Hi Marco,
thanks for your interesting replies!
>Well actually "my" p.s. was not mine.
yeah I understood that - sorry if it seemed otherwise
>As you are apparently an expert, I'm very interested in your opinion
on >this.
hmm, that's nice - especially because I'm no expert at all :o) I
was by chance reading Plato's Theaetetus (bought his complete works
translated - finally)... Unfortunately I don't know much about Protagoras;
but this weekend I hope to read s.t. about him. Now to your replies.
>Second, I don't like relativism. Especially that "naive relativism"
PLATO
>puts in Protagoras' mouth. Alas, this naive relativism is everywhere
>today.
Indeed, that is what keeps me occupied a lot. In these issues it
is extremely tempting to adopt simply one of two extreme positions:
absolute relativism or absolute positivism. I agree with you that
both positions are equally naive. And its hard to escape from them.
On the one hand: I do believe there are 'objects' in the outside
world, we bump into them (so to say) all the time. This requires
not only someONE (to bump), but also someTHING (to bump into). Furthermore,
we ourselves have an 'objective' element to us; if we are not someTHING,
what then remains? Nothing?
On the other hand: As you said, it is almost impossible to establish
truth. The more people are convinced about the truth of their (often
all-encompassing) theories, the less I tend to believe them. At the
moment I believe, humans will always be tied to uncertainty - although
we have it in us to want to know the truth; we continually strive
towards it although we (at least I) know we will never reach it.
>Protagoras simply says that we are part of the world we observe.
That we >have the right to question any dogma.
This is an example of my last point: everytime we say something,
we strive to say something that is 'true' (for ourselves, if you
will). Protagoras is making statements with a certain (meant) authority.
That was why he could see himself as a teacher, as I believe most
sophists saw themselves.
Then your next mail:
>> 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
yeah
>> 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.
hm, i tend to agree with you, although this also threatens the validity
and usability of arguments in discourse. But I don't have an answer
to all the questions this begs.
I have to stop now (it may become too long :o),
i'll hear/read from you
yours
Thomas
================================================================
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