"Man is the meter of all things"

[Kyriakos]

This is the famous saying by Protagoras, that "man is the meter of all things, of those that exist that they exist and of those that do not exist that they do not exist".
I think that it is a very important quote, for the reason that man inevitably views the physical world through his human senses, and thus cannot see any true form in it (if a true form really exists; this is debatable too) apart from the specific form his human senses create in his mind.
So without this saying as a guide one could wander off the sensory experience, thinking that all in the external world is an illusion.

My view is that although i think that the external world's form is in a way an illusion (in that it is only the form we see with our human organs of perception) at the same time it is not an illusion, since it appears that any being, nomatter what sensory organs it would have, would see only one form of the world, and thus it would not be seeing any form closer to a "true" one.

And i think that there cannot be a true form of the world, of any object, because i cannot think of an observer of it that would be at the same time able to view it, and not view it in a way that is tied to its specific senses.

But i am very interested to read your thoughts on this matter, if it interests you :)

[NikolaiI]

"Normally we do not look at things so much as overlook them."

[DocHeart]

Kyriako,

Your post touches upon more than one philosophical problems, and the way you expand on Protagoras might well catch our minds off-guard and lead us to thoughts more favoured by hard-core solipsists.

Our ancestors (for I am a fellow Greek :) ) lit many a philosophical fuse with a pithy one-liner. They let them all burn through the centuries, shaping most of the western traits of thought and action.

(It is perhaps a pity that so little of their mischievous genius has found its way into the heads of modern Greeks.)

And I ask you, and all friends on the forum: what impact do such doubts have on disciplines such as epistemology or aesthetics? And I answer myself: unthinkable.

How many ouza could we consume puzzling over this? Perhaps next time I'm in the Bride of the North I'll let you know.

Welcome to the forum, by the way :)

Christos

[andrewoberg]

Here's one for you, DocHeart:

The seer and the seen are one.:smilewinkgrin:

[Kyriakos]

Hi Christo (and the others) :)

I think that this little phrase is very usefull. In my view it is one of those phrases that has little philosophical value as something proving something, but it has immense value as a guideline, as a decision.

Perhaps Guy De Maupassant, the 19th century french author (and my favourite author) wouldnt have become mad if he had reflected on this quote by Protagoras, since it is obvious from such stories like "He?" that he was very worried about th eexternal world being an illusion.
But he made the mistake to actually try to see beyond the illusion. This is a mistake because inevitably the imagination would take the place of sight, and this would lead to even greater illusions... :)

[Eiss]

Here's one for you, DocHeart:

The seer and the seen are one.:smilewinkgrin:

Off-topic, but what about:

"You think you see a face, but it's your mind doing business"?

From that point of view the seer and the seen are not one.

[Manalive]

There is such a thing as Objective Truth or reality.

Consider the statement: "There is no such thing as truth." Well, if the contents of that statement are true, then the statement itself-- and in turn the contents-- cannot be true because it leads itself into contradicting itself. However, if I say: "There is such a thing as truth." Then I have not contradicted myself and my philosophy works. I always like to measure Philosophy by asking if it is consistent with itself. If it isn't, then there is probably something wrong with it.

Oh, and Kalispera Greeks!

[Kyriakos]

:)

This is true, i think Aristotle said something like it, that statements like "nothing is true" would seem to be irrational since they would need to contain the statement itself, thus nullifying it.
But the question Protagoras' quote brought was whether the form we see in the world is an illusion, and whether it matters if it is. Personally i think it is an illusion, in that it is just one of n possible forms one being with the ability to grasp forms would sense, and not a "real" form. But at the same time i think that this doesnt matter, since the senses are our basis of existence whether we like it or not, and i have come to believe that it is for the best that we are bound by them, since they provide a stability, something endangered by a life full of thoughts :)

[andrewoberg]

Off-topic, but what about:

"You think you see a face, but it's your mind doing business"?

From that point of view the seer and the seen are not one.

You missed it! Go deeper!

Back to the main topic: We may be limited by our senses as to how we experience the world around us, but our consciousness allows us to go beyond our senses. In that sense, the unknown is worth exploring, I think, and this is evident in the many philosophies/religions based on the idea that the material world is illusory in the ultimate, long-term sense.

[Kyriakos]

I agree, however it is important to note that the mind cannot create another form for the object which would be more true than the one seen by the eyes and the mechanisms associated with them. Only with normal sight can we see a form that is not an illusion for us. That the form can be deemed as an illusion because it is just one of many the object would take is in my view not that important, because if one believes that he is surrounded by illusions then inevitably he will diminish his capacity to understand the world with the senses, and this can be very dangerous.

I am saying all this as an introverted person, but i have come to realise that the senses have a very important position in life as well, and they arent to be done away with as something that maintains an illusion. :)

[krisgil_aguila]

i believe that

[whathappened]

It seems that the true form, by (Kyriakos') definition (if I got him right), can never be sensed.

But by reasoning, it does seem to exist. There is a certainty here that apparently does not need the senses as proof.

It would be vain to want to look and listen for the true forms of things. Unfortunately whatever is labled as true, we tend to look for it. Should we define 'true form' differently, as something that can be sensed and hence be studied or crafted for whatever purposes.

[blazeofglory]

This is the famous saying by Protagoras, that "man is the meter of all things, of those that exist that they exist and of those that do not exist that they do not exist".
I think that it is a very important quote, for the reason that man inevitably views the physical world through his human senses, and thus cannot see any true form in it (if a true form really exists; this is debatable too) apart from the specific form his human senses create in his mind.
So without this saying as a guide one could wander off the sensory experience, thinking that all in the external world is an illusion.

My view is that although i think that the external world's form is in a way an illusion (in that it is only the form we see with our human organs of perception) at the same time it is not an illusion, since it appears that any being, nomatter what sensory organs it would have, would see only one form of the world, and thus it would not be seeing any form closer to a "true" one.

And i think that there cannot be a true form of the world, of any object, because i cannot think of an observer of it that would be at the same time able to view it, and not view it in a way that is tied to its specific senses.

But i am very interested to read your thoughts on this matter, if it interests you :)

Your ideas really staggered me philosophically. It is indeed profound thought and wisdom. I often wonder whether the world I look at through the retinas of other people can give the real picture. What we see is the photograph of the world, the copy of it and the copy is not the original and that is why we may call it an illusion. And what we think or hypothesize about the world around us is not necessarily the same and our limited dimensional minds can not judge or ascertain the reality the cosmos is. We are not endowed with the power to understand all truths or the truth beyond creation or cosmic consciousness. Is this world totally inanimate unconsciousness full of chaos? This is a hypothesis and we indeed have to discover it for ourselves. That how to arrive at this truth is a collective question. We will have to take refuge in either spirituality or science. Science bases everything on perceptions and there are verities that cannot be perceived by our sensory organs. As said what we see is not the only truth and therefore empirical science fails to reach there. That leaves us in a state of dilemma and humans lived in dilemmas through the straits of historical time and will remain in so. Maybe those who contemplate on a spiritual plane might have arrived at a more translucent zone

[Kyriakos]

"Remember Pythagoras!" - i mean Protagoras :D I maintain, like him, that it shouldnt matter that our senses produce a form for things which is not connected to a truth of them, since this is a subjective truth for us, and we are the meter of things.
So in my view it isnt more true to see an object in 10 dimensions, or more, than to see it in 3. It isnt more true to see it in 3 dimensions, perhaps, than to see it in 2. All are truths for the senses the being that observes has.
(Perhaps, although it is less possible (?) there are even beings with so different senses of perception that they would see what we would call a straight line, as some acanonical sum of dots).
I trust, though, that for a being with 4 dimensional "sight" the shapes would have distinctly different significance. A being that sees in 4 dimensions might be observing a triangle as a very simple shape, much like we observe a straight line (1 dimensional). To it, who knows, perhaps the theorem of Pythagoras (correctly named this time ;) ) is evident, whereas we cannot understand just why a squared + b squared = c squared. In my understanding it was a discovery, not something explained (although maybe the ancients knew more about this, and that knowledge is now lost).

[Kyriakos]

It seems that the true form, by (Kyriakos') definition (if I got him right), can never be sensed.

But by reasoning, it does seem to exist. There is a certainty here that apparently does not need the senses as proof.

It would be vain to want to look and listen for the true forms of things. Unfortunately whatever is labled as true, we tend to look for it. Should we define 'true form' differently, as something that can be sensed and hence be studied or crafted for whatever purposes.

Hi, it is not my definition :) Even modern physics is very deeply involved in this question, and of course philosophy has been since its conception, here in these lands.

There is a very simple, and in my view self-evident as for its logical quality, reason to think that we are not seeing the "true" form, but just another form. It is because we already know that the human eyes with their mechanics, and the parts of the human brain which identity a picture and form it, are just that: human. It would seem rational to claim that a being with non human sight mechanisms would produce another image inside of it. Thus we now have at least two different images of the same object. But if the object has two distinct forms, then none of its forms is true.
Perhaps this is simpler to see if we take the same being as its observer, but now varrying the aspect of time: if an observer who is healthy mentally sees an object at time x, he sees a form. If later on he suffers an accident, and his brain is damaged, then he might see a form quite different. I suspect that some people would be inclined to claim that still the true form is that he saw before the accident, but even if i agree then why claim the same thing for two different species, which are both healthy observers? :)

[whathappened]

This is like what I thought.

Should we take health as the meter of truth? We would still end up wth multiple true forms, after having disqualified some forms, which are products of unhealthy individuals. This seems to be what we normally do. A head might look blonde to you and brown to me, due to our different positions under the sun. Both of us are seeing the head correctly. For someone colour blind, whatever colour he sees of the head is considered false. For an animal that sees no colour, we say that the animal also does not see the head as it is. Healthy human condition is the meter. Could this be what Protagoras meant? If leave the issue of multiple true forms aside, the question is should we stick to this meter? What would Protagoras say?

[Kyriakos]

"Αληθέστατα λέγεις" (ancient/modern greek for "you speak the absolute truth").

Well, i am not sure in reality ;) It seems logical to dismiss the forms seen by unhealthy people as false, if for no other reason then so that we can have a meter of what is true.
The same is true for people not with biological health problems, but with mental particularities, ussually categorised (whether this is fair or not) as "illnesses". Again i can mention De Maupassant, who claimed that (after he became ill) inanimate objects took for him a biological life. Surely we could not base a science on that, in the sense that we could teach how this state can be achieved, and regard it as something positive. Thus we claim that it is a false perception, the product of an amalgam of vision with imagination.
I think that the quote by Protagoras is meant to unite all these things, the oens you mentioned as well, so as to allow for a stable basis of existence, one which exactly would not be hindered in its development by a (probably argued to be dangerous, or at least unhealthy) occupation with the imagination of different forms for an object, forms we cannot sense. It should mean, in my view, that we should accept our senses, knowing that they are subjective, and to do so by accepting that those senses are the meter of things in this respect :)

[whathappened]

The mentally unhealthy do not seem to simply imagine but actually see or hear, though not touch or feel, something different of a thing we see. This seems to be a pragmatic reason for calling them dellusional and errornous. I think that this is what you suggest, I agree. Now this might be of further interest: if that is the only reason, the meter for truth might shift from healthy condition to coherence of all the senses. If by some radical changes about us we start to see and feel a thing as the thing the dellusional thought they sensed, we would not call ourselves dellusional, but correct. This way we have piled up our true forms of the thing, just like the first time we see a bonde head as brown. So we do not seem to fix some condition as THE health, but consider any coherent conditions as healthy.

btw, does not the Greek word for truth has a hell of a myth behind it? Who knows, it might well be directly related to our discussion.

[Kyriakos]

I do not recall that myth, can you say more about it? :)

I know that it is generally accepted, at least that is an etymology i have heard time and time again, that the greek word for truth, "aletheia" (αλήθεια) comes from a and lethe. Lethe means forgetfullness, memory loss, and a infront of the word makes it the opposite, so it acquires the meaning of perfect memory :)

Interesting to note that Freud had claimed that mental health comes when one's memory is fully restored.

[whathappened]

Pretty much forgot. Lethe is a river that makes whoever cross it forgetful, but there was a hero (Odyssus?) who crossed it with help from a god and did not become forgetful.

Thinking about it, whatever the condition of health (normally understood) is, perfect memory or coherent senses, it does not prevent someone who is in it from making mistakes. Being in a healthy condition is not the meter. My bad.

But a meter measures things for a reason, hence man also measures truth for a reason, so it seems that the reason about coherent senses is still relevant. If we make a judgement based on some senses and then we or our other senses sufer some consequence, we would call the judgment false. ‘This apple-looking thing bites like a pebble, I must have made a mistake somewhere, perhaps my eyes tricked me.’ Similarly, perfect memory might be relevant as well. If we make a false judgement based on imperfect memory about something and then we suffer some consequence, we would call the judgment false as well. ‘… or, perhaps I misremembered what pebbles look like.’

[whathappened]

What if someone is both coherent in senses and perfect in memory... would he sill make mistakes? If not, should we define the meter as health as coherent senses AND perfect memory?

[Kyriakos]

Im not sure what perfect memory actually is supposed to mean. How far back would it go? Would one with perfect memory be able to remember his first moment of consciousness? (because that would indeed be exceptional, and extremely interesting).
Or should it be taken to simply mean that one does not have striking errors in his memory, like some traumatised people have?

By the way, that quote by Protagoras is, as far as i know, in a socratic dialogue, which i will have to read. So there are more by Protagoras there, which would help us understand his point of view :)

[whathappened]

It seems that Maradona's arogance has just paid off. Make no mistake, I like him. And I like Pele more.

Anyway, or would be interesting to check out Protagoras' system, as well as the myth, even if just to see if anything about coherent senses and good memory is mentioned.

As for how far back memory goes, mine goes to the cradle, I think, but not much of it at all. In the discussion perfect memory seems to be about concepts. If someone misremembers the concept of pebble, or get the concept messed up anyhow, she is prone to mistakes.

[Kyriakos]

My memory doesnt go that far back; infact i think that apart from some fragments i only remember up to the first years of elementary school. I recall in great detail those years, and later, but almost nothing before them :)

[whathappened]

ληθέστατα λέγεις!

[mal4mac]

So in my view it isnt more true to see an object in 10 dimensions, or more, than to see it in 3. It isnt more true to see it in 3 dimensions, perhaps, than to see it in 2. All are truths for the senses the being that observes has.

How can you talk about seeing in 10 dimensions? Human beings can only see in three dimensions.


... we cannot understand just why a squared + b squared = c squared. In my understanding it was a discovery, not something explained (although maybe the ancients knew more about this, and that knowledge is now lost).

There are many proofs of Pythagoras' theorem and, if you accept Euclid's axioms, then, to me, it is as evident as anything can be.

http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/pythag.htm

Pythagoras' theorem might have started out as a discovery, say, by Pythagoras measuring lines in the sand, but it is explained using Euclid's axioms & proofs - or simpler proofs :)

Euclid's axioms are evident to us ("Parallels lines don't cross"), proof procedures are evident, ergo Pythagoras' theorem is evident - although it isn't "immediately" evident.

(Of course Euclid's axioms have been questioned by non-Euclidean geometers, but as "everyday" concepts for 3 dimensional beings they are as evident as anything can be.)

[mal4mac]

This is the famous saying by Protagoras, that "man is the meter of all things, of those that exist that they exist and of those that do not exist that they do not exist".


Where does that translation come from? I've always seen it quoted as "man is the *measure* of all things".

I agree man inevitably views the physical world through his human senses, and that Plato's idea of true forms is incoherent. But I can still think that all in the external world is an illusion! It could all just be a dream.

How can you say that any being, no matter what sensory organs it would have, would see only one form of the world? You cannot be that being. How can you know? Maybe human beings have their dream, and maybe other beings (if there are any) have theirs...

"*Man* is the measure of all things", not some fantasy alien being...

Did any Greek philosophers use this "dream" argument to doubt the external world? It's standard in Eastern philosophies.

Descartes had a similar argument that led him to the only absolute truth that he could entertain - "I am thinking therefore I am." This seems correct to me, I can doubt everything but this. (Of course Descartes then became de-railed with spurious arguments for God and mind-body duality ...)

I'm reading a lot about the Ancient Schools of Greek philosophy at the moment. Kyriakos, are there any signs of them being revived in Greece? Epicurus' garden seems a great place to be, and the Stoa pretty neat as well. I can see why they disappeared - Romans and Christians are rather formidable adversaries, in the military sense. But as the intellectual content of the Greek schools is so strong, I'm surprised they have never been revived successfully sometime in the last 2000 years.

[Kyriakos]

Where does that translation come from? I've always seen it quoted as "man is the *measure* of all things".

"Παντών χρημάτων μέτρον άνθρωπος" is the original phrase. I just translated μέτρον as meter, since it seemed obvious to me, but in greek metron=meter and measure. You can use it as measure, it is the same :)




I agree man inevitably views the physical world through his human senses, and that Plato's idea of true forms is incoherent. But I can still think that all in the external world is an illusion! It could all just be a dream.

How can you say that any being, no matter what sensory organs it would have, would see only one form of the world? You cannot be that being. How can you know? Maybe human beings have their dream, and maybe other beings (if there are any) have theirs...



Do you mean that a being with different senses would be able to see two or more forms of the world? Even if so, though, it wouldnt be seeing anything "true", since there are more views about the world as well. Now, like i said, i dont believe in a true form, but this doesnt mean that the senses provide a true form either,but they do provide an essential form, which is the basis of our existence (for it is dangerous, in my experience, to base one's existence solely in the realm of thoughts, and not on the senses).



"*Man* is the measure of all things", not some fantasy alien being...

Did any Greek philosophers use this "dream" argument to doubt the external world? It's standard in Eastern philosophies.



I think that Plato did, with his cave and shadows analogy. I am not very familiar with platonic thought though. :)



Descartes had a similar argument that led him to the only absolute truth that he could entertain - "I am thinking therefore I am." This seems correct to me, I can doubt everything but this. (Of course Descartes then became de-railed with spurious arguments for God and mind-body duality ...)


I dont agree with this, since if you believe that you have to think so as to exist, it follows that you make yourself having to think every single moment. But this diminishes the senses, and like i said it is quite dangerous. Also it is not needed for any mental development. Why not base yoru life on the senses, and from that stable standing point travel to the world of thought? :)



I'm reading a lot about the Ancient Schools of Greek philosophy at the moment. Kyriakos, are there any signs of them being revived in Greece? Epicurus' garden seems a great place to be, and the Stoa pretty neat as well. I can see why they disappeared - Romans and Christians are rather formidable adversaries, in the military sense. But as the intellectual content of the Greek schools is so strong, I'm surprised they have never been revived successfully sometime in the last 2000 years.

Things are chaotic in Greece, always have been since 1830 (when the new state emerged). There are people who try to revive several things of the past, but they are mostly pariahs. There isnt any university-driven movement to do something of the sort.
And i wouldnt say that the intellectual content of greek schools is that strong. When i was in school certaintly we were taught a lot of things, from ancient greek to universtity-level mathematics, but that was for a negative reason: the absense of many positions in greek universities meant that at the time only 1 in 4 kids would enter the university in the first attempt. Now i think it is 1 in 2, but i dont know how the system works now since it has changed.

Edit: Thank you for the proof of the pythagorean theorem, i will look it up :)

[mal4mac]

I think "measure" is better. But why quibble?

The senses provide a form for our existence, but it might just be a dream form and a dream existence. Something is dangerous if is likely to cause us pain. Basing ones existence purely on the senses open us up to pain, because pain is a product of sensory experience. If you think that the senses are an illusion then pain is an illusion and dangerous things are an illusion. Maybe pain might be dissipated by using thought in this way. Who can be frightened of an illusion? Who can be affected by an illusion?

Note, I actually don't lice day-to-day thinking the world is an illusion, but I can see it might have advantages. My approach to pain is more that of Epicurus (today!)

I think Plato's cave analogy is not the same as the dream analogy. The shadows on the wall were shadows of something so have some link to reality. A dream might be just unreality all the way through.

I don't believe that I have to think to exist. At this moment I realise I am thinking (hard!) and that this means I know I am existing at this moment. I don't feel the need to "know that I exist" every moment!

I am reading Hadot's remarkable "Philosophy as a way of life" and he points out the stoics recommended moment-by-moment attention to one's thoughts. This, supposedly, heightens one's appreciation of existence. But "thinking every singel moment" does not have to exclud ethe senses.

The Buddhists have a lot of exercises on paying attention to what's happening in the outer and inner world world. That is one pays attention to the action of washing dishes, not just going on automatic and thinking about nothing. So thinking can enhance the senses.

You sound more like a follower of Epicurus - just relax and enjoy the senses.

By "Greek schools" I meant the philosophical movements of Epicurus, Aristotle, Plato, and the stoics. Do you learn much about the actual philosophy of these thinkers in modern Greek schools? We certainly don't in England - instead we get endless religious education classes feeding us the ridiculous Christian myths.

[Kyriakos]

When i was in school (i am 31 now) we were taught very few things about the ancient philosophers, and only in the course of a year. There was a philosophy subject then. But it was too little, too late, and most people werent paying any attention...

And although you are right that i value the senses, on the other hand i am a person who is at least 90% introverted (in fact i have a schizoid personality, which means that my main world is my mental world, and pretty much view it like most people view their sense of the external world). For me it was indeed dangerous in the past to not care about the senses at all, since then nothing was left but the mental world, and it is a world where anything can happen, since it is made of imagination mostly :)

[mal4mac]

And although you are right that i value the senses, on the other hand i am a person who is at least 90% introverted (in fact i have a schizoid personality, which means that my main world is my mental world, and pretty much view it like most people view their sense of the external world). For me it was indeed dangerous in the past to not care about the senses at all, since then nothing was left but the mental world, and it is a world where anything can happen, since it is made of imagination mostly
I can't see how "anything can happen" in a mental world. Our imaginations are limited by what we have seen and the structures of the brain. We can, certainly, imagine more than we can see, but this is, surely, well away from being able to imagine "anything".

Also, I can't see how you can "not care about the senses at all". We, even us introverts :), use our senses *all* the time, we cannot help but use them. For instance, we sense our orientation in space die to sensors in our inner ear. If we did not use those senses all the time we would fall over! You're reading this, so you are using your eyes, and will (no doubt) use them almost continuously while awake.