Credits, Disclosures and Attributions
I want to thank my family, Oussama Ammar, Balázs Lazlo Karafiáth, Ertan Dogrultan, Aron Solomon, Carlos Mondragón, Juan-Carlos Foust, Damian Madray, Charles Lee, Suvarchala Narayanan, Aris Vlasakakis, Denise Mavroides, Marek Alboszta, Delroy Harvey, Nicholas Nicolaides, Deserae Foster, Alexandros Nousias, Wen-Wen Wu, Max Marmer, Elsie Samson, Alex Notov, Chelsea Rustrum, Tyson Malchow, Tom Currier, Ehb Teng, Scott Mcleod, Manolis Polychronides, Panagiotis Papadopoulos, John Vlachoyiannis, Stavros Polymenis, Reichart von Wolfsheild, Eddie Harran, Lawrence Wang, Omri Baumer, Dione Angelopoulou, Geetha Vallabhaneni, Bjoern Lasse Herrmann, Tyler Willis, Christos Kyliakoudis, Alex Alekseyenko, Thanasis Manis, Apostolos Apostolakis, Aimilia Tsakiri, Mayel de Borniol, Edurne Lolnaz, Vassilis Papavassiliou, Mary Valiakas, Rhea Mehta, Andrea di Blas, Gillian Rhodes, Keyun Ruan, Rafael Oliveira, Eric Silberger, Miguel Silvao, and Michael Mayernick for their help in this phase of my life.
The titles of most works referenced in this website contain hyperlinks that provide you with ways of procuring that work. The full title is usually linked to the particular edition I used so as to be bibliographically faithful. If bibliographic fidelity is unnecessary given the generality of the reference then I would link either to a free edition of the work involved or to what is, according to my judgment, a good edition/translation of that work in Amazon.com or elsewhere. In general, when buying through Amazon links or other businesses linked from this site, there is a chance you might be helping me earn a small commission via their affiliate advertising program (like Amazon’s Associate program) which in turn helps me cover some of the costs that are associated with producing and maintaining this website.
Given my views evolve over time with reflection, personal experience and becoming aware of novel or additional information, I may not necessarily subscribe to all of the views expressed on this website. The only way to find out what I still believe is to ask me. However, given these thoughts, both the rough and unfinished ones as well as the polished, were helpful in my evolution, I thought they might be of value to the development of others. Hence, their publication.
I use the word “man” with its original meaning in mind, and tend to use “he” in the gender neutral sense unless dictated otherwise by context. My position on the issue resides along the lines suggested by the following excerpt:
“The reasons in favor of prolonging that usage [using the word man to refer to human beings – people – men and women alike] are four: etymology, convenience, the unsuspected incompleteness of “man and woman,” and literary tradition.
To begin with the last, it is unwise to give up a long-established practice, familiar to all, without reviewing the purpose it has served. In Genesis we read: “And God, created Man, male and female.” Plainly, in 1611 and long before, man meant human being. For centuries zoologists have spoken of the species Man; “Man inhabits all the climatic zones.” Logicians have said “Man is mortal,” and philosophers have boasted of “Man’s unconquerable mind.” The poet Webster writes: “And man does flourish but his time.” In all these uses man cannot possibly mean male only. The coupling of woman to those statements would add nothing and sound absurd. The word man has, like many others, two related meanings, which context makes clear.
Nor is the inclusive sense of human being an arbitrary convention. The Sanskrit root man, manu, denotes nothing but the human being and does so par excellence, since it is cognate with the word for “I think.” In the compounds that have been regarded as invidious – spokesman, chairman, and the like – man retains that original sense of human being, as is proved by the word woman, which is etymologically the “wife-human being.” The wo (shortened from waef) ought to make woman doubly unacceptable to zealots, but the word as it stands seems irreplaceable. In a like manner, the proper Carman is made up of car, which meant male, and man, which has its usual human being application. Car, originally carl or kerl, was the lowest order of freeman, often a rustic. (Carl has further given us Charles and churlish.)
In English, words denoting human beings of various ages occupations have changed sex over time or lost it altogether. Thus at first girl referred to small children of either se, likewise maid, which meant simply “grown-up” and the ending –ster as in spinster and webster, designating women. It is no longer so in gangster and roadster. Implications have shifted too. In Latin, homo was the human being and vir the male, so that virtue meant courage in battle; in English it long stood for chastity in women. The message of this mixed-up past is that it is best to let alone what one understands quite well and not insist on a one-sided interpretation of a word in common use.
Some may brush aside this lesson from usage old and new with a “Never mind. Nobody knows or thinks about the past and man remains objectionable.” At this point the reformer must face practical needs. To repeat at frequent intervals “man and woman” and follow it with the compulsory “his and her” is clumsy. It destroys sentence rhythm and smoothness, besides creating emphasis where it is not wanted. Where man is most often used, it is the quick neutral word that good prose requires. It is unfortunate that English no longer has a special term for the job like French on. But on is only the slimmed down form of hom(me) – man again. For the the same neutral use German has man, true to Sanskrit and meaning people. English had the identical word for the purpose until 1100. German has also Mensch with the sense of human being. So at bottom both French and German carry on the same double meaning of man as English, just more visibly; it is the only convenient generic term when it is not perversly interpreted. There is after all an obligation to write decent prose and it rules out recurrent oddity or overinsistence on detail, such as is necessary (for example) in legal writing. Besides, the would-be reformers of usage utter contradictory orders. They want woman featured when men are mentioned but they also call for a ban on feminine designations such as actress.
The truth is that any sex-conscious practice defeats itself by sidetracking the thought from the matter in hand to a social issue – an important one, without question. And on that issue, it is hardly plausible to think that tinkering with words will do anything to enhance respect for women among people who do not feel any, or increase women’s authority and earnings in places where prejudice is entrenched.” – Jacques Barzun, From Dawn to Decadence, p.82
Credits and Attributions
Below you’ll find media that require attribution for their use and other people, companies, products and platforms I give credit for enabling me to build this website with their work. Photos throughout the site that you cannot find credits for in this page are either mine, in the public domain, or came with the media of the theme I purchased which I credit below.
The photo of me overlooking the temple of Apollo at Delphi, Greece, is courtesy of my friend Ehb Teng, used with permission.
The photo in Perspectivism and the Necessary Injustice of Values is by Johannes Ahlmann and was found here under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) license.
The photo in 2016 U.S. Elections, the Death of Representation and Millenial States, is by Stephen Melkisethian and was found here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) license.
The photo in the Filiki Eteria initiative is of a woodcut by Vasos Falireas and is found in the Athens War Museum. The photos is from Dimitris Kamaras and was found here under a Creative Commons, Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) license.
The photo in The Myth of the One depicts, I just discovered, Bradley Paige’s sculpture Expansion and was originally found here with no attribution. I’ve since then reached out to the artist to ask for her permission to continue using the photo. Though she thanked me for the message and didn’t offer any personal objections she proceeded to tell me the photographer was Viktor Lefar, which I have not been able to locate via Google Search. If you’re Mr. Lefar reading this and object to my using of your photo please let me know and I’ll take it down.
The photo in Philosophy is not a product is a remix of Kurtis Garbutt’s photo Pain Relief (CC BY 2.0) and the photo of the Will to Power Bar found in The Unemployed Philosophers Guild and used with their permission.
Logos and Icons
The logo found on the top left hand side of the menu throughout the website is the symbol for dialectical monism, created by INVERTED and released in the public domain for any purpose as stated by this Wikipedia page