There are way too many factual mistakes in this article to be able to take it for anything else but…
The Keeper of the Garden
395

I wish we could actually engage in a discussion instead of having to accept that you mute critical comments on your article. I fail to see how my comment proved your point. I’m a Classicist, like you, and I notice errors in your translation and interpretation of ancient texts. It’s my duty to confront you and try to find the truth (in search of true knowledge, like Sokrates taught us). Actually, I’m very fond of using the technique of dialogue as used and promoted by the same philosopher — whom some feminists would probably like to sentence to death once more because they claim he was a misogynist, disregarding the possibility of the use of humour by someone 2,500 years ago, and failing to see how they are now becoming supremacists and cultural racists themselves. The pendulum needs to be in the middle to be in harmony and balance. That is actually the point I’m trying to make. Nothing is neither fully good nor fully bad (“Dr Sokrates, I presume?”).

I’m sorry but I am critical, sceptical, and I ask questions about and put question marks after every statement of anybody who uses and/or abuses the life, history, culture, and art of people from the past to prove politically, sociologically, or psychologically inspired theories of today, both positive and negative theories. I hope you have fully read and understood my first comment, in which I was not in favour of your point of view, but neither in that of those whom you attack. I stand behind the people and the values they cherished, that you and I study. Not to use and abuse them, but to study them, appreciate them, and value them in their rightful and historically correct context: Classical Antiquity, not the year 2007 CE. They might have made mistakes, yet it is not up to us to condemn them.

In other words: It is not only scientifically incorrect but also completely unfair to judge people who are dead and who can’t explain nor defend their points of view on matters that have changed enormously over the many centuries that divide them and us (such as the definition of words like: slavery, democracy, the role of men and women in society, politics, science, philosophy, etc). One can translate texts and words written 2,000 or more years ago, yet one can never really nor totally be sure of what meanings and connotations they had for the people who wrote them — time is a lens through which we look, a keyhole, a window. Those texts got copied , censored, altered, edited, used and abused during many centuries. It’s not a wise thing to keep on doing that. It’s not wise to try to prove political or sociological “points” of today using a selection of quotes from the past. Those categories of thinking didn’t even exist at that time.

In yet other words (using a language that fascists of all times actually love to use, yet is still being taught nonetheless at schools and universities world-wide): “Non possumus scire.”