Kilt Wearing Can Promote Mental Health

[adempsey10]

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

[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.

[O'Searcaigh]

I have heard that many times and I can tell you that there are two easy reasons I have witnessed. Normally it's one or the other.
1. You don't feel as anxious about using a foreign language as without the wine (kiltwearing might help with that too). Your French is as good or bad as before, but you might take away something from the conversation.
2. You had one glass to many and you THINK you speak French better than normal. Your French is as good or probably even worse than normal.

I don't drink so I have to wear a kilt to improve my language skills

When talking about greek philosophers I'm not sure if by men they meant men or humans but from the little I know I think it is quite possible that they meant men. Unfortunately I've crashed my TARDIS and without her my greek can't even be helped by permanent kilt-wearing.

Alas, you are no doubt correct. I should have said made speaking French "easier" for me rather than "better" and no doubt even then only because of the release of my inhibitions in trying to mimic French pronunciations which came difficult to my Saxon trained ears. I'm sure it did nothing for my vocabulary or grammar, let alone typical French dialogue. That was well over 40 years ago now and no doubt also suffers from "false memory" issues as well. I do remember, however, how much free-er it felt. Not unlike wearing the kilt!

Re: gender inclusion and ancient Greek philosophers -- I would have to try to find a faithful rendering in the original ancient Greek text to know what exact word Epictetus used or even if it were written in Greek originally rather than perhaps Latin -- he was a Roman "slave" and the book is reputed to have been very popular among the Roman Legions. Plato, however, made it very clear (out of the mouth of Socrates) that one's gender was not a relevant issue except in reproduction and considered males and females in all other respects to be the same and equal, all other thing being equal. As followers of this "Socratic view," the Stoics (including Epictetus) tended to adopt this inclusive notion of "human kind" irrespective of gender, race, etc. So ???? Also, Epictetus did not actually "write" the book himself anyway. The collection of his teachings/sayings which constitute the Enchiridion was (somewhat like Socrates and Plato) copied and handed down by one of his students, Arrian, it is reputed.

[O'Searcaigh]

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).

[keltic]

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.

[rmccool]

Re: "boy parts" -- I don't know about "mental peace" there but there IS epidemiological evidence that it is healthier for 'em! "Kilts -- for a healthy mind and a healthy......"

There are some who might argue that for the majority of human males, the two are effectively synonymous.

[cryptoman]

Closed, rigid and intolerant individuals or communities are usually also fearful, un-accepting and unhealthy ones. Variety is not only the spice of life; it is also its substance.

That's their problem not anybody else's. Discrimination is the spice of live. If you are forced to keep up with someone you dislike doesn't solve conflicts rather than enhance them. It is IMHO a bit stupid to hate someone just because of its style of clothing.

I'd like to see the "guy in the skirt" more often than the scot in baggy pants after the highland games, hiding in the shadows.

Who are those guys who like to wear a kilt for reasons of comfort, style and health rather than conformity?

[James Hood]

Doctor, thank you so much for the concise, excellently-worded piece which opened this thread.

As with our other distinguished colleagues, the text has been read several times, printed and highlighted for quick looks at particularly pertinent sentence-gems.

Other contributors, thanks to you as well, for sharing your observations and knowledge. Coming from business, the sciences and history, philosophy is a rather rare, tasty treat when presented so well.

[gilmore]

Thanks, I like the original post quite a bit.

However, I might take issue with the simple way that guilt and shame are explained. While the explanation is specific ot Westerners and helpful to many, there are 2 points about it.

One is that I don't know that guilt and shame are 2 distinct and separate things, but rather 2 ends of a spectrum with many degrees of negatively thinking of oneself on it. that one can move through.

The other point comes from being Buddhist and living in south Asia. In Buddhism, shame, as the emotion is translated into English, is not a bad thing, but a good one. Perhaps a more accurate translation would be embarrassment, but nonetheless it serves to motivate us not to perform acts that are unacceptable and could---and often do in Indian, Tibetan and Nepali society---lead to ostracism, things such as sharp dealing in business, gratuitous unkindness, and so on. Of course this works more efficaciously in cultures that are closer knit than in the US and much of the rest of the West, but there you have it.