-
 Originally Posted by Carlo
I think that some people might disagree with anthropos being used for specific females (check here)
This article speaks specifically to biblical Greek which is much different than Classical Greek. I should have noted that I was speaking of Classical Greek only. 5th and 4th centuries BCE (the language of Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Xenophon. Etc). Koine and biblical Greek have different variations in usage of grammar and syntax. There are specific examples of the usage I spoke of in the Speeches of Lysias, particularly 'On the Murder of Eratosthenes', written in the 4th century BCE
Last edited by adempsey10; 4th June 13 at 08:00 PM.
-
-
I should have said that anthropos used abstractly refers to all mankind but when speaking of an individual it means 'a male human' but can ALSO be used, in some situations, to refer to slaves, old women and nurse maids.
Last edited by adempsey10; 4th June 13 at 08:03 PM.
-
-
 Originally Posted by adempsey10
I should have said that anthropos used abstractly refers to all mankind but when speaking of an individual it means 'a male human' but can ALSO be used, in some situations, to refer to slaves, old women and nurse maids.
Alas, yes and thank you. The issue, I would think, is not what specific word (whether in ancient Greek, Latin, contemporary English .. or whatever) was "used" but rather whether an attitude of inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness was/is intended. In this case, there is clear evidence of an attitude of inclusiveness as presupposed by "author's" over-all philosophical world view. The inherent ambiguity of a term by itself cannot be used to argue either for or against just one of its ambiguous meanings (hence "fallacies of ambiguity" in logic); their intended meanings can only be determined in context and through further clarification/explanation. We even today frequently "misuse" terms (unable to express intended meaning because of restrictions of accepted grammar -- e.g., using "they" (a plural pronoun) to avoid having to be constrained by the "grammatically correct" "he" or "she" (singular pronouns) in order to imply inclusiveness. Sometimes, as in the case just illustrated, the "rules of grammar" of a language itself can constrain the ability to express clearly one's intentions -- i.e., communicate clearly. This is especially the case with issues of "gender" which different languages can represent through grammatical constraints very differently. "Errors of language are not just errors of grammar, they do harm to the soul." (Socrates).
Last edited by O'Searcaigh; 6th June 13 at 09:40 AM.
-
The Following User Says 'Aye' to O'Searcaigh For This Useful Post:
-
11th July 13, 05:45 AM
#4
I hold myself as neither an academic, nor a dimwit. However, I find that I enjoy coming back to the original post and soaking it in, again and again. There is much to be learned here, and I believe it may take me some time to incorporate the ideas contained therein.
Some things happened over the weekend at my daughter's wedding that might have upset me, had I allowed them to. As I was pondering the behaviors of some people who are dear to me, and thinking that they "should" have done something differently, my mind came back to this post. Thank you, O'Searcaigh for sharing this most helpful essay.
-
The Following 2 Users say 'Aye' to keltic For This Useful Post:
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks