Page 1 of 8
Protagoras vs Socrates
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 3:15 am
by Nick_A
Protagoras was a sophist in ancient Athens. He is known for expressing the idea that “Man is the measure of all things.” He made his money teaching those who could afford him eloquence and how to win court cases
If Man is the measure of all things, obviously he didn’t believe in gods or anything greater than Man
Rather then Man being the measure of all things, Socrates believed that the forms within the Good gave Man the ability to measure all things. Striving to understand and experience the Good enabled a person to consciously rise above opinions of Man to experience reality. Man then is a level of reality beneath the truth of the Good.
Protagoras was the ultimate atheist denying the gods and reality above Man while Socrates was the ultimate universalist believing the Source to be the measure of all things rather than Man being the measure of all things.
So IYO is Man or God the measure of all things?
Re: Protagoras vs Socrates
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:16 am
by Eodnhoj7
Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 3:15 am
Protagoras was a sophist in ancient Athens. He is known for expressing the idea that “Man is the measure of all things.” He made his money teaching those who could afford him eloquence and how to win court cases
If Man is the measure of all things, obviously he didn’t believe in gods or anything greater than Man
Rather then Man being the measure of all things, Socrates believed that the forms within the Good gave Man the ability to measure all things. Striving to understand and experience the Good enabled a person to consciously rise above opinions of Man to experience reality. Man then is a level of reality beneath the truth of the Good.
Protagoras was the ultimate atheist denying the gods and reality above Man while Socrates was the ultimate universalist believing the Source to be the measure of all things rather than Man being the measure of all things.
So IYO is Man or God the measure of all things?
Man is made in the image of God. The answer is a both/and not an either/or.
Re: Protagoras vs Socrates
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:31 am
by Nick_A
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:16 am
Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 3:15 am
Protagoras was a sophist in ancient Athens. He is known for expressing the idea that “Man is the measure of all things.” He made his money teaching those who could afford him eloquence and how to win court cases
If Man is the measure of all things, obviously he didn’t believe in gods or anything greater than Man
Rather then Man being the measure of all things, Socrates believed that the forms within the Good gave Man the ability to measure all things. Striving to understand and experience the Good enabled a person to consciously rise above opinions of Man to experience reality. Man then is a level of reality beneath the truth of the Good.
Protagoras was the ultimate atheist denying the gods and reality above Man while Socrates was the ultimate universalist believing the Source to be the measure of all things rather than Man being the measure of all things.
So IYO is Man or God the measure of all things?
Man is made in the image of God. The answer is a both/and not an either/or.
If man is made in the image of God, why isn't Man aware of the forms and insists on arguing opinions for self justification
Re: Protagoras vs Socrates
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:33 am
by Eodnhoj7
Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:31 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:16 am
Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 3:15 am
Protagoras was a sophist in ancient Athens. He is known for expressing the idea that “Man is the measure of all things.” He made his money teaching those who could afford him eloquence and how to win court cases
If Man is the measure of all things, obviously he didn’t believe in gods or anything greater than Man
Rather then Man being the measure of all things, Socrates believed that the forms within the Good gave Man the ability to measure all things. Striving to understand and experience the Good enabled a person to consciously rise above opinions of Man to experience reality. Man then is a level of reality beneath the truth of the Good.
Protagoras was the ultimate atheist denying the gods and reality above Man while Socrates was the ultimate universalist believing the Source to be the measure of all things rather than Man being the measure of all things.
So IYO is Man or God the measure of all things?
Man is made in the image of God. The answer is a both/and not an either/or.
If man is made in the image of God, why isn't Man aware of the forms and insists on arguing opinions for self justification
Opinions are forms as opinions are definitions and definitions are forms.
Re: Protagoras vs Socrates
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:40 am
by Nick_A
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:33 am
Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:31 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:16 am
Man is made in the image of God. The answer is a both/and not an either/or.
If man is made in the image of God, why isn't Man aware of the forms and insists on arguing opinions for self justification
Opinions are forms as opinions are definitions and definitions are forms.
Opinions at best are partial truths subject to change, The forms are complete unchanging concepts which devolve into opinions
Plato's Theory of Forms asserts that the physical realm is only a shadow, or image, of the true reality of the Realm of Forms. So what are these Forms, according to Plato? The Forms are abstract, perfect, unchanging concepts or ideals that transcend time and space; they exist in the Realm of Forms.
Re: Protagoras vs Socrates
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:53 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Protagoras' "man is the measure of all things" is most realistic and tenable.
Man is part and parcel of reality, i.e. all-there-is.
Therefore there is no way man can extricate himself from reality [all-there-is] and make himself independent of reality.
Whatever is a 'thing' within reality inevitably and imperatively is connected deterministically [not absolute sense] to 'man' and also via experiences or known via knowledge.
Since man is part and parcel of reality [all there is] the sense of internal_ness and external_ness are also spontaneous emergence which is part and parcel of reality.
Whatever is a 'thing of reality' is a spontaneous emergence and experience and not something that had pre-existed independently awaiting to be discovered.
The sense of external_ness and independent from oneself is crucial for survival, i.e. the need for food from the external, the spouse from external, enemies and threats are external, etc.
Because this sense of externalness is so critical for survival and thus ingrained within human consciousness, humans simply accept absolute external_ness and independence as given but remained ignorant that externalness is an emergence whereby man is part and parcel of reality.
As such what is taken as external and independent are pseudo in one perspective whereas what is reality is man is part and parcel of reality [all there is].
Since man is part and parcel of reality [all there is] which comprised of all things,
"man is the measure of all things."
Note 'measure' is not literal but indicate 'conditioning' or 'interrelated' to.
Re: Protagoras vs Socrates
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:59 am
by Skepdick
Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:31 am
If man is made in the image of God, why isn't Man aware of the forms and insists on arguing opinions for self justification
Because we are part-taking in Apotheosis.
We are made in the image of God. We aren't Gods. Yet.
Re: Protagoras vs Socrates
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:02 pm
by Nick_A
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:53 am
Protagoras' "man is the measure of all things" is most realistic and tenable.
Man is part and parcel of reality, i.e. all-there-is.
Therefore there is no way man can
extricate himself from reality [all-there-is] and make himself independent of reality.
Whatever is a 'thing' within reality inevitably and imperatively is connected deterministically [not absolute sense] to 'man' and also via experiences or known via knowledge.
Since man is part and parcel of reality [all there is] the sense of internal_ness and
external_ness are also spontaneous emergence which is part and parcel of reality.
Whatever is a 'thing of reality' is a spontaneous emergence and experience and not something that had pre-existed independently awaiting to be discovered.
The sense of external_ness and independent from oneself is crucial for survival, i.e. the need for food from the external, the spouse from external, enemies and threats are external, etc.
Because this sense of externalness is so critical for survival and thus ingrained within human consciousness, humans simply accept absolute external_ness and independence as given but remained ignorant that externalness is an emergence whereby man is part and parcel of reality.
As such what is taken as external and independent are pseudo in one perspective whereas what is reality is man is part and parcel of reality [all there is].
Since man is part and parcel of reality [all there is] which comprised of all things,
"man is the measure of all things."
Note 'measure' is not literal but indicate 'conditioning' or 'interrelated' to.
Since man is part and parcel of reality [all there is] the sense of internal_ness and external_ness are also spontaneous emergence which is part and parcel of reality.
Whatever is a 'thing of reality' is a spontaneous emergence and experience and not something that had pre-existed independently awaiting to be discovered.
Are you saying that the universe as we know it emerges from Man so Man on did not exist before the universe? Suppose the earth was destroyed and everything on it including Man no longer existed, would anything happen to the universe?
Re: Protagoras vs Socrates
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:06 pm
by Nick_A
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:59 am
Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:31 am
If man is made in the image of God, why isn't Man aware of the forms and insists on arguing opinions for self justification
Because we are part-taking in Apotheosis.
We are made in the image of God. We aren't Gods. Yet.
What does it mean to be in the image of God? If Man is made in the image of God, what prevents us from being gods?
Re: Protagoras vs Socrates
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:48 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:40 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:33 am
Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:31 am
If man is made in the image of God, why isn't Man aware of the forms and insists on arguing opinions for self justification
Opinions are forms as opinions are definitions and definitions are forms.
Opinions at best are partial truths subject to change, The forms are complete unchanging concepts which devolve into opinions
Plato's Theory of Forms asserts that the physical realm is only a shadow, or image, of the true reality of the Realm of Forms. So what are these Forms, according to Plato? The Forms are abstract, perfect, unchanging concepts or ideals that transcend time and space; they exist in the Realm of Forms.
Opinions are thus grades of forms and exist as extensions of the forms. As partial truths they exist as fractals.
Re: Protagoras vs Socrates
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:59 pm
by Impenitent
if god's ruler is the same as the one we use, it might make sense.
if god was screaming that this is flosshio, no one would understand.
-Imp
Re: Protagoras vs Socrates
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2020 12:11 am
by Dubious
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:16 am
Man is made in the image of God.
That's funny! Did god undergo the same journey from shaggy to shaggless?
Re: Protagoras vs Socrates
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2020 12:19 am
by Nick_A
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:48 pm
Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:40 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:33 am
Opinions are forms as opinions are definitions and definitions are forms.
Opinions at best are partial truths subject to change, The forms are complete unchanging concepts which devolve into opinions
Plato's Theory of Forms asserts that the physical realm is only a shadow, or image, of the true reality of the Realm of Forms. So what are these Forms, according to Plato? The Forms are abstract, perfect, unchanging concepts or ideals that transcend time and space; they exist in the Realm of Forms.
Opinions are thus grades of forms and exist as extensions of the forms. As partial truths they exist as fractals.
The fractals You are describing exist as changing patterns and the concepts of Man. Take the idea of justice for example. People kill each other over different concepts of justice. But justice as a form is a universal unchanging idea. What is objective justice as a form? We don't know but argue over opinions.
Is it possible for Man to consciously grow to become able to experience justice as a form as opposed to being limited to subjective opinions on justice?
Re: Protagoras vs Socrates
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2020 12:52 am
by Eodnhoj7
Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 12:19 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:48 pm
Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:40 am
Opinions at best are partial truths subject to change, The forms are complete unchanging concepts which devolve into opinions
Opinions are thus grades of forms and exist as extensions of the forms. As partial truths they exist as fractals.
The fractals You are describing exist as changing patterns and the concepts of Man. Take the idea of justice for example. People kill each other over different concepts of justice. But justice as a form is a universal unchanging idea. What is objective justice as a form? We don't know but argue over opinions.
Is it possible for Man to consciously grow to become able to experience justice as a form as opposed to being limited to subjective opinions on justice?
A fractal reflects a phenomenon through a variation that has underlying similar qualities to its source.
For example a fractal square observes the same properties of a prior square, four sides, except for its difference in size.
The same occurs to such forms, such as justice, where each fraction of justice is a distinct facet of the whole where any conflict between different notions of justice is the manifestation of a distinction from one aspect over another.
This distinction is grounded in extremism where one grade is favored over another grade as a singular whole.
However it is not a singular whole but a grade of the whole. Each grade requires another grade given the grade exists as connected by their being extensions of the whole.
An absence of universality, where all grades are accepted as part of the whole, is grounded in extremism with this extremism being an absence of balance.
Justice is balance, discussions/debates/fights over justice require balance. Balance is wholism, thus justice is an approach to taking things as a whole.
Re: Protagoras vs Socrates
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2020 3:20 am
by Nick_A
EOD
An absence of universality, where all grades are accepted as part of the whole, is grounded in extremism with this extremism being an absence of balance.
Justice is balance, discussions/debates/fights over justice require balance. Balance is wholism, thus justice is an approach to taking things as a whole.
You seem to be saying that if people on all sides of the justice debate express themselves it will produce justice because they have created balance. But this doesn't answer the question: what justice is?
Is the Wheel of Samsara justice even though though the suffering it produces has no known cause?
Dependent Origination (pratītyasamutpadā/ paṭiccasmuppāda) is the Buddhist doctrine of causality. This system of thought maintains that everything has been caused into existence. Nothing has been created ex nihilo. This is useful in understanding how there can be rebirth without a belief in a soul.
Are the results and the sufferings of dependent origination justice? If so how can we define justice if there is no one to blame?