Position Paper Essay Example

conventions rather than inherent 'nature'.

Regarding the counterposition; it comprises my argument and rationalizations for such skepticism, questioning Protagoras' proposition that “Man is the measure of all things”. Debates arise such as; was he implying societies instead of individual persons? Did he aim to use it for ethical principles as well as for human understanding? If man is deemed the absolute standard of truth or reality, why does he sometimes need assistance? Why is there an innate rebellious streak and a sense of discontentment that humans seek to fulfill?

Just like there’s always a feeling of emptiness that they hope to find company with? Protagoras contended that the universe was grounded on an objective basis, something external to human intervention. These are mere examples of arguments that I have developed in my position paper for your consideration on what potential insights this paper might yield. Protagoras of Abdera is best known for his viewpoint that "Of all things the measure is Man, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not", often simplified as "Man is the Measure of All Things".

Holding this position, he anticipates the existential relativism of authors such as Luigi Pirandello ("It is so if you think so"), by over two thousand years. It prompts the question of how a man who asserted the validity of subjective truth for all his listeners, embodying the notion that no one can objectively understand the will of the gods, could end up as the highest paid Sophist in ancient Greece.

Sophists, learned individuals, would offer their knowledge on rhetoric, politics or societal norms to the young

ones at a cost. Moreover, Protagoras emphasizes that "Every person's truth is what they perceive it to be - no individual can evaluate another's experiences better than the person themselves. Nobody is better positioned to judge the correctness of someone else's views than the person holding those views. Therefore... Every person's thoughts belong to them alone and all these views are valid and true".

How could he, being so wise, deem himself fit to instruct others and charge high fees for it? And why would these young minds consider themselves so uninformed that they should seek enlightenment from him, if each one is the arbiter of their own understanding? It appears that Protagoras might be implying that one's understanding of Truth is subject to their personal perspectives, and whatever one perceives as 'true' will be True for that person, regardless of any contradicting facts. However, why does Protagoras pause his philosophical contemplation at this point, without reacting to his environment?

Is this a form of evasion does one think? Protagoras, arguably the most eminent among the Sophists, commanded great respect from Plato despite the perceived inaccuracies in his theories. While it is certain that Protagoras suggested that man is the benchmark of all things, there has been significant debate over whether (1) he meant it in terms of communities over individual men and (2) he wanted it to pertain to morality as much as cognition. A balanced consensus could suggest that in his theory of knowledge it is indeed the individual man who sets the standards, but in his code of conduct, it's the society that establishes the norms.

The ethical relativism of Protagoras is compatible with objectivism

as long as a specific relativist standard is universally accepted by all community members, a concept that can be termed 'cultural' relativism. Thus, Protagoras could be seen as quite conventional, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the values and convictions of one's own society. However, the inconsistency of his doctrine with his lifestyle makes it fallacious. Evidently, his actions contradict his theory of human nature, indicating that he himself struggled to adhere to or advocate for his own philosophies.

Nevertheless, personal perceptual relativism and societal or ethical relativism can coexist. However, a conflict might surface if his claim about the possibility of 'contradictory perspectives' on all matters is accepted without question. Finally, if it's truly accepted that man is the gauge of all things and central to the universe, then why can't he survive in isolation? I am a firm believer in the idea that no man stands alone. What's the reason? It's simply due to the fact that human survival seems unattainable without a spiritual entity. Our reliance on our creator for existence elucidates our profound need for him.

I genuinely hold the conviction that God is real and He is the solitary entity who determines all things. Evidence for this can be found in understanding the Thomistic arguments that validate God's existence. Initially, there is the argument from motion, which is derived from the basic observation that an object must be moved by another object or force; therefore, there must have been an Unmoved Mover who initially set things in motion. Following this, we have the argument focused on the hierarchy of efficient causes which asserts that, at its core, there must have been an

Uncaused Cause (God) who initiated the sequence of existence for everything.

The third point is the debate surrounding contingent beings' conditional existence. These beings' existence essentially requires a being that must exist for all other contingent entities to exist. The fourth point involves the hierarchical structure of beings. Any attribute, such as kindness, attractiveness, or knowledge, implies an ultimate standard against which all these attributes are gauged. The final argument relates to intelligent design. The mechanism of the universe suggests a structure so coherent and purposeful that it implies a creator of superior intellect - God.