Protagoras: Man is the Measure (\text{anthropos metron})
Core Principle: The world is as anybody perceives it. Qualities are not inherent in objects but are given by the observer.
Example: Wind is cold to one and warm to another; its quality (cold/warm) is observer-dependent.
Ontological Implication: This challenges the idea that objects (like wind, weather, hot peppers) possess intrinsic qualities.
Contrast with Aristotelian Naive Realism
Aristotle's View: Things are as they appear to our senses. Ontology/Metaphysics hold that qualities reside within the object.
Example: The rose is red; honey is sweet.
Protagoras' Critique: What is sweet to one might not be sweet to another (e.g., when sick, honey tastes different).
The qualities of honey are discovered within the observer, not the honey itself.
This is a direct attack on Aristotle's object-centric view of qualities.
Epictetus (Ethical Digression)
Distinction from Ontology: The previous discussion on perception vs. reality is ontological (nature of being/reality), not ethical.
Epictetus' Argument: Nobody can insult you; insults are self-inflicted (you must take something as an insult).
Core Stoic Teaching: Focus on controlling only what is within your power. Worrying about external things (like not being invited to a party) leads to distress.
Stoicism acknowledges emotions (e.g., anger) but emphasizes controlling the reaction to them.
Ontology and the Nature of Reality
Definition of Ontology: The study of being or the nature of reality.
Protagoras' Stance: He claims no knowledge of how things are because what things are is not a deep secret but rather just how they are perceived.
There is no hidden secret in an object (e.g., honey); it is simply the sum of how it is perceived.
Knowledge as Perception and the Problem of "Being"
Socrates' Exploration (through Theaetetus): Theaetetus, a mathematician, proposes that knowledge is perception.
Socrates equates this directly with Protagoras' view.
Historical Significance: This dialogue is a primary source for understanding Protagoras' otherwise sparsely documented philosophy.
Consequence of Protagoras' View: Knowledge acquired through the senses is true by definition because it relates solely to the individual's experience.
"Dark" / "Obscure" Saying: Socrates finds Protagoras' theory confusing, describing it as "dark" or "obscure" because it seemingly destroys the idea of being.
Idea of Being (Platonic/Socratic): Being is defined as that which is unchanging, invariable, and one (e.g., the form of true love, the form of a chair in "heaven").
Flux and Becoming (Heraclitus' Influence):
Protagoras' theory replaces stable "being" with "flux" or "becoming" (change).
Analogy: "Things are in flux" signifies constant change and movement.
Application: We incorrectly use "is" (e.g., "This is my pen"). Instead, we should say "it becomes" (e.g., "The pen becomes on the table").
Particle Physics Analogy: The world is like particles popping into and out of existence, only present for nanoseconds, never truly permanent.
Heraclitus: The Philosopher of Flux
Plato's Conflation: Plato (via Socrates) links Protagoras' philosophy with that of Heraclitus.
This is significant because Protagoras is a Sophist (disliked by Socrates), while Heraclitus is a respected philosopher, albeit with a "wrong idea."
Heraclitus' Core Ideas:
No Permanence: Everything is always changing.
"You cannot step in the same river twice": The river's water is constantly flowing and changing, so each interaction is with a different entity.
Reality is Dynamic: You never experience the same thing twice; everything, including ourselves, is constantly transforming.
"Everything flows" (\text{Panta rhei}): A fundamental principle of Heraclitus.
Predicates and Relational Qualities: No being possesses any given predicate (property/quality) absolutely.
Example: A board feeling "cold" is only in relation to something else (e.g., it's "hot" compared to an ice cube).
Qualities are relational, not inherent.
Socrates' Confusion: Socrates struggles to understand why anyone would "throw away reality" by reducing it to unending flux and denying stable existence.
He posits a "secret doctrine" of Protagoras, suggesting the public teachings are an oversimplification or deception.
The Doctrine of Motion: Extreme Relativity
Everything is in Motion: This is a foundational premise.
Everything is Relational: Nothing exists in itself but only in relation to other things.
Example: A cup is not something in itself; its meaning arises from its function (to hold hot liquids) in relation to an observer.
Coherence Theory: Similar to the idea that things make sense only within a network of other things; each item is a "node" rather than an isolated entity.
Two Types of Motion (Forces):
Active Force (Object): The object itself (e.g., the honey, the cup).
Passive Force (Senses): The observer's senses.
Becoming as an Offspring: All "becoming" (what was previously called "being" or "knowledge") arises from the interplay and infinite combinations of these active and passive forces.
Example (Honey):
Honey (active force) acts upon you, radiating its qualities.
Your senses (passive force) receive sense impressions.
The sweetness is the result of this combination/interplay.
Therefore, one cannot say "the honey is sweet" but rather "the honey becomes sweet" through the interaction of object and senses.
Consequence: "Being" is completely abolished, and knowledge is only of the flux (moment-to-moment interactions).
Socrates' Method: Socrates clarifies that he is merely exploring Protagoras' hypothesis, not asserting its truth or falsehood (recalling "I know nothing").
The Problem of Veridical Perception (Socrates' Challenge)
Assumption Challenged: The initial assumption that perception is "veridical" (truthful, accurately relaying the world) is questioned.
\text{Veridical} = \text{truthful} (a key term in contemporary philosophy).
Socrates' Dream Argument (and other cases):
Dreams: In dreams, experiences (running from monsters, winning lotteries) are taken seriously and feel real, yet nothing is physically present.
Illness/Hallucinations: Sickness can cause hallucinations, leading to perceptions that do not correspond to external reality.
Insanity: Mentally unwell individuals are often convinced of their own sanity, demonstrating a disconnect from external reality.
Question: If such "false perceptions" arise, how can we rely on perception as truthful knowledge?
Skepticism: This argument is a foundational point for later skeptical philosophies and shows Plato's critical side, contrasting with his more dogmatic analogies.
The Awake vs. Dream State: Socrates challenges the ability to definitively prove one is awake and not dreaming, exclusively at the level of sense perception.
How can mere sensation distinguish between wakefulness and a convincing dream?
Protagoras' Defense: No False Perceptions
Protagoras' Response: He argues that no perception is false.
Relativity of Perception: Every perception suits the perceiving subject.
The "Different Person" Argument: When circumstances change (e.g., health, state of mind), the perceiving subject is a different person.
Example: Sick Annie tastes chocolate cake like chalk; healthy Annie tastes it as sweet.
Protagoras says these are two different Annies (sick Annie and healthy Annie).
All Perceptions are Veridical: The bitter taste of wine to a sick person is veridical for that sick person; the sweet taste to a healthy person is veridical for that healthy person.
Conclusion: There is no falseness; there are simply appearances belonging to different perceiving subjects in different states and circumstances.
Implication: Dreaming is not a false perception, but an appearance belonging to a "dreaming person."
End of Discussion Point
The next session will continue exploring Theaetetus and a small section on Thoreau.