“It is indeed the opinion of Protagoras, who has another way of expressing it. Man, he says, is the measure of all things, of the existence of things that are, and of the non-existence of things that are not.”
– Socrates, as recorded in Plato’s “Theaetetus”
Is all truth in the “eye of the beholder?” Protagoras thought so, but Socrates didn’t …
Socrates and Plato both reported some words from the Greek sophist Protagoras, in Plato’s dialogue “Theaetetus.” The dialogue features a character by the name of “Socrates,” believed here to represent the actual and historical Socrates. The character of “Socrates” thus quotes Protagoras as saying that “Man is the measure of all things.” Thus, we seem to have the word of both Plato and Socrates that Protagoras really said this. But what does it mean that “Man is the measure of all things”? As Socrates correctly argues, it seems to mean that all truth is in the “eye of the beholder” – or, at least, that Protagoras believed this to be the case. “If I believe that something is true,” say some today, “then it must be true.” But this belief leads to a number of problematic conclusions, as Socrates proceeds to point out in this same dialogue, the “Theaetetus” – named after one of the other characters in the dialogue. Nonetheless, some today (notably certain postmodernists) still proclaim that all truth is in the “eye of the beholder.” It is acknowledged that some things really do work this way, but it would seem that other things do not. Thus, this dialogue is a timeless meditation on objective truth whose arguments need to be heard today. Thus, it may be worth examining here in this post.
Socrates
If this is really the case, why go to experts for advice – and, specifically, why go to “teachers”?
In the dialogue, Socrates’ student Theaetetus initially says that “truth is only sensation.” To Socrates, this seems suspiciously close to Protagoras’s doctrine that “Man is the measure of all things.” And to Theaetetus’s credit, he seems to catch the spirit of Socrates’ questions on this matter. Socrates says that if all truth is in the “eye of the beholder,” why would we go to a physician (or any other learned person) for expert advice about anything? After all, our opinion would be just as “valid” as that of the expert, if Protagoras’s doctrine is indeed true. Thus, it would be absurd to ask them for advice about how to be healed, or any other important matter. Our own remedies would be just as “valid” as those of the physician, even if they involved downing a glass of cyanide – or other deadly poison. Indeed, if Protagoras is correct, no one could ever be “mistaken” about anything. It would even be absurd to ask Protagoras himself for instruction, since Protagoras made a living by instructing others – or, at least, appearing to do so. Again, Protagoras was from a group called the Sophists, who professed to teach people how to win arguments. But let us turn to Socrates’ own words on this matter, to better understand his disagreements with Protagoras.
Socrates
Why should professors be paid for their wisdom, if the student’s opinion is as “valid” as theirs?
Specifically, Socrates asks: “For if truth is only sensation, and no man can discern another's feelings better than he, or has any superior right to determine whether his opinion is true or false, but each, as we have several times repeated, is to himself the sole judge, and everything that he judges is true and right, why, my friend, should Protagoras be preferred to the place of wisdom and instruction, and deserve to be well paid, and we poor ignoramuses have to go to him, if each one is the measure of his own wisdom?” Another translation of part of this sentence renders it as “Where is the wisdom of Protagoras?” Thus, this has since become a catchphrase for those who believe in objective truth – and I am one of these people, as you may have guessed. “Where is the wisdom of Protagoras?” – or professors, or colleges, or universities – if all truth is just in “the eye of the beholder”?
Plato
If two people disagree with each other, then they must both be right, according to Protagoras …
Socrates later continues this argument by saying: “For tell me, Theodorus, do you suppose that you yourself, or any other follower of Protagoras, would contend that no one deems another ignorant or mistaken in his opinion? … And yet that absurdity is necessarily involved in the thesis which declares man to be the measure of all things.” In other words, if two people disagree about something, then Protagoras’s doctrine would have to declare both people to be correct, since truth is in “the eye of both beholders.” But this would involve some contradiction, since the two people obviously disagree about something. Socrates then applies his response to Protagoras himself, saying: “If neither [Protagoras] nor the multitude thought, as indeed they do not think, that man is the measure of all things, must it not follow that the truth of which Protagoras wrote would be true to no one? But if you suppose that he himself thought this, and that the multitude does not agree with him, you must begin by allowing that in whatever proportion the many are more than one, in that proportion his truth is more untrue than true.” Such are the problems with establishing truth by opinion polls, which is an enterprise that (to some extent) seems to continue today – although I should acknowledge that there are other uses of opinion polls that are more reasonable.
Plato
… and if I believe that Protagoras is wrong about this, then I must be as right as he ever was
Personally, I believe that Protagoras was wrong when he said that “Man is the measure of all things.” Thus, if Protagoras is correct, I would have to be correct to disagree with him, and Protagoras would thus have to be wrong about this. Furthermore, I would have to be correct to believe in objective truth, meaning that Protagoras would have to be wrong to reject it as he does. Such are the unavoidable problems with this argument, when it is used by his disciples today. In fairness, I should reiterate that man really is the measure of some things. Nonetheless, it seems clear that he is not the measure of all things, nor even of the most important things. If I say that I feel “happy” or “sad,” I would know better than anyone else whether this particular claim is true. In this sense, some truths really are in the “eye of the beholder.” But it would be absurd to apply this logic to everything, as Socrates has shown us in Plato’s dialogue “Theaetetus.” There is such a thing as objective truth, and it exists independently of whether anyone “believes” it to be the case or not. Its truth is not a matter of individual opinion, or even of popular opinion established by opinion polls. It is a matter of fact – and, as John Adams would later put it, “Facts are stubborn things.”
Plato
Conclusion: Objective truths must necessarily exist, if we are to avoid self-contradiction
Such is the applicability of ancient philosophy to everyday life. It helps us to solve modern problems, and to debunk the problematic modern counterparts – or even “postmodern” counterparts – of these ancient fallacies addressed by Socrates. Some truths exist independently of people’s feelings, or whether people “want” them to be true. They are true regardless of opinions or beliefs. They are, simply speaking, true. This rings true as much today as it did in Plato’s time, and when Socrates spoke these words in the first place. It would be beyond the scope of this post to list some examples of objective truths, or even to clarify how such truths may be discovered. Thus, suffice it to say for the moment that objective truths do exist, and that the concept of “objective truth” helps us to avoid many an internal inconsistency.
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment