Is man really the measure of all things? Was Protagoras

kill yourself pathetic loser

>>9384827
yep, well, until a new sentient being becomes readily apparent.

Well, technically speaking, the measure of all things is lightspeed.

>>9384827
Under this system, if I view the measure of all things as not being man, is it valid?

>>9384832
Yeah, obviously considering man not as human being, but as sentient individual.

What about Plato tough. Was he a hack?

>>9384839
nah, he was just a monotheist. pretty popular religion these days, so hack probably isn't the best word.

>>9384836
It should be valid for the one who believes in it, I guess.
Basically Protagoras talked about how nothing can be stated as true for anyone but the one who makes that statement. Contrary to Plato, who believed in absolutes and abstract forms.
Unless I'm getting him wrong, in which case some please correct me.

>>9384827
Yes, but it is first and foremost a limitation. It means that we are bound to be men.

>>9384856
The way I understand it is that Protagoras is suggesting that each person's subjective view creates their own objective facts. There are no absolute state of affairs, only individual interpretations. For two people who cannot agree on whether a room is hot or cold, the room is actually hot and cold for the respective opinionator. This runs into difficulties when you challenge the premise and end up in a relativistic variation of the liar's paradox.

Or he's just making an observation on the epistemic limitations of man, but even so this can be challenged.