Protagoras vs Socrates

[Eodnhoj7]

Note I stated, man emerges [spontaneously] with reality, not 'from'.
The term 'from' implied there is something pre-existing that man emerged from. No this is not the case.


"A totally absolute unconditional reality" is an impossibility to be real.
Prove "A totally absolute unconditional reality" exists absolutely by itself and in-itself.
There is no way you can prove that.
If so, show me the proof, verification and justification that "A totally absolute unconditional reality" is really real.

Man as intertwined with reality both emerges from, through and with reality. As such man is an intermediary from which emergences arise.

The proof of a totally absolute unconditional reality is then simple point or dot.

You are trying to be rhetorical here.

I stated we must exclude the term 'from' and preferably 'with'.

Not when interpretations, as phenomena, emerge from man and man emerges from the reality of these interpretations through a continual repetition of the state of man occuring across time and space. Man emerges from reality as subject to time and space. The state of man, as affected by these interpretations (which are real as existing), necessitates man as emerging from reality as it is emergent from these interpretations.


You are ignoring the unconditional state of the point or dot.

When you use such terms, logically you will be lead to think of source or an intermediary.

And logic dictates all terms which are applicable must be applied. An intermediary state is inevitable.

Note I mentioned the Two-Truths-Theory of Buddhism in the other post,

• The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths (Wylie: bden pa gnyis) differentiates between two levels of satya (a Sanskrit and Pali word meaning truth or reality) in the teaching of the Buddha:
  • 1. the "conventional" or "provisional" (saṁvṛti) truth, and
    2. the "ultimate" (paramārtha) truth.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

In differentiating truths one is separating one emergence from another thus not all of reality is connected.


Yes, re the conventional perspective, there is the 'from' 'with' and all other relative terms.

In the ultimate perspective, there is 'nothing' except for whatever is in the 'now' without reference to the past or anything [intermediary].

All "now" is the repetition of past events into a new form thus the past is always referenced through the "now". The past is real as it is continually repeated. The now is the intermediary state of the past and future thus necessitates the past and future as connected through the now.

Why you are entrapped with the conventional view is due to psychology and that is the basis of potential sufferings and evilness.
Whilst one is entrapped in the conventional view, one is bound to suffer psychologically. Are you sure you are free of sufferings [conscious and unconscious].

Suffering is ultimately empty from your stance. Anyhow, I already argue elsewhere that truth is simultaneously absolute and relative. [color]

[Eodnhoj7]

X

[Nick_A]

So is Man the measure of all things? Protagoras says yes while Socrates says no. For For Protagoras Man is the center of the universe and value is defined by Man. For Socrates the measure of all things or its objective value is the result of the quality of its being in relation to our source

[Ansiktsburk]

So is Man the measure of all things? Protagoras says yes while Socrates says no. For For Protagoras Man is the center of the universe and value is defined by Man. For Socrates the measure of all things or its objective value is the result of the quality of its being in relation to our source

All the gods man comes up with seems pretty Manly. One can say that Socrates was a bit more physics/science and Protagoras a bit more humanistic. Stuff like Corona chrisis and CO2 levels shows both thinkings are needed. So I give them even steven.

[Ansiktsburk]

As Wittgenstein asserted,
“That of which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence”

Side note, OP, but... is that from the english translation of the Tractatus? Sounds pretty lame compared to the german version.

[Nick_A]

So is Man the measure of all things? Protagoras says yes while Socrates says no. For For Protagoras Man is the center of the universe and value is defined by Man. For Socrates the measure of all things or its objective value is the result of the quality of its being in relation to our source

All the gods man comes up with seems pretty Manly. One can say that Socrates was a bit more physics/science and Protagoras a bit more humanistic. Stuff like Corona chrisis and CO2 levels shows both thinkings are needed. So I give them even steven.

I'm not clear as to what you mean. Man being the measure of all things means that Man is the source of values. Socrates maintains that the GOOD or our source is the source of values. If they are in conflict does that mean we need both?

[Veritas Aequitas]

As Wittgenstein asserted,
“That of which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence”

Side note, OP, but... is that from the english translation of the Tractatus? Sounds pretty lame compared to the german version.

I have not read of any dispute re the English translation since it was first translated.

I'll be interested if you dispute the main point of the translation and have a better translation that mean something else.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are ignoring the unconditional state of the point or dot.

As I had stated there is no thing-in-itself that is real.
'thing' used here is in the widest sense.
As such there is unconditional state of the point-in-itself or dot-in-itself that is totally unconditional because man is part and parcel of all-there-is, i.e. reality.
Man cannot extricate himself from all-there-is which he is an intricate part of and insist upon an independent position.
Therefore man is the measure of all thing - Protagoras.

Man however can assume an independent position from the external world where necessary within the common and conventional sense but not in the ultimate sense of truth.

[Eodnhoj7]

So is Man the measure of all things? Protagoras says yes while Socrates says no. For For Protagoras Man is the center of the universe and value is defined by Man. For Socrates the measure of all things or its objective value is the result of the quality of its being in relation to our source

Socrates is a man making a measurement of reality. Measurement cannot be seperated from man as man is made in the image of the ultimate measurer.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are ignoring the unconditional state of the point or dot.

As I had stated there is no thing-in-itself that is real.
'thing' used here is in the widest sense.
As such there is unconditional state of the point-in-itself or dot-in-itself that is totally unconditional because man is part and parcel of all-there-is, i.e. reality.
Man cannot extricate himself from all-there-is which he is an intricate part of and insist upon an independent position.
Therefore man is the measure of all thing - Protagoras.

Man however can assume an independent position from the external world where necessary within the common and conventional sense but not in the ultimate sense of truth.

The dot exists through man but is not limited to man as such it maintains a degree of unconditionality as it is not limited to certain conditions. It is absolute as existing and is the origin and end of all phenomena and represents the totality of being. We know it is unconditional of man's observation given man cannot observe past the simple point/dot. It exists through man's awareness but is not limited to man's awareness as it is the limit of man's awareness.

In observing the simple dot/point not only is the limits of awareness are manifested but the totality of the point cannot be observed given any closer analysis results in more points. Its recursion necessitates a state of being beyond man's observation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are ignoring the unconditional state of the point or dot.

As I had stated there is no thing-in-itself that is real.
'thing' used here is in the widest sense.
As such there is unconditional state of the point-in-itself or dot-in-itself that is totally unconditional because man is part and parcel of all-there-is, i.e. reality.
Man cannot extricate himself from all-there-is which he is an intricate part of and insist upon an independent position.
Therefore man is the measure of all thing - Protagoras.

Man however can assume an independent position from the external world where necessary within the common and conventional sense but not in the ultimate sense of truth.

The dot exists through man but is not limited to man as such it maintains a degree of unconditionality as it is not limited to certain conditions. It is absolute as existing and is the origin and end of all phenomena and represents the totality of being.

We know it is unconditional of man's observation given man cannot observe past the simple point/dot. It exists through man's awareness but is not limited to man's awareness as it is the limit of man's awareness.

In observing the simple dot/point not only is the limits of awareness are manifested but the totality of the point cannot be observed given any closer analysis results in more points. Its recursion necessitates a state of being beyond man's observation.

Do you really know the "dot" and that it is unconditional or rather you are merely speculating and guessing?

"Know" imply there is objective knowledge of that thing.
Where is your proof, verification and justification of that knowledge that that dot exists unconditionally.

Btw, in the case of emergence, existing unconditionally is an oxymoron.

Take a simple dot, say this red dot "."
It that a really a real dot-in-itself?
If you take a strong microscope at look at it, there are only pixels if if you look deeper that are only bits of dark spots.
Where is the real dot in this case?
If you look more deeper you will end up with sub-atomic particles which existence are conditional and could either be a wave or a particle depending on the specific condition.
So where is that ultimate dot-in-itself?

It is the same with your claim there is an unconditional dot, and if you reflect deeper that is no such thing as a dot-in-itself. That unconditional 'dot' which is irrational is merely your speculation and guess work.

[Nick_A]

So is Man the measure of all things? Protagoras says yes while Socrates says no. For For Protagoras Man is the center of the universe and value is defined by Man. For Socrates the measure of all things or its objective value is the result of the quality of its being in relation to our source

Socrates is a man making a measurement of reality. Measurement cannot be seperated from man as man is made in the image of the ultimate measurer.

Conscious man may be made in the image of God but fallen animal man or man on earth is not. So by definition fallen man cannot be the measure of all things. Imagination prevents it.

[Eodnhoj7]

As I had stated there is no thing-in-itself that is real.
'thing' used here is in the widest sense.
As such there is unconditional state of the point-in-itself or dot-in-itself that is totally unconditional because man is part and parcel of all-there-is, i.e. reality.
Man cannot extricate himself from all-there-is which he is an intricate part of and insist upon an independent position.
Therefore man is the measure of all thing - Protagoras.

Man however can assume an independent position from the external world where necessary within the common and conventional sense but not in the ultimate sense of truth.

The dot exists through man but is not limited to man as such it maintains a degree of unconditionality as it is not limited to certain conditions. It is absolute as existing and is the origin and end of all phenomena and represents the totality of being.

We know it is unconditional of man's observation given man cannot observe past the simple point/dot. It exists through man's awareness but is not limited to man's awareness as it is the limit of man's awareness.

In observing the simple dot/point not only is the limits of awareness are manifested but the totality of the point cannot be observed given any closer analysis results in more points. Its recursion necessitates a state of being beyond man's observation.

Do you really know the "dot" and that it is unconditional or rather you are merely speculating and guessing?

It is the beginning and end of man's awareness. It exists as beyond man's awareness given it is the limit of man's awareness. Any observation of the dot results in further dots thus the totality of the dot exists as beyond man's awareness.


"Know" imply there is objective knowledge of that thing.
Where is your proof, verification and justification of that knowledge that that dot exists unconditionally.

One dot results in many dots, and many dots result again in one dot. The dot exists through the dot.

Btw, in the case of emergence, existing unconditionally is an oxymoron.

The dot emerges from the dot thus is unconditional.

Take a simple dot, say this red dot "."
It that a really a real dot-in-itself?
If you take a strong microscope at look at it, there are only pixels if if you look deeper that are only bits of dark spots.
Where is the real dot in this case?
Further dots, as that which composes the pixels are observed.


If you look more deeper you will end up with sub-atomic particles which existence are conditional and could either be a wave or a particle depending on the specific condition.
So where is that ultimate dot-in-itself?

Each particle or wave when broken down are composed of dots upon closer inspection.

It is the same with your claim there is an unconditional dot, and if you reflect deeper that is no such thing as a dot-in-itself. That unconditional 'dot' which is irrational is merely your speculation and guess work.

False, the dot exists through the dot.

[Eodnhoj7]

So is Man the measure of all things? Protagoras says yes while Socrates says no. For For Protagoras Man is the center of the universe and value is defined by Man. For Socrates the measure of all things or its objective value is the result of the quality of its being in relation to our source

Socrates is a man making a measurement of reality. Measurement cannot be seperated from man as man is made in the image of the ultimate measurer.

Conscious man may be made in the image of God but fallen animal man or man on earth is not. So by definition fallen man cannot be the measure of all things. Imagination prevents it.

Fallen man has within its origins conscious man thus a recursion occurs. Man has been made in the image of God, fallen man has been made in the image of man, fallen man (through man) has been made in the image of God.

[Nick_A]

Objectivity and Morality
Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Dec 05, 2020 7:04 am

What is objectivity?

In general,
In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
By the above definition what is objectivity can also be
a concept of truth that is dependent on the shared-views from the consensus of two or more individuals based on a framework and system of knowledge.
Note the basis of framework as mentioned by Richard Feyman in Skepdick's link below;
https://youtu.be/MO0r930Sn_8?t=96

However what is objective within objectivity [as defined] need not be true or factual.

For any claims to be true, factual and real, we need to review whether the robustness of the framework and system of knowledge [FSK] that ensure its output is objective.

Protagoras would agree with this definition: a concept of truth that is dependent on the shared-views from the consensus of two or more individuals based on a framework and system of knowledge. Man is the measure of all things.

Socrates would say that objective morality is beyond the domain of opinions we can experience through opening to knowledge of the forms made possible through noesis.