A lot of backlashing and thrashing goes on here. Don't pay it much heed.

I can understand an athlete's decision to cancel an appearance for good reason, whether at Wimbledon or Tokyo. What I find much less understandable is heaping praise on the athlete for bowing out for reasons of mental health. We don't say, "So admirable, so courageous" if an athlete drops out because of a badly sprained ankle, badly damaged hamstring, or a bad case of dysentery. We just cross the event off the list. I would expect the same for a mental health issue, not the weepy applause "poor thing, so courageous in her anxiety, depression" or whatever.

Mastery of emotion goes along with top athletic performance, doesn't it? Isn't full-self-possession in the face of difficult performance one of the signal virtues of top level athletes. Wimping out doesn't seem to be part of the 'scene'.

If it's courageous to bow out, is it cowardly to soldier on?

Not anymore, Mr. Hanover, if you haven’t noticed. You’re talking about the old days, before “mental health awareness”. Proof of this is the fact that Ms. Biles has been universally supported and applauded for dropping out. I doubt she was unaware of the change in public opinion that had occurred. I think she knew that she would find much sympathy and support afterwards. — Leghorn

It's obviously not universal given the comments made in this thread, where many believe she was wrong to expose her mental health issues and should have persevered because that's what's demanded of heroes who bounce around on gym floors.

Let me restate it then. The soul used to be conceived of as economy of the virtues and passions, the former aided by reason and ruling over the latter, as parsimony over luxury, temperance over insobriety, chastity over lust, etc,...and courage over fear. This economy is no longer believed in, and its elements have either been renamed or done away with altogether: the soul was replaced by the enigmatic “self”; the passions, generally bad qualities that needed restraining, were renamed “emotions”, which are not bad at all. In fact they ought to be “let out” because if you suppress them they will adversely affect not only your mental-, but even your physical-health.

In this new condition of the soul’s understanding it is little wonder that such perversions as this be heard: — Leghorn

You have to overstate it this way in order to make your point, creating a brittle dichotomy, where either we are soulless automatons or we are entirely free spirited divine creatures able to counter any limitation. There is a difference between waking up on the wrong side of the bed and deciding you don't want to face the day and going back to sleep versus feeling an overwhelming sense of hopelessness and not being able to see through the bleakness and contemplating suicide. There is difference between being nervous and having butterflies in your stomach versus feeling an intrusive sense of worry that makes rational thought impossible. There are some things we can work through and others not.

And this works the same for physical disorders as well. We expect people to make it to work with a headache and stomach ache, but not with a disabling brain tumor or projectile vomiting. We can make these distinctions without pontificating on the soul and the deterioration of standards by simply pointing out that there are matters of degree. Some things are excusable and some things not, simply because they are more debilitating than others. That you don't believe Biles' limitations were serious enough to warrant her decision not to compete is a personal finding of fact by you, but it has nothing to do with changes in societal standards.

And speaking of changes in societal standards, I don't know what you mean when you say the soul was recently renamed the "self" and the passions "emotions," as if that is a modern day occurrence. The ancient Greeks spoke of the self and the emotions. Are you arguing that Biles is just part of this "modern" movement that started thousands of years ago?

What I find much less understandable is heaping praise on the athlete for bowing out for reasons of mental health. We don't say, "So admirable, so courageous" if an athlete drops out because of a badly sprained ankle, badly damaged hamstring, or a bad case of dysentery. We just cross the event off the list. I would expect the same for a mental health issue, not the weepy applause "poor thing, so courageous in her anxiety, depression" or whatever. — Bitter Crank

You would expect the same for mental health issues, but as noted in this thread, you don't get that. You get criticism and a questioning of character. If claiming mental health problems resulted only in people crossing the contest off the list, there'd be no reason to heap praise on the person for identifying there were mental health issues.

By the same token, if claiming a sprained ankle resulted in public ridicule, you would expect athletes to conceal that reason, but if one person came forward and admitted they were withdrawing for having a sprained ankle, that person might be looked upon as heroic for refusing to conceal it and just admitting she had that problem. The heroism, to the extent that term is not being abused, is in accepting some amount of public abuse in order to destigmatize something that is far more common than we generally admit.

The idea that people should put their lives, physical or mental health or well being on the line in order to engage successfully in athletics is a curious one.
— Ciceronianus the White

Why, your namesake I think knew much better, for I am sure that Marcus Tullius Cicero was very familiar with the athletic contests described in both the Iliad and Aeneid. — Leghorn

No doubt. But the kind of athletic contests favored by the Greeks lost favor with the Romans, certainly by Cicero's time, and were replaced in popularity by the ludi, games put on for the entertainment of the people. Those of course featured gladiators trying hard to kill or maim each other, beast fights and hunts and other forms of blood sport. Even the courageous Mr. Brady may have declined to participate in those games, no matter how many rings were offered him. Cicero deplored them.

Participants in the ludi in most cases couldn't choose not to participate. But gladiators and other performers were expensive to buy and maintain, so their owners weren't inclined to send them into the arena when they were likely to be killed or cut up due to their condition, or couldn't perform well. It would be a waste of investment and also would annoy the audience.

Personally, I hope that even in these sad times courage isn't a question of exposing oneself to harm in order to win more medals or rings.

Is it not the term psyche, which is the Greek word for soul? If we parsed these out, psychology is “knowledge of the soul”, and psychotherapy is “healing of the soul”. Wouldn’t you expect that he who has knowledge of the soul would also be the one who knows—if anyone does—how to heal it? — Leghorn

"Which is the Greek word for soul"? Are you kidding? Please make clear how that could be, the Greek word being at least 1600 years older and certainly much older than that. And relying on translations of Greek words to establish meaning is a mug's game. The first task is to figure out just what the Greek word means, and that not-so-easy, or not easy at all.

And that's a fine Socratic construction, that you have collapsed. "Wouldn't the one who knows, know?" But the Socrates of the dialogues would also be concerned with the what and how of the knowledge. Which wisdom and prudence we can emulate. What evidence do you have beyond a faux etymology that psychologists or psychiatrists or psychotherapists or psycho-anythings know anything about the soul never mind psyche?

A scene fromI Claudius, where Mrs. Caesar Augustus gives a pep talk to the gladiators:

Great books, Great series, Great portrayal of Livia Augusta. Thank you.

And speaking of changes in societal standards, I don't know what you mean when you say the soul was recently renamed the "self" and the passions "emotions," as if that is a modern day occurrence. The ancient Greeks spoke of the self and the emotions. Are you arguing that Biles is just part of this "modern" movement that started thousands of years ago? — Hanover

This movement began after the Enlightenment, which marked a radical break with the ancients. Sure, there is a word for “self” in Greek, just as their is in Latin, and all the other languages, but they are purely grammatical: pronouns referring to other nouns in a sentence. The “self” as a psychological term was introduced by the early Enlighteners as a substitute for the ancient concept of the “soul” as the immaterial part of man, and picked up later by Freud and his intellectual progeny.

A change in language almost always indicates a change in thought.

For example, before the gay-rights movement, ppl who were attracted to the same sex were called “homosexual”—a clinical description which, however, became offensive when opponents of the movement were heard so frequently denouncing “those homosexuals” in the media. The term “gay” then began to be used and stuck, and we scarcely ever hear the term “homosexual” anymore, and this is the change in language that I say resulted from a change in meaning: a homosexual is now someone who has sexual relations with someone of the same sex (a bad thing); a gay person is someone who does the same thing, but is not ashamed of it, makes it public, and is supported by the majority of that public in his or her desire to have equal rights. In other words, “homosexual” is an obsolete clinical term, “gay” a current political/social one, and the replacement for the former. The change in thought represented by this change in language is that sexual relations between those of the same sex ought to be accepted by society, not condemned.

As far as “emotion” is concerned, it comes to us from Latin via the French, but when a Roman conveyed this concept he said “adfectus”, and when a Greek did, he said “pathos”. A speaker of English in olden days said “passion”; a contemporary one says “emotion”, and I suggest this change in language marks a similar change in our conception: the old “passions” were conceived as things within us that cause us to act irrationally, and need to be controlled by reason; the new “emotions” are not so easily ruled. They are impressive in their force and demand their own rights. At best you can compromise with them; you cannot control them...

...and this gets at the root of the problem of current athletes opting to withdraw from competition: the traditional athlete attempted to master his fear, was ashamed of it, and therefore concealed it in order to achieve excellence; the current one is ambiguous: should he risk so much in competition to win outdated honors when he can withdraw and win new ones, ones stamped with the approval of the vast majority of his audience and peers?

I think Simone Biles wants to be considered the greatest athlete—what athlete wouldn’t? And she overcame a lot of adversity to get where she is. Athletes are generally praised for overcoming adversity and misfortune. Now you can cite that same misfortune and adversity as legitimate reason for not competing. You can have it both ways: if you overcome to compete, you are lauded; if you don’t overcome, and refuse to compete, you are equally praised. It is a win-win situation...

...of course you have to first get to the point where you are considered a great athlete before you can enjoy this no-fail situation—and you can’t get THERE unless you overcome every obstacle...even the mental ones.

Lots of armchair athletes here — jgill

We are so strong as athletes, that we can lift the very armchair we sit on. — god must be atheist

Being full of hot air makes that possible. Be sure to tether yourself to the living room floor. :cool:

"Which is the Greek word for soul"? Are you kidding? Please make clear how that could be, the Greek word being at least 1600 years older and certainly much older than that. And relying on translations of Greek words to establish meaning is a mug's game. The first task is to figure out just what the Greek word means, and that not-so-easy, or not easy at all. — tim wood

I had to look up “mug” in my Webster’s, for I was unfamiliar with its use in this context, and I discovered the British force of “someone easily deceived”, which is perhaps the force you gave it.

What I am not deceived about, I think, is that the various languages down through the philosophical tradition have attempted to translate the key terms of philosophy faithfully into their own languages. The most famous example is probably Cicero’s Latin terms to express those of earlier Greek philosophy. The assumption was that everybody was talking about the same things, just in different terms. Within this tradition, Greek psyche was translated animus by a Roman, and soul by an Englishman.

From what you said I would guess that you have been influenced by Heidegger (consciously or unconsciously), who believed that language is “the house of being”, and who thought that Cicero’s Latin terms could never convey the essence of Plato or Aristotle’s Greek ones.

What I am not deceived about, I think, is that the various languages down through the philosophical tradition have attempted to translate the key terms of philosophy faithfully into their own languages. The most famous example is probably Cicero’s Latin terms to express those of earlier Greek philosophy. The assumption was that everybody was talking about the same things, just in different terms. Within this tradition, Greek psyche was translated animus by a Roman, and soul by an Englishman. — Leghorn

This is - all or mostly - wishful thinking. Let's go back. You wrote, "Is it not the term psyche, which is the Greek word for soul?" I challenged you on that, which you ignored. So I'll answer categorically. No. Soul is a usual and facile English translation of the Greek word psyche, and not an accurate translation. You yourself note above that the meaning of soul has shifted even in a few years.

The assumption that folks were, or are now, talking/writing about the same things is equally facile and essentially ignorant. A modern example that may seem to you trivial: I see online that the word "car" first appears in the 14th century, coming from Latin. Do you think you know what it means? And all this because you made some ill-informed claims about things you thought you knew something about.

In fine, courage used to be overcoming fear. Now it is succumbing to it. — Leghorn

Nah. It's not that uncommon even for top athletes to drop out of big competitions. But the narrative about sports have changed over time. Listen esp. to the interviews with athletes after an event, where they explain and justify why they won or lost. It's pop psychology, carefully tailored for PR purposes, going with the spirit of the times.

I think Biles' explanation of why she didn't compete in all the events is in line with the currently popular sports narrative, although I think she took it even a step further; or perhaps this was simply how it came accross, given that it happened at such a high-level sporting event.


Note: If she said she needed to take a break from competing due to an injury or some physical problem, this could mean the end of competing for her for these OG altogether (because the doctors wouldn't give her a pass for continuing). But the mental health defense was a strategic way to take a much needed break and to recover, so as to be better able to compete in the final competitions. She could have said "I need to sit this one out, and save my energy for the final performance", but this would be bad for her PR, and I'm not sure it's even allowed by Olympic standards.

the kind of athletic contests favored by the Greeks lost favor with the Romans, certainly by Cicero's time, and were replaced in popularity by the ludi, games put on for the entertainment of the people. — Ciceronianus the White

I was referring to the contests instituted by Aeneas in Sicily (Aeneid, book 5) in honor of the dead Anchises. In the galley race, after Sergestus boldly attempts to go to the inside of Mnestheus as they round the turning point—a rocky crag in the sea—he founders on it, breaking his prow and oars on the rocks. Mnestheus, steering clear, races for the port, and after the sole boat left to catch: that of Cloanthus. As Vergil describes it,

hi proprium decus et partum indignantur honorem
ni teneant, vitamque volunt pro laude pacisci;

(Lines 229 and 230) “They [Cloanthus’ sailors] consider it a disgrace unless they hold the glory for their own, and the honor as acquired, and are willing to pawn their lives for the praise [that comes from victory];”—my translation—

...willing to pawn, pledge, give in exchange, however you wish to translate it, their very lives for honor and glory. That is the spirit of sailors willing to shipwreck and ruin their boat and perhaps find themselves floating in a dangerous and turbulent sea—if only they can be victorious.

This Vergilian galley race was inspired by the chariot race in the 23rd book of the Iliad, where Eumelos, after running far ahead of Diomedes, suffers the misfortune of smashing his yoke,

“...and Eumelos / himself was sent spinning out beside the wheel of the chariot / so that his elbows were all torn, and his mouth, and his nostrils, / and his forehead was lacerated about the brows, and his eyes / filled with tears, and the springing voice was held fast within him.” (lines 393-397, Lattimore translation).

These men were not slavish mercenary gladiators, but free heroic souls, willing to suffer great harm and danger in order to be the best. Homer and Vergil describe their striving for glory, and their suffering of defeat, as examples to the men of their day of heroism, courage, and what must be risked in order to achieve the honor of victory.

You yourself note above that the meaning of soul has shifted even in a few years. — tim wood

Actually, I noted that the word “soul” had been replaced by that of “self” to describe the part of man that is not body.

When I was a child, attending Baptist church, I learned that the soul is that immaterial part of me that flies off to heaven after my body dies. What relation it had to me as a living being, I was unaware of. When I grew up and began reading good old literature, I learned that the soul is really the immaterial part of a human being (anthropou, hominis) that describes the mixture of passions and reason that constitute his living consciousness.

Soul is a usual and facile English translation of the Greek word psyche, and not an accurate translation. — tim wood

So how would YOU translate it?

I see online that the word "car" first appears in the 14th century, coming from Latin. Do you think you know what it means? — tim wood

Well, in that century it certainly didn’t mean the same as automobile (“something moving of its own accord”, a mixture of Greek “autos” and Latin “mobilis”, which was coined to describe carriages motivated by either steam power, or internal combustion of petroleum gases). In the 14th century it must have meant some sort of vehicle moving on wheels and drawn by horse..., but what sort exactly I couldn’t say...

This reminds me of what I read today in the preface of Henry Adam’s autobiography, published in 1907:

“As educator, Jean Jacques [Rousseau] was, in one respect, easily first; he erected a monument of warning against the Ego. Since his time, and largely thanks to him, the Ego had steadily tended to efface itself, and, for purposes of model, to become a manikin on which the toilet of education is draped in order to show the fit or misfit of the clothes...”

Now, when I read this, though I was drawn up to take notice, I certainly didn't conceive of education as a latrine hanging on a manikin; for I was well aware of the origins of the word toilet, and we still have the word toiletry to remind us of that origin...

“...The object of study is the garment, not the figure. The tailor adapts the manikin as well as the clothes to his patron’s wants. The tailor’s object, in this volume, is to fit young men, in universities or elsewhere, to to be men of the world, equipped for any emergency...”

Here again I was drawn back—but my familiarity with the Latin tongue helped me through: I knew from the context that emergency here did not mean, as it universally does now, the same thing as alarum, so that it must mean anything that emerges, that comes out of the sea of things that might test our mettle.

But the mental health defense was a strategic way to take a much needed break and to recover, so as to be better able to compete in the final competitions. She could have said "I need to sit this one out, and save my energy for the final performance", but this would be bad for her PR, and I'm not sure it's even allowed by Olympic standards. — baker

She actually forewent the individual all-around, the team all-around, and every other individual event except for the balance beam, where she won a disappointing bronze.

The same sort of thing happened to Osaka after she dropped out of the French Open (because she thought it oppressive to be required to give pressers there): she either forewent or lost in Wimbledon afterwards, and lost in the Olympic 3rd-round to some unheralded player.

Once you forget about striving for greatness in favor of some social cause, you lose your momentum.

if claiming a sprained ankle resulted in public ridicule, you would expect athletes to conceal that reason, but if one person came forward and admitted they were withdrawing for having a sprained ankle, that person might be looked upon as heroic for refusing to conceal it and just admitting she had that problem. — Hanover

In high school, my brother, #1 on the tennis team, cut his finger badly, nicking a tendon, and faced Coach before the next match, who said he had to play anyway, despite his injury. He could hold the racquet despite his bandaged finger, couldn’t he? couldn’t he make shots? You must play!...said Coach...he refused to play, we lost the match, and Coach never forgave him.

In the old days ppl with health problems tended to conceal them. Only consider FDR in his wheelchair, carefully hidden behind the podium. Why did they do this? The fact that they did so proves they thought it shameful, like having sex or going to the toilet, or getting a divorce...all things that are no longer considered shameful...

Man once considered himself as a divine soul trapped in a corrupt body. Now he makes no such distinction: he is all body. Even his soul is just a manifestation of his corporeal brain, no different than any other organ in his body, and whose maladies are understood similarly, treatable by drugs and therapy.

This Vergilian galley race was inspired by the chariot race in the 23rd book of the Iliad, where Eumelos, after running far ahead of Diomedes, suffers the misfortune of smashing his yoke,

“...and Eumelos / himself was sent spinning out beside the wheel of the chariot / so that his elbows were all torn, and his mouth, and his nostrils, / and his forehead was lacerated about the brows, and his eyes / filled with tears, and the springing voice was held fast within him.” — Leghorn

You're really selling this return to the exemplar of ancient Greek sport.

You must play!...said Coach...he refused to play, we lost the match, and Coach never forgave him. — Leghorn

The coach was an idiot. The American worship of athletics and the treatment of coaches as sages is idiosyncratic to America and something that is thankfully starting to be questioned. Parents push their kids in sports where they'd never push them in academics. Your dad should have told the coach to stop talking to your brother. Parents should protect their kids from idiots.

the old days ppl with health problems tended to conceal them. Only consider FDR in his wheelchair, carefully hidden behind the podium. Why did they do this? The fact that they did so proves they thought it shameful, like having sex or going to the toilet, or getting a divorce...all things that are no longer considered shameful... — Leghorn

No one thought FDR's polio was shameful. He got elected president 4 times. At least back then people took vaccines because they didn't convince themselves the polio vaccine was a tool of the government to control the people, or whatever the argument is today.

Man once considered himself as a divine soul trapped in a corrupt body. — Leghorn

The body has been considered holy for thousands of years. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.myjewishlearning.com/article/lets-get-physical/amp/
I don't know your religion, but it doesn't speak for all of mankind and to the extent it holds the human body is just like a rock, that belief is very foreign to me and not one I find interesting.

See also: https://www.neptunesociety.com/cremation-information-articles/the-mormon-church-and-cremation

In any event, whether the ancients once thought the earth flat or whether they once thought mental health disorders didn't exist, they were wrong. Why do you wish to sort through history's garbage can of bad ideas and put them back in use?

Soul is a usual and facile English translation of the Greek word psyche, and not an accurate translation.
— tim wood
So how would YOU translate it? — Leghorn

I take care and trouble not to - and what difference would mine make? - I do attempt as best I can to be sensitive to what the word means. Which means in many cases having to be satisfied with context, against what seems to me to make sense, and combined with other contexts where the word appears, and sometimes where it does not. It also requires attempting to have some awareness of the rules, circumstances, history, and intentions of the word's usage. And it often means I don't know, even as others translate glibly. ψυχή - psyche - occurs in Homer, making it an old word, implicitly pre-Homeric. Aristotle gives it a workout, and of course Christians have tried to make it their own. Which means that what it means is by no means easy to find out or recognize.

A couple of further examples. Και is a small Greek word often translated as "and." It can mean other things, but "and" seems right when used as and. But there is the common construction και...και, translated into English as "both...and." Now, I get the translation; it works. but I have a very hard time believing that the first και means "both" while the second και means "and." So I remind myself that I do not know what και really means, or how an ancient Greek's mind worked while reading. And the Greek presents a lot of these examples.

Another more substantial example. "Fornication" is a commonly used - although not universally used - translation in the Bible of the Greek πορνεία - porneia. Trouble is, only by a stretch do they only partially overlap in meaning. Fornication comes from Latin and old French, meaning a kind of arch and then referring to brothels. Porneia, on the other hand, refers to the activities of male and female prostitutes and temple prostitution. It's an interesting diversion to search the words online and through lexicons. The moral of the story, however, is that you can translate, but that does not mean you get from the translation what was originally meant.

Once you forget about striving for greatness in favor of some social cause, you lose your momentum. — Leghorn

There is a general plebeification of mankind going on.

There was a time, and some people still think so, that living without honor is futile.

At least back then people took vaccines because they didn't convince themselves the polio vaccine was a tool of the government to control the people, or whatever the argument is today. — Hanover

Whatever. There you go. You don't even bother to inform yourself what the arguments for hesistancy about vaccination are. You just spew your contempt and hatred. It's just so enjoyable to do so, isn't it? Righteous indignation feels so good!

Whatever. There you go. You don't even bother to inform yourself what the arguments for hesistancy about vaccination are. You just spew your contempt and hatred. It's just so enjoyable to do so, isn't it? Righteous indignation feels so good! — baker

I know all the arguments posited to justify the wrong decision. It's not that you're misunderstood. It's that you misunderstand.

You don't even know what my stance is, and you don't bother to know it. You just judge. Authoritarianism at its best.

You don't even know what my stance is, and you don't bother to know it. You just judge. Authoritarianism at its best. — baker

Of course I know your position. You've posted it.

It's not a matter of whether I'm an authoritarian or not for me to tell you that you should vaccinate. It's a matter of right or wrong, and you're wrong. Such is true whether I'm a dictator of a totalitarian regime or I live in an anarchistic libertarian society.

This is about you and those similar denying science and people dying as a result. This isn't righteous indignation either. Even if I were a psychotic Son of Sam who enjoyed suffering and death, you'd still be denying science and people would still be denying as a result.

These men were not slavish mercenary gladiators, but free heroic souls, willing to suffer great harm and danger in order to be the best. Homer and Vergil describe their striving for glory, and their suffering of defeat, as examples to the men of their day of heroism, courage, and what must be risked in order to achieve the honor of victory. — Leghorn

I understood the reference.

My point was that by Cicero's time, that of the late Roman Republic, about 600 years after the events depicted in the Iliad, the popularity of the Greek style games was diminishing, at least among the Romans. The Aeneid was supposed to depict what took place after the fall of Troy and reflected the story that Romans were descendants of the Trojans. It's unsurprising that Greek style games were described as part of that founding myth.

Gladiatorial contests were admired and lauded by many as examples of martial skill and courage in the face of death and injury as well. Some gladiators were comparable to superstars in sports today, though their social status was lowly. So, if a gladiator had a choice and declined to participate because for mental health reasons, no doubt he would have been castigated as weak as well.

No one thought FDR's polio was shameful — Hanover

It was kept from the public. It’s not that no one knew of it, it’s that it was not brought to the forefront, was little spoken of, and ignored.

I’m sure at the time of his election his disability was considered an impediment. What if he ran for office in our times? How do you think it would be dealt with now? It certainly wouldn’t be concealed or ignored. It would be brought out, spoken about publicly. It would be something he had bravely overcome, just as Biden overcame the tragedies in his family. These things are no longer hush-hush. Ppl in the public eye now regularly reveal their struggles with mental and physical problems, addictions and diseases. These things (for anyone who has lived long enough to know) were kept secret in the older days.

“In many cases, what American spirituality avoids is the bodily reality of human existence. Too much of American spirituality assumes that “spirit,” a concept originating in Greek thought and Pauline Christianity, is the opposite of “body.” Spirit — we are told — is good, pure and eternal. Body is bad, corrupt and ephemeral.”

This quote from your first link just doesn’t ring true to my experience. I attend a fundamentalist Baptist church every Sunday morning. The prayer list is gone over. Who do you think are on it, those suffering from existential crises about the fate of their souls? Of course not! It is those who are suffering from physical maladies—cancer, gout, heart conditions, injuries, etc, etc. The American churchgoer may give a lot of lip-service to spiritual salvation, but he loves God primarily because He has the power to heal his body.

And even St. Paul promised us a heavenly BODY to house our heavenly spirit. But the abstraction of soul from body is firmly seated in the ancient philosophic tradition, and is reflected in Jesus’ teachings. Jesus, as much as did Plato or Seneca, taught us to forget our bodies and be concerned solely with our souls.

Why do you wish to sort through history's garbage can of bad ideas and put them back in use? — Hanover

That is not my method, Mr. Hanover. Whenever I read an old book, I try to think like the author did, see the world from his point of view...

...I once corresponded with a man who believed learning from the Bible or Aristotle, etc, was “picking and choosing from the tradition” what seemed to be true, and moving on. He thought this was learning or education. What it is is actually just choosing what conforms to your already conceived belief, and ignoring what tests it, what challenges it. Who nowadays is not egalitarian, for example? According to my correspondent’s method, when reading the Gospels or the Dialogues of Plato, I should simply ignore the obvious passages where the author expresses a patently illiberal view. If I fail to do this, if I take Plato or Jesus too seriously, I might just become the next tyrant or cult-leader.

You're lucky that you're a moderator, so I can't report you for misrepresenting or anything like that.
You should be ashamed of yourself.


But just vote for Trump, honey, just vote for Trump.

The moral of the story, however, is that you can translate, but that does not mean you get from the translation what was originally meant. — tim wood

I agree with this. Translation is always inferior to reading the original, and thinking in the original as you read it; with which, from what you’ve said, I would guess you agree.

Where I’m not sure we agree concerns the possibility of translation. I believe it is not only possible, but even salutary—when prospective readers cannot be expected to know the original. This is particularly true in philosophy...

St. Thomas Aquinas, as I understand, was a very good interpreter of Aristotle, but he did not read Greek. He relied instead on William of Moerbeke’s literal Latin translations, which are so literal that they have been in some cases used to correct our extant Greek manuscripts!—for Moerbeke had access to manuscripts, more ancient than ours, which have since been lost.

This I learned from Allan Bloom, a disciple of Leo Strauss, the man who almost single-handedly revived the study of Platonic philosophy in the last century. He also inspired a generation or two of American students who set their minds to translating the philosophical classics literally into English, on the assumption that, since the learning of languages had lost favor among Americans, those inclined to philosophy might profit from good English translations. Products of this inspiration include Bloom’s translations of The Republic and Emile, Harvey Mansfield’s of The Prince and Democracy in America, and numerous ones by many others of the Platonic dialogues and of Xenophon; and these are only the ones I am familiar with from a quarter century ago. Many more may have been published since then.

I believe literal translation is generally superior to any other looser sort for two reasons. Firstly, it often preserves the affinities of the roots of the words in the original, which can be of great importance in interpreting philosophic texts. Porneia is universally translated fornicatio in the Vulgate; porneuo, fornicor; pornos, either fornicarius or fornicator.

Secondly, if whenever I read “fornicatio” in my Vulgate Bible I can be sure that “porneia” is behind it, I can follow the different instances of it in the different passages, comparing and contrasting its various shades of meaning in various contexts. By contrast, consider the suggested English translations for porneia in the Analytical Greek Lexicon of the New Testament: they range from “fornication” to “whoredom” throughout the Gospels; from “concubinage” (Jno. 8.41) to “adultery” in Matthew; to “incest” at 1Co. 5.1; to “lewdness” or “uncleanness” at Ro. 1.29; to “idolatry” in Revelation. In every one of these passages, the underlying Greek word is porneia, and the corresponding Vulgate term is fornicatio. In an English translation of the New Testament inspired by The Analytical Greek Lexicon, this very important fact would be invisible, and no comparison of that single word in various contexts possible.

So I remind myself that I do not know what και really means, or how an ancient Greek's mind worked while reading. — tim wood

Latin btw has the same idiom as the Greek. “Et...et” is equivalent to “both...and”, but I feel you go to far in assuming that since you don’t feel the first kai to be “both” that you therefore can’t understand how a Greek reader’s mind worked. With enough practice, the reader begins to discern clues from the context that a second kai is coming, and finally no longer needs to mechanically translate “both...and” in his mind as he reads. In fact, in my experience reading Latin, I have found that the Roman idioms begin to creep unawares into my English composition...a salutary sign for one striving to immerse himself in another culture.

Btw, how are you able to write Greek letters here? Through an app?

Translation is always inferior to reading the original, — Leghorn

For "always" I might substitute "often" or "usually." But we're on the same page here.

As to making a text available to folks who cannot read the original, again agreed. But find multiple modern translations of the same original work and see by how much they differ!

Literal over literate, again pretty much agreed - maybe footnotes as needed. And to be sure, sometimes what works in another language is awful in English, so literate is not altogether ruled out.

As to καί...καί, there we differ. I, myself, may get comfortable with the lack of "both." But as the Greek never had the "both," he had something else going on, and I don't know what.

I'm pretty sure I got a Greek keyboard ap here:
http://www.dramata.com/Ancient%20polytonic%20Greek%20in%20Windows.pdf
I suggest printing out the instructions for the accents as a handy reference. All by themselves the accents are a lot of work, and, they do not always work (maybe that's my old keyboard). Were I of a younger mind, I might join those who have said, and apparently been saying for a while, "Accents?! We don't need no stinkin' accents!" (paraphrase and misquoting). Oh well, I'm sure something else for us to argue about will come along.