Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "Einzelgänger" channel.

  1.  @gmw3083  And yet, you were able to view it within 6 minutes of it being posted. Remarkable.
    2
  2.  @gmw3083  You misunderstand me. I do not doubt that I may have used a word or phrase in my comment which have caused the YouTube antispam script to see fit to shadow the comment in question. Instead, one might consider first whom my comment is directed towards, and how it is you came to see my comment. Could perhaps those same conditions which led you to my comment apply to the person for whom it was intended? One might further ponder how it is you came to notice the shadowing of said comment.
    2
  3.  @gmw3083  Posterity is not my concern. When Google eventually decides this thing called YouTube must go the way of may other of their past projects, nothing of this will exist. Online, we're all just shouting into a void, nothing of our ramblings here will remain for long.
    2
  4. This is such a defeatist interpretation of the backwards law.
    2
  5. Solipsism is such a silly idea and I don't believe anyone truly believes in it nor that anyone ever has. If solipsism were true than we have some fundamental questions that must be resolved. For example If the sole solipsistic mind is the only mind in existence, than why bother posing the philosophy externally at all? That includes what is the point in this video? If this is all at best a dream, a reflection of a single solipstistic mind and at worst a lonely conversation with automatons devoid of consciousness, than why would anyone ever discuss their philosophy of solipsism? Surely if it were a reflection of a single mind, we'd all know the philosophy simply because one thinks it, and if the latter and it's a lonely conversation with drones what's the point? I mean one hardly discusses complex philosophy with a chat bot and expects anything meaningful to come of it. And that's ultimately what solipsism is proposing. Consider even the use of the word "you" in any of them ramblings. If there is but one solipstistic mind in existence and all else does not exist, than the concept of "you" is not only unnecessary but false. It's a slip of the tongue someone whom genuinely believed they were the only being in existence would not make, and it tells us far more about the mind of the individual making such a slip than perhaps they might like. The examples given at the end of this video of scenarios which might hold solipsism to be true are self defeating. A simulation needs to be created by another entity and thus you're not alone. Same to for automatons. Which leaves only the dream or other reflections of ones own mind. For this to be true, not only would physics not exist but every mind would merely be a reflection of the single solipstistic mind. Or in other words, everyone would be at once both enlightened and constrained to the knowledge of the solipstistic mind. There would be therefore no difference of opinion, no cultural or social variance, just shadows echoing back the experience of a single mind. And from that one might suppose it's quite a depraved mind indeed, with all the pain, suffering and disease in the world one might call that a nightmare as opposed to a dream. Still too, such a mind dreaming might find that it exists in something. To change subjects with some vulgarity, would it be possible to have some philosophy videos that don't reference the Matrix? I understand that many people like that film, but ultimately it's quite underwhelming and has little of substance in actuality to impart.
    1
  6. The problem with this quote is that it's wrong. The point of life is to create more life, it's the fundamental driving force behind evolution and our existence. The latter of the statement is likewise easily explainable, I mean there's a very good reason why "I feel I am destined for greatness" is a Barnum statement believed by greater than 80% of all people in existence. It's a fundamental byproduct of being a social animal.
    1
  7.  @gmw3083  It is not possible for YouTube to outlast civilisation. YouTube, like all websites, is merely a publicly accessible database and a UI to display the information from the database in a "friendly" way. That is they require humans to maintain them, to provide electricity and interconnectivity. To manufacture, purchase and swap out drives. By definition the end of civilization would spell the end of the internet at large, including YouTube. However, it's far more likely Google will simply get bored of YouTube long before that happens. Listen, YouTube has NEVER turned a profit. Ever. Since 2005 it's been a financial black hole for Google. Now whilst it's true that they've managed to get losses down to "just" $15M per year, it remains a significant sum of money. That means unless YouTube suddenly finds a model that retains the user base and good will whilst also making a profit it's reasonable to assume that it's only a matter of time before Google finally pulls the plug on YouTube. As Google moves increasingly away from advertising based revenue, and towards direct user funded products as they have been over the last few years, it seems likely that pulling the plug on YouTube or switching it to a subscriber only platform will happen sooner rather than later.
    1
  8. Yeah, people aren't borrowed nor owned. There is no possession in people, they exist with their own intent. This video makes Epictetus seem like he's written a "how to develop narcissistic personality disorder" book. But he really hasn't. I'm unconvinced the narrator really understands the text. He isn't saying that you shouldn't care about your wife & kids, or that you shouldn't care if they die or leave you. He's not even saying that grief is a bad thing. What he's saying is that loss is a part of life, and so you need to become comfortable with letting things go. You still grieve, you still suffer, he's just saying you need to understand the only way to halt the suffering eventually is to let them go. Similarly he isn't saying not to care about things out of your control. He's saying to weight them differently in your mind, because those things inevitably may change either for or against your favour so you should not rest your self upon them and make them part of your identity. He's saying you should be prepared to lose them at some time, to have a means to survive without them and an acknowledgement that you may need to let them go. You will still suffer some. He's never suggesting otherwise.
    1
  9. Wow, this is some high level cope.
    1