I think if supremacy can be considered a problem because it “risks sustaining divisions in race, gender and class.”, then one day the word “advantage” will be considered a problem. The word advantage still means superior.

Does it follow, then, that “supremacy” should be banned from use?

Humans share many basic attribute of spoken language with other animals — I like sushi

What sort of things?

We don’t need the former to think — I like sushi

But it feels like that. How can that be proven?
Can I think of something that I don't have a word for?

I’ve haven’t spent much time looking into language. Which comes first in a child, thought or language?

So language as a system of thought is only used rarely because it’s only required on those rare occasions when needed, and that other communication methods do what they do best? What I trying to establish is whether language as a system of thought is used rarely because it has a specific role among other systems, or it’s used rarely because it’s inadequate for communication? Or it appears to be used rarely because it’s not communication?

I wouldn't say language is thought. — Xtrix

Sure. But you’re feeling is that thought is communicated very rarely, and language is doing something else, except on those rare occasions.

It's communicated very rarely, whether by sign or through speech. — Xtrix

Do you mean thought is communicated very rarely? And very rarely, does that mean not very often or not very accurately?

After reading Chomsky, I now lean much more towards the idea that not only did language not evolve gradually as a form of communication, but that language isn't communication at all. — Xtrix

Can you direct me to his thoughts on this?

Actually I apologise for that outburst.

Edit: bloody politics!

My disposition is to show maximum contempt for NOS4A2 complaining about the "dumbing down" of science — Baden

This is what he said.

because it dumbs down the meaning of language. — NOS4A2

Language, not science.

What a joke. Who cares what you think on this forum? Self indulgent rubbish. You need to step back a little and look at yourself.

What there is instead are heartless, crumbling communities full of toxic masculinity - chavs and perverts. Corbyn does not appeal to men who depend on their racer-boy drug- pushing image for their sense of worth; Johnson is much more their style. — unenlightened

I meant do you regard the women in the same light?

I’m a non-antinatalist. I’ve never heard of this before but it’s very interesting. Is donating a good thing? I think it’s worth the effort to see what the outcome is. It’s also, to me, interesting that it’s supported by relatively conservative supporters. It seems a more pragmatic approach to things which I generally associate with conservative thinkers.

Your observation of my ignorance is misplaced, — Punshhh

Yes, fair enough.

And the women?

I really do think the blue collar workers are waking up to things. The problem for them is that you don’t realise that they are.

Edit: so much so that we can’t even define them.

Are you familiar with British politics?

I thought you were being rhetorical.

Johnson got into power on the backs of the poor, to whom he made populist promises. — Punshhh

Not familiar enough to know if this is true or not. Though they do seem to have picked up a lot of Labour seats. However in elections I tend to think people vote against a party when they vote. So, the blue collar voters were very unhappy with what Labour stood for or the ideas they embraced. Either a mistake on Labour’s part or the blue collar voters no longer believe they are represented by Labour.

I’ll go along with that.

Do you have an alternative, better way of dealing with internal thoughts as they pertain to uncontrollable external conditions? — Diagonal Diogenes

No, but do I have to in making my case that Stoicism is not for the modern world?

How could Stoicism have helped the slaves in the states of Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama? Stoicism may have kept them alive, they dealt with the externals they could have some control over, like hunger, fear and pain. But that was never going to change the externals they couldn’t control. No matter what they did the balance would never change. The change came from outside the states, not from the slaves identifying and separating matters so that they can say clearly to themselves what are externals not under their control, and what have to do with the choices they actually control.

But, I would say that this part right here is wrong:
The chief task in life
— Brett — Diagonal Diogenes

I’m quoting from Epictetus there.

With an example:
Perhaps there is no benefit in getting worked up about Trump (wasting time and getting angry) since there is nothing a single person can do about that, but there could be great benefit instead spending the time doing something that yields some beneficial return on time invested - maybe talking a walk outside. — Diagonal Diogenes

Not a very good example. Maybe you have no idea of the reality of life out there in the world, it’s hard to tell. Ruminating about Trump is hardly the same as making decisions about the health and safety of your family. I understand the idea about acting on the externals you have control over. But when the externals that are heaped upon you by other men are far greater than the ones you have control over you’re dealing with far more than just physical well-being, you’re beginning to wonder if those other externals don’t want you around.

However,
identify and separate matters so that I can say clearly to myself which are externals not under my control, and which have to do with the choices I actually control
— Brett
seems like a sensible proposition. — Diagonal Diogenes

Yes it does, on paper.

The system may or may not be equitable, but trying has a better chance of success than not trying, which has a 0% chance of success. — Diagonal Diogenes

Yes it does. But my point is that, in the world today, and I may be wrong, the constant battering from created externals is too much for what I regard as the idealism of Stoicism.

Very few men would let their family starve, most would keep fighting until they fell.
How has the idea of Stoicism helped, the idea that “The chief task in life is simply this: to identify and separate matters so that I can say clearly to myself which are externals not under my control, and which have to do with the choices I actually control.” When the externals a man can control are so very few and the rest overwhelming and crushing.
And more importantly how has it helped society?

I’m guessing that you feel the social system is equitable and that people can succeed if they just try a little harder. That may account for your feelings about Stoicism. Do you think the system is equitable?

Don’t make me play those stupid games, please.

If this is what philosophical Stoics claim, then I do not agree with it either. — Diagonal Diogenes

I don’t know if Stoics claim this. But this is the reality.

[

Discipline of the mind may help you find a course of action - any course of action - that has a possibility of improving your lot, instead of doing nothing but moping. — Diagonal Diogenes

Moping. Interesting that you chose to use that word. I had not mentioned, but you somehow saw the situation in that light.

And what does it matter if no one controls externals?
— Diagonal Diogenes

It matters and I explained its significance clearly and unambiguously. — god must be atheist

I think what @God must be aetheist is saying is that the world of the philosophical Stoic is unreal, that they assume all externals are somehow nothing to do with other men, that no one has control over the things others suffer under.

So; hunger, your children don’t eat too well, you have no work, your wife is ill, you have no resources, you have rent to pay, you haven’t recovered from an injury, the kids are skipping school, they’re mixing with the wrong crowd, you know drugs are involved, one of them is arrested, he goes to prison.

So the answer is apply some discipline.

This is the great arrogance of philosophy. Prof. Pigliucci believes in Stoicism from the comfort of his office at CCNY, you believe a little discipline is all that’s needed. It’s like the monk who practices asceticism inside the walls of the monastery, venturing out to receive donated food.

I’d be interested to know, there will be some I imagine, of the philosophers quoted on this forum who worked 5, or more, days a week, supported a family, went hungry, travelled to find work to send money back to their family.

they can't deal with the suffering they have to endure. — Diagonal Diogenes

My second point, then, would be, is this suffering external, or is it self imposed?

The theme seems to be:
1. accept events beyond our control and not agonize in wishing that things were a different way.
2. working together and treating others fairly and justly. — Diagonal Diogenes

Consider this;

either life today for many people is almost insurmountable and beyond their control,

or they’re making it up and just looking for an easy way out. Which is it?

You both seem to have leapt at the quote by Epictetus, which was probably a bait not intended.

What I meant was that to live as a Stoic today is to be a victim too many uncontrollable externals that have a direct bearing on your mental and physical health. Maybe it was never possible, but if it was then it was done under different circumstances than today. I’m not talking about war, or being tortured, just daily life.

how do you reconcile the drive to teach Stoicism when it can't be taught at all to human beings? — god must be atheist

Not only is it possible it can’t be taught to a human being, but if it could be taught, or if someone applied it to living today, would they find themselves buried by the forces they have no control over. How much can you step back before you’re nothing? How much does what we can’t control outweigh what can’t be controlled?

“The chief task in life is simply this: to identify and separate matters so that I can say clearly to myself which are externals not under my control, and which have to do with the choices I actually control. Where then do I look for good and evil? Not to uncontrollable externals, but within myself to the choices that are my own…”
– Epictetus

You didn't answer my question? — Punshhh

Sorry, @Punshhh, I didn’t see your last question. Give it to me again.

Why not, then, ask the question that's really on your mind? — tim wood

Which is what?

That's how cynical the view of voters apparently is — Benkei

Johnson got into power on the backs of the poor, — Punshhh

So clarify for me.

How cynical are the voters?

Did the poor vote in ignorance for the Conservatives

Edit: what you could have said is that the people have spoken.

I wasn’t meaning to harass you, just agreeing with the difficulty.

I don't know what to do in the scenario you posited. I just don't — khaled

And yet a decision is required.

It’s because you keep blaming the people who voted in an election, as if they’re incompetent. Why? That’s how a Democracy works.

But, as to your question, yes. It was a family decision. That's how it works. — Hanover

And no it isn't. It's just not that simple — tim wood

No, not that simple, but that’s how it happens. You seem to be very dependent on some outside authority to make a moral decision for you, but you don’t say who.

Yes, we could say say it depends on the individual. We could compare the love of one husband for his wife to another husbands love for his wife, and we could compare the love of one mother for her child to another mother and her love for her child. But the comparison of the love of a mother compared to the love of a husband is not so easy. So to say it depends on the individual is of no help whatsoever.

Those who are pro abortion insist that a woman can do what she wants with her body, so when does a child no longer belong to her? It’s this aspect I’m alluding to when I compare the love of the mother and husband.

I’m assuming your male, so I don’t know how you can be sure of yourself here. But set me right if you believe you can?

Johnson got into power on the backs of the poor, — Punshhh

So it’s the stupid poor responsible for this?

More women MPs have been elected to the House of Commons than ever before, according to the PA news agency.

Those damn voters.