikes work.

I believe this may be why iambigous posts the way he does.
His constitution is flabby and short sighted.

Eating psychological junk food weakens the mind.
Not using the mind also weakens it."[/b]

…it certainly comes off as arrogant to me.

Especially given the fact that you raised these points on a forum in which the Big Cheese there not only despises me but allows you to make your own critical observations of me given this “particular context”:

[b][i]Permissions in this forum:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum[/i][/b]

As for “conflicting goods”, sure, people can disagree about stuff. But is that all there is?

As a moral nihilist, I contend that disagreements are derived from the arguments I make in my signature threads. “I” in the is/ought world rooted in dasein.

Whereas for the objectivists of Satyr’s ilk disagreements ever and always come down to “one of us” [the rational and moral few] vs. “one of them” [the irrational and immoral many].

Only for him disagreements from others can be dealt with rather harshly. They could be sent to the dungeon. And, when that was “disappeared” from the forum, they can simply be gagged…and prohibited from defending themselves altogether.

I’m old-er and my mind is tired-er. :evilfun: Don’t you find Dan’s perspectives refreshing? I do.

We’ll need a context, of course.

Well, I’m sorry about that.
You have virtues. Most people have some virtues.
I think you deserve to live and do your own thing.
But really, I think nihilism and weak ideas are not very desirable.
It’s similar to giving up : no longer valuing.

Thank you for that. Big time.

Easy ideas are not always a bad idea.
They are often a good idea.
However, the vice is in the miss-use.

Actually it is for most people that hardest pill to take. Knowing that just about everything you have been taught about life, death, god, santa, the tooth fairy, the nation state, god loves america, and all that bullshit we have invented to keep people in line is a pile of shit is very hard for people to take.

Truth is a tricky concept. It is grandolinquent. There are no ultimate truths. There are things that are the case; there are facts; there is inevitable consequences to actions. But truth seems to be far too connected with faith to be of any use whatever.

Again, in my view, there is absolutely nothing of substance here for me to respond to. He thinks “in general” about “things” like this. And in thinking like this “overall” it allows him to anchor his Self to the comfort and the consolation of thinking “in general” and “overall” like this about “things”. He can simply “believe” that nihilism is weak and undesirable because it is similar to giving up and no longer valuing. That need be as far as it goes.

He can simply refuse to explore that with me given his own experiences in interacting with others in which his own value judgments came into conflict with theirs. He may even have succeeded in sustaining a life where that never even happens at all.

And he certainly isn’t going to compare and contrast the components of our own respective moral philosophies “given a particular context”. That’s my own “weird” way of exchanging philosophies here.

In any event, in going down his own One True Path there’s almost no chance that his own virtues will be challenged.

If I do say so myself.

In other words, absolutely no attempt whatsoever to bring his own ideas – easy, hard, unintelligible – down out of the god awful autodidactic clouds.

How he is not utterly embarrassed to dump these ponderously obtuse examples of mental masturbation on us is way, way, way beyond me.

All I can do here is ask those who think that they do understand what any of it has to do with actual human interactions to at least make an attempt to explain to us what it has to do with their own day to day experiences.

Flawed logic, cart before the horse. An intelligent energy, mind, its ideas created physical bodies for it to receive more information.