Kilt Wearing Can Promote Mental Health

[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).