Dear Marco and all others,
in your "post-scriptum" (see below for relevant parts) you mention
Plato's discussion of Protagoras' dictum, but unfortunately not Plato's
/ Socrates' arguments against it. Most of you will probably know
it, but here it is anyway, as it is a powerful argument against naive
relativism. Here goes:
1) According to Protagoras, truth &c. is relative to the indivivual
observer.
2) Following this dictum, ALL other people will have an other opinion
on this. Not necessarily an opposite opinion - but another. (say
Protagoras' dictum = A, then Everybody else's dictum = not A.)
3) If Protagoras is correct in his dictum, ALL other's people opinions
are 'true' as well - and thus make his dictum (for everybody else)
incorrect.
Two further consequences of Protagoras' dictum:
* It would mean that no one, including Protagoras, is more an expert
than anyone else.
* It would make real disagreement impossible. (We all know that terrible
reply of someone in a discussion, "but that's only YOUR opinion".
. very well suited to kill any meaningful discourse.)
Of course one can have arguments against Plato's (as many have formulated)
but still it is effective against more 'vulgar' kinds of relativism.
.
Well I have to stop now, but relativism is a fascinating topic so
I'll probably return to it sometime.
yours
Thomas (new to the MOQ - hi everybody :o)
>THE MAN-MEASURE STATEMENT
>...
>scale. IN A MODERN SCIENTIFIC CULTURE, WITH A PREDILECTION FOR
>SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS, WE WOULD THINK OF CONSULTING A
>THERMOMETER TO
>DETERMINE THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH. THE GREEK RESPONSE WAS TO LOOK
>AT THE
>MORE PROFOUND PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS.
>...
>Abstractions like truth, beauty, justice, and
>virtue are also qualities and it would seem that PROTAGORAS' DICTUM
>WOULD LEAD US TO CONCLUDE THAT THEY TOO ARE RELATIVE TO THE
>INDIVIDUAL
>OBSERVER, A CONCLUSION WHICH MANY CONSERVATIVE ATHENIANS
>FOUND ALARMING
>BECAUSE OF ITS POTENTIAL SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES. If good and bad are
>merely what seem good and bad to the individual observer, then how can
>one claim that stealing or adultery or impiety or murder are somehow
>wrong? Moreover, if something can seem both hot and cold (or good and
>bad) then both claims, that the thing is hot and that the thing is
>cold, can be argued for equally well. IF ADULTERY IS BOTH GOOD AND BAD
>(GOOD FOR ONE PERSON AND BAD FOR ANOTHER), THEN ONE CAN
>CONSTRUCT
>EQUALLY VALID ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST ADULTERY IN GENERAL OR
>AN
>INDIVIDUAL ADULTERER. What will make a case triumph in court is not
>some inherent worth of one side, but the persuasive artistry of the
>orator.
================================================================
Access over 330 professionally developed online training courses
and hundreds of free tutorials and jobs. Click below for details
http://www.beginners.co.uk
================================================================
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:23 BST