Barrett Kitterman
Philosophy 3001
Paper 2, Question 1
Is Man the Measure of All?
What does Protagoras mean when he states that “Man is the measure of all things,” and why does Plato reject such a notion? Before we answer these questions, we must first ask ourselves, what is reality? Does the world have a reality independent of the one you and I perceive? Are qualities such as right and wrong, correct and incorrect entirely subjective? Or are they objective properties of people, places, and things? The answers to these questions are what’s at stake for both Protagoras and Plato, and both offer significantly different perspectives. We will analyze what Protagoras proffers about the nature of reality, touching upon the Measure Doctrine, his conception
…show more content…
What does he mean when he states that “…a human being is the measure of all things—of things that are, how they are, and of things that are not, how they are not”? (Irwin, p. 97, box 158). By “things,” Protagoras is referring to the properties of people, places, objects, and processes in the universe, and perhaps even referring to the people, places, objects, and processes themselves; we will examine the implications of both interpretations. By calling humans “measure[s],” Protagoras means our perceptions dictate how people, places, objects, processes, and their properties seem to us. That is, “things that are, [and] how they are” are relative to individuals’ unique perceptions of those things; the things and their qualities, in and of themselves, do not exist. Take temperature, or hotness, as an example of a thing (or a property of one); in Protagoras’ view, there is no objective or universal hotness, rather, there is only the perception of hotness. Moreover, the perception of hotness may vary, or be unique to every individual perceiver. Let’s be concrete by considering the temperature of a hypothetical cup of coffee. A cup of coffee that I perceive to be hot may not feel hot to you. I feel the cup and immediately recoil,
Plato's final argument in Phaedo for the immortality of the soul is one of the most interesting topics of all time. It goes hand to hand with the application of the theory of forms to the question of the soul's immortality, as Plato constantly reminds us, the theory of forms is the most certain of all his theories. The Phaedo is Plato’s attempt to convince us of the immortality of the soul by using several main arguments. These include the argument of forms and the law of opposites. In the final passage of the Phaedo, Plato provides his final proof, although it may be his last attempt to give his reasoning, it is not very convincing. Plato has some good points and reasoning to believe in the immortality of the soul, but his arguments often
In the book, Phaedo by Plato, he discusses the immortality and divinity of the soul, and uses the philosophical theoria to prove that such a thing exists. Plato spends a lot of time trying to prove the idea to his fellow philosophers the divinity of the soul. Yet, in the book In Defense of Philosophy by Josef Pieper, he talks about how philosophy is not about finding an exact truth, but merely seeking to get close enough to it. This shows a clear contradiction between Plato’s belief that a soul is divine and continues to live on and Pieper’s thoughts on what true philosophy is, because he creates dialogue that clearly shows influence of his religious background that takes away from the philosophical discourse. It is due to this, Pieper would not agree with Plato in his interpretation on the divinity of the human soul.
Plato is remembered as one of the worlds best known philosophers who along with his writings are widely studied. Plato was a student of the great Greek philosopher Socrates and later went on to be the teacher of Aristotle. Plato’s writings such as “The Republic”, “Apology” and “Symposium” reveal a great amount of insight on what was central to his worldview. He was a true philosopher as he was constantly searching for wisdom and believed questioning every aspect of life would lead him to the knowledge he sought. He was disgusted with the common occurrence of Greeks not thinking for themselves but simply accepting the popular opinion also known as doxa. Plato believed that we ought to search for and meditate on the ideal versions of beauty, justice, wisdom, and other concepts which he referred to as the forms. His hostility towards doxa, theory of the forms, and perspective on reality were the central ideas that shaped Plato’s worldview and led him to be the great philosopher who is still revered today.
In life, people are guided by moral beliefs and principles. Whether their beliefs are good or bad, their decisions are based on them. In Plato “The Crito”, Socrates emphasizes his moral beliefs and principles when he decides not to escape from prison. Although Socrates had the opportunity to escape his death sentence, he chose not to do so because he had a moral obligation to commit a sacrifice.
"Socrates, can virtue be taught?"1 The dialogue begins with Meno asking Socrates whether virtue can be taught. At the end of the Meno (86d-100b), Socrates attempts to answer the question. This question is prior to the division between opinion and knowledge and provides to unsettle both. Anytus participated in Socrates and Meno conversation about virtue. Socrates claims that if virtue is a kind of knowledge, then it can be learned. If it is something besides a kind of knowledge, it perceptibly cannot be taught.
Our country is built on a set of values derived from ancient civilizations, individuals, and city-states; both negative and positive attributes of these relics can be proven to have assisted in molding our government into a unique and prized entity. Never would one imagine that western civilization is actually inclined by theories of truth and the human beings perception of it. Few would have thought that a primitive concept could be linked to the setbacks of other societies and their forms of socialization, as well as to the success to ours. The basic concept of truth and our natural response to socialization developed an ideal image of our current day country, long before our country existed. In ancient Greece, a great philosopher named
Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Questioned if you are completely able to see from the outside looking in? Philosopher Plato, presents his view of reality through an allegory to explain the concept, and how we gain knowledge of our reality. Two other philosophers that I will mention both touch base with their description of reality and how it relates to Plato’s conception. All three of these philosophers believe knowledge is attainable through acts of realization and simple knowledge, and each philosopher presents his/her main point of reality through different ways of attaining it. I will further mention the relevance of Plato’s theory in today’s world and why I believe it to be valuable.
ABSTRACT: This paper discusses the viability of certain aspects (the sex lottery) of Plato's Republic, book V. It is college level 'A' paper.
Socrates was a very simple man who did not have many material possessions and spoke in a plain, conversational manner. Acknowledging his own ignorance, he engaged in conversations with people claiming to be experts, usually in ethical matters. By asking simple questions, Socrates gradually revealed that these people were in fact very confused and did not actually know anything about the matters about which they claimed to be an expert. Socrates felt that the quest for wisdom and the instruction of others through dialogue and inquiry were the highest aims in life. He felt that "The unexamined life is not worth living." Plato's Apology is the speech Socrates made at his trial. Socrates was charged with not recognizing the
When consideration is given to the status of philosophy in Greece at the end of the fifth century
Plato's metaphor of the divided line is essentially two worlds; the world of opinion (the
The Apology is Plato's recollection and interpretation of the Trial of Socrates (399 BC). In this dialogue Socrates explains who he is and what kind of life he led. The Greek word "apologia" means "explanation" -- it is not to be confused with "apologizing" or "being sorry" for one's actions. The following is an outline of the 'argument' or logos that Socrates used in his defense. A hypertext treatment of this dialogue is also available.
Plato goes a long way in attempting to distinguish Socrates from the likes of Protagoras, a self admitted sophist. In Protagoras, Socrates is depicted as a street smart, wisdom dispensing young man, brash with confidence and a bit of arrogance that goes a long way when confronted with the old school rhetoric of Protagoras. Plato begins to separate the two at the hip right from the get go. The dialogue between Socrates and his inquisitive friend Hippocrates went a long way to show that Socrates had more questions than answers about Protagoras, the sophist, especially when it came to talk about what it is exactly that he offers. Socrates' companion is eager to hear the words of
Plato provides his account of virtue in two different works, the Protagoras and the Republic. In the Protagoras Plato’s account of virtue, can be seen to be in association with the concept of virtue being knowledge. Plato begins arguing the entire human soul and what it contains. He points out that there are three distinct components of the soul and named them reason, appetite, and spirit. Appetite is the part of the soul that is animal like, desiring bodily pleasures and itches. Reason is concerned with calculation and rational thought. The spirit is a piece of the soul that is commonly associated with emotions. Plato presents that virtue lies in keeping the components of the soul in the correct relations. Reason should guide the soul, spirit
In Plato’s Protagoras, the sophist Protagoras defends his philosophy of teaching excellence from Socrates. Initially, Socrates states that the Athenians are wise, therefore they’re wise enough to run a government. With his trust in the Athenians, he proposes that virtue cannot be taught. Protagoras however, argues that the five parts of excellence can be taught. I will argue that Socrates does not believe in all the premises he puts forth, and that this reflects his opinion on the sophists, particularly Protagoras. I will also argue that he specifically targeted Protagoras because if he himself can take down the expert in virtue, anyone who follows his line of reasoning would also be uncertain.