Hi again Thomas,
by the way, I think Plato's argument is flawed.
> 1) According to Protagoras, truth &c. is relative to the indivivual
> observer.
Let's say OK
> 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.)
Indeed, where not-A means: B, C, D..... ad infinitum
> 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
Halt! Here "incorrect" means the opposite of correct, but according to point
#2 you say there are not opposite positions. We just have "different"
positions, all of them *in the beginning* equally valuable. If there are
many truths, no one is incorrect.
> Two further consequences of Protagoras' dictum:
>
> * It would mean that no one, including Protagoras, is more an expert
> than anyone else.
Only as you put truth at the apex. If you consider all that from the
pragmatic viewpoint of Quality, everything changes. I am expert if my
motorcycle works.
> * It would make real disagreement impossible.
Wouldn't it be a great solution? No disagreement possible. No truth, no war.
> (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.)
Please, take your Occam knife and cut off that *only*. "It is your opinion"
is a very good way to begin a meaningful discourse. About killing a
discourse, nothing beats "Shut up, I am right!"....
....IMO
Ciao,
Marco
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