Man is the Measure of All Things: Protagoras’ Fragmentary Legacy

answer comes as an extension of the Hericlitian doctrine of flux.

This is that all objects are never in a single state of being, but rather are constantly changing. This would still keep perception and reason reconciled (as what man perceives, exists) but reason tells him that he cannot singly classify its existence.If two people then have different views over the nature of the wind, that is because they are perceiving it at different times, from different positions. Between those times or positions it will have undergone such change that it could appear totally different to both men (such as hot and cold). They are still both personally correct in their views however, as to them it was as they said (at the time at which they made the statement). As man is the measure (as opposed to the wind itself or any other source) they can call it as they see fit.

A second explanation comes in the concept that the wind itself (or any other object) is by nature too complex for any man to grasp the whole of. As a result their perceptions are drawn to a certain aspect of the wind, dictated by their own personal condition (age, health etc). An ill, elderly man could feel a wind as cold due to the ailment he suffers from, whereas a healthy young man (used, perhaps, to colder climates) would feel the same wind as warm. They are again both correct, as they themselves (and their perceptions) are the measure of what is. The wind therefore simply is, and the man measures it as he sees fit.These views show all existence to be relative,

and man is the only standard therein.

As such the theory can be taken further still, and it can be suggested that objects only exist when (or as) they are perceived by man (man meaning mankind)(Freeman- 1966)2. Looking again at the quote can back this up, if we take the second half of the sentence. If we take 'things which are' to mean exist, then it would suggest that all things which appear to man to exist do exist, and all things which do not appear to exist to any man, do not. Aristotle and Plato, however, both disagreed strongly with Protagoras' opinion here.Aristotle disparaged it on the grounds that it denied potentiality. In effect it meant that if a table was not in existence until interacted with as one, then a builder cannot be called such unless he is actually building, which he claims to be absurd3.

Plato also disagreed on the grounds that he failed to understand why man(kind) was made the criterion for existence over any other creature that can perceive things4. Protagoras' views also led him to claim that if no view can be claimed as less true or less valid than any other, then there must be two contrary views on every subject, and both must be true.This refutation of the Law of Contradictories (Aristotle- The Metaphysics5) comes itself with a number of problems. Firstly it seems incongruous with his earlier assertion that things which are, are, and things which are not, are not, as it is now suggested that a thing both is and is not at the same time, if perceived either way by a person. Democritus also

pointed out that it is paradoxical as by its own volition.

This is because if all opinions are equally valid then if any man believes that not all opinions are true, the thesis collapses.While Protagoras clamed that all viewpoints were equal in terms of truth, and one could not be considered truer than any other, it is important to note that he said hat some could still be considered better than others. Again this returns to the relative nature of things, as better in these terms is still in itself relative to the man who claims it. One person could be said for example to be both well and unwell. While both of these can be said to be true, it is better for the subject to be considered healthy.So far we have seen some of the direct implications of the words themselves, but this viewpoint also caused ontological and epistemological arguments.

The ontological argument stems from the concept that man is the measure of all things rather than any higher order. It had been previously believed by most prominent philosophers that man's perception of things were limited and flawed, the true nature of things was formed by a higher power (usually one or many gods). Here Protagoras has suddenly turned these theories on their heads by claiming that man himself is the measure of all things.Not only does this claim that man's perception is accurate but moreover it can be said to imply that if all other things are judged by man (or if their existence depends on man) there can be no higher power. This atheist viewpoint is backed up in his quote,

"Concerning the Gods, I am in no position to know that they exist or that they do not, nor can I know what they look like, for many things prevent our knowing- the subject is obscure and life is short"(Plato- Cratylus)6. Although this quote does not directly claim that there are no gods, it shows a strong doubt in Protagoras' mind.

For many of the previous philosophical theories that existed, the existence of some higher power or law was a fundamental principal (such as the logos, for example). Now Protagoras seems to suggest that the possible (questionable) existence of any higher power or law is irrelevant, and this is likely to be because the only laws or measure of existence is the perception of man. Another argument is the epistemological question raised by the concept that man is the 'measure of all things'. In essence, we can see that from this quote can stem the theory of moral relativism.If perception is taken to also encompass thinking, then this would suggest that all thoughts and personal beliefs are of equal validity regardless of source or content. Sextus Impiricus says that Protagoras asserts that all opinions are true, and truth is relative to the experience of any person7.

This does not question the relativity of perception but rather the relativity of judgement itself. Relativism can be seen therefore to be valid not only in perception but also in values and judgements.This concept of value judgements being relative is supported by Plato's dialogue, Protagoras, where it is written; While some things may be good for humans, they can also be bad for animals and plants (an example of this

being olive oil, which is beneficial to the health of humans but can actually do harm to or even kill animals and plants). So various and many a sided thing is the good"(Plato- Protagoras)8.

If goodness itself is this relative, it means that no absolute judgements can be passed, and no behaviour can be deemed as wrong. If nature itself is divided so that any argument is worth as much as any other, this must naturally extend to apply to morality.This brings a link to the previous concept of Dissoi Logoi, the concept that for every subject there will be two opposing moral views, and both will carry equal validity. An example given in the text of the same name is sickness. While it is perceived by the sufferer as a bad thing (due to the suffering they endure) it can be seen to be a good thing to be a good thing for doctors, as it is their livelihood and allows them to provide food and shelter for themselves and their families.

Therefore any moral judgement is relative to the viewpoint of the person who examines it9. Even good and bad, then, are not absolute but relative.This argument again backs up the previous agnostic implication as it means that no laws can be absolute, and so no rules can be laid down by any deity or other source. The implications of this are huge, especially for the time in which they were first proclaimed, as they throw into question social structure and laws of the state.

During this period many of the states were ruled using a hierarchical system that was based around divine

selection, that is to say that all leaders were seen to be chosen by the gods and the laws and rules they enforced were the will of the gods.As such they were undemocratic but not to be challenged (for fear of divine retribution). By pushing forward this new theory Protagoras was directly questioning their authority to rule. Firstly he was denying the validity of divine rule, as he states that even if gods do exist (which is not certain) they have no moral, ethical or judgmental superiority to man. As this is the essence of many belief systems it may be seen to deny existence altogether.

Also, if we believe that he meant that 'that which cannot be perceived by man does not exist' he also denies the existence of any gods, as he said that he does not know if they exist or what they look like and therefore cannot perceive them. This reduces the hierarchical ruling system to one man imposing his personal views on a whole society, claiming them to be superior. As all views carry equal truth and validity this is simply wrong, and the people are under no obligation to follow him (this may help account for the move towards more democratic ruling systems around and after this time).If we carry on along the lines that 'man is the measure of all things' means the existence of moral relativism, it also has implications regarding any sort of constitution or set of laws. Any set of rules, by their mere existence, exemplify the concept of one man or group (those who write the rules) having a moral and judicial superiority over all

others. Protagoras argues that there is no basis for claiming that any action is right or wrong, as both of these terms are relative to the individual.

As such murder (for example) may be very detrimental to the victim and those close to him, but may be seen to benefit the perpetrator. He may gain money or have saved himself by committing the killing. Either of these (or any other possibility) can be seen to be necessary for his survival, and so it unfair to impose upon him a set of values (of another man) that will inhibit him from doing so. Resultantly, the claim that man is the measure of all things leads to the conclusion that all laws and social rules are invalid.In conclusion, the basic principle that man is the measure of all things carries with it a great many implications.

Many of these are themselves implicit, such as the concept that all perception and knowledge is true and equal. It has been shown that there are also a number of wider implications that can be seen to have a fundamental effect on religious beliefs (and the validity of them) as well as society as a whole, and the rules that govern it. The main point to remember, however, is that much of what is understood from the claim is merely interpretation by others, as the quote itself is ambiguous and largely unqualified.