Hi Thomas, Bo, (Horse)
[sorry Horse, I did not understand that the message was too long. Many
thanks for forwarding it]
a warm welcome, Thomas.
Well actually "my" p.s. was not mine. I've just offered few excerpts about
the Sophists available on the net. Indeed, it does not mention Plato's
argument. I had a better text to offer, with an interesting thesis about the
pragmatism of Protagoras, but it's Italian....
Let me clarify few points.
First, my "defense" of the Sophists was not from Plato, but from Bo, who
argues that the Sophists were paladins of the social level. As you are
apparently an expert, I'm very interested in your opinion on this. In my
opinion, Protagoras is a perfect man of the XXth century. Very
intellectual, free-thinker and anti-establishment. Very different from
Socrates indeed, that is another champion of free-thinking. Socrates was
killed, Protagoras forced to exile.
Second, I don't like relativism. Especially that "naive relativism" PLATO
puts in Protagoras' mouth. Alas, this naive relativism is everywhere today.
And not because of the Sophists, or some follower. The point is that the
commonly accepted concept of truth is full of problems. In a world where
(rightly) everyone has the individual right to express his/her opinion,
truth becomes hard to be handled, especially when you try to explore the
so-called "subjective realm": cultures, ideas, emotions... There are two
ways to consolidate truth: superimposing one opinion, or mediating the
various positions. Plato and Aristotle maybe never imagined this second
opportunity. Plato blames the Sophists as they change truth by means of
rhetoric. Could be, but be sure that the churches of reason of Plato and
Aristotle were not very democratic. What Plato does not say is that
Protagoras was simply claiming the right of the individuals to defend their
personal opinion. Especially when the matter is themselves.
Third, please note the Plato's argument against [the Plato's interpretation
of] Protagoras, starts exactly with truth. "Protagoras says that truth is
relative to the observer" says Plato, but for what I know truth was not the
problem of Protagoras. Protagoras simply says that we are part of
the world we observe. That we have the right to question any dogma. The
Plato's argument is perfectly coherent, alas we all well know that it is
almost impossible to establish truth. Not only: we all know that truth has
killed more than cholera. So? The point is that the Sophists were not the
evil, but the symptom of the disease of the "objective dream". They had
already perceived the risks occurring when humans play with truth.
Fourth, and last, I don't forget that Plato's and Aristotle's thought
triggered a decisive advance for our world. Especially Aristotle, IMO. I
think the MOQ clarifies that the value of objectivity is not as path to
truth, but as a path to a pragmatically good science and technology, that
can solve many problems of our everyday life. Only, we should restrict its
range to the inorganic and biological levels, where the results are great.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts,
Marco
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas" <todcoul@koncon.koncon.nl>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: MD (Fwd) BOUNCE moq_discuss@venus.co.uk: Message too long (>1
> 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)
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