[MD] Protagoras and "Measure"

[MarshaV]

Greetings Ham,

Would you please post the citation to the essay, I would like to read more.  Maybe Ron could offer the citation for his Aristotle translation too.  


Marsha  



On Jan 4, 2010, at 3:17 AM, Ham Priday wrote:

> 
> Greetings Ron, Marsha, Andre, Ian, Matt, and All --
> 
> There is intrinsic truth in the "man-measure" statement of Protagoras that neither the law of the excluded middle nor the incompleteness of knowledge can refute.  I ran across a slightly different  translation of that dictum in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
> 
> "Of all things the measure is man, of the things that are, that [or 'how'] they are, and of things that are not, that [or 'how'] they are not."
> 
> The essay goes on to say:
> "The test case normally used is temperature.  If Ms. X. says 'it is hot,' then the statement (unless she is lying) is true for her.  Another person, Ms. Y, may simultaneously claim 'it is cold.'  This statement could also be true for her.  If Ms. X normally lives in Alaska and Ms. Y in Florida, the same temperature (e.g. 25 Celsius) may seem hot to one and cool to the other.  The measure of hotness or coldness is fairly obviously the individual person.  One cannot legitimately tell Ms. X she does not feel ot  -  she is the only person who can accurately report her own perceptions or sensations.  In this case, it is indeed impossible to contradict as Protagoras is held to have said.
> 
> "But what if Ms. Y, in claiming it feels cold, suggests that unless the heat is turned on the pipes will freeze?  One might suspect that she has a fever and her judgment is unreliable; the measure may still be the individual person, but it is an unreliable one, like a broken ruler or unbalanced scale.  In a modern scientific culture, with a predilection for scientific solutions, we would think of consulting a thermometer to determine the objective truth.  The Greek response was to look at the more profound philosophical implications."
> 
> This brings up the question of "subjective" vs. "objective" truth, a distinction which Pirsigians probably won't acknowledge.  However, inasmuch as the experience of Quality is the foundation of the MoQ, and it is Man, after all, who experiences, you folks should have no problem with the proposition that Man is the _qualitative_ measure of all things.  That leaves "objective truth" hanging in limbo.
> 
> Indeed, just what is objective truth?
> 
> For the scientist, it is a fact or principle which is universally accepted because it has been consistently confirmed by repeated testing and by the predictability of the result when applied to a cause-and-effect system (i.e., empirical reality).  And what does "empirical" mean?  My dictionary defines empirical as "originating in or based on observation or experience." It does no good to argue that objective measurements are "non-qualitative" simply because they are expressed as numeric or statistical values.  The "proof" of a yard-long board is to lay it on a yardstick and confirm that it is 36 inches in length.  Is there really a distinction to be made between experiencing and measuring?  I submit that the length of the board, whether regarded as a quantitative or a qualitative fact, is an attribute of a commonly experienced object, just as the process of measuring it is an experience.
> 
> I define the essential self as "value-sensibility", so I prefer the original "man = measure" concept.  But the Kundert/Untersteiner "alternative translation" -- "Man is the master of all experience" -- adds even more support to Protagoras' maxim.  What we know as Truth  is what we experience, and from that comes quantitative as well as qualitative knowledge.  The only doubt about the veracity of "experienced truth" arises when the experience is proprioceptive (sensory or psycho-emotional), such as when we feel "hot" or "cold", pain or pleasure, beauty or grossness, without empirical evidence to corroborate our feeling.  But if, as Pirsig says, "experience is the cutting edge of reality," then Truth is ultimately the Value of our individual sensibility.
> 
> Happy Year 2010 to all,
> Ham
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

  
_______________________________________________________________________
   
Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...