Wiccan Logic and Protagoras' claimed "man is the measure of all things."

[Richbee]

How should we evaluate differing systems of ethics or Philosophy?

Is there a system of Wiccan logic to follow? What is "right" Vs. "wrong"

Who decides?

Let us ponder a series of old stories, myths and legends or Philosophical systems of ethics. When deciding for or against a system of values, we might want to discuss the foundation and/or origin of such as system, or how is it rooted or grounded?

I hope that this is fun, and the first of many threads as we examine, from Socrates or Plato and from Epicurus to Aristotle, and many more Greek systems of thought and up to the Humanist Manifesto.

Why ask why? Just do it!

Consider the ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras claimed[/B] "man is the measure of all things."

Understood in the individual sense, this means each person is the standard for right and wrong. The morally right thing to do is what is morally right for me. And what is right for me may be wrong for another and vice versa.

Any thoughts here?

[Richbee]

Whoopsie Daisy:

Consider the ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras claimed"man is the measure of all things."

Protagoras, the leading sophist, was known -- in Plato's words, as: "the wisest man now living".

Now, originally "sophistry" meant wisdom.

As in: Sophisticated.

When Herodotus calls Solon and Pythagoras sophists, he is praising them as sages and men of wisdom. (sophia)

(Source: Jonathan Barnes, "The Presocratic Philosophers")

[technomage]

Protagoras, the leading sophist, was known -- in Plato's words, as: "the wisest man now living".

Yet Plato was an opponent of Protagoras, rejecting Protagoras' relativism and seeking for absolute truth.


When Herodotus calls Solon and Pythagoras sophists, he is praising them as sages and men of wisdom. (sophia)

Rich, you're unjustifiably conflating sophia, the general trait or personification of "Wisdom," with the Sophists (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophists), a philosophical school in Athens that claimed to teach wisdom, and with the modern term "sophistry," which is a derogatory term for rhetoric. That's a dishonest association.

Justin

[Richbee]

Yet Plato was an opponent of Protagoras, rejecting Protagoras' relativism and seeking for absolute truth.

Really?

Any chance that Plato was influenced by the Hebrew Bible? Moses?


Rich, you're unjustifiably conflating sophia, the general trait or personification of "Wisdom," with the Sophists (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophists), a philosophical school in Athens that claimed to teach wisdom, and with the modern term "sophistry," which is a derogatory term for rhetoric. That's a dishonest association.

Justin

Now, you are jumping ahead of me.

Originally, there was respect for the Sophists.

But, you are correct, in time there was much lying and deception among these adherants, and they fell into disrepute.

So, Man is the Measure?

I guess in their own eyes, they were wise guys.

[HRG_new]

Consider the ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras claimed[/B] "man is the measure of all things."

Understood in the individual sense, this means each person is the standard for right and wrong. The morally right thing to do is what is morally right for me. And what is right for me may be wrong for another and vice versa.

Any thoughts here?

1) That the Protagoras quote refers mainly to descriptive statements (what is), and not to prescriptive ones (what should be done). This becomes clear when you read the full quote.

"Man is the measure of all things, of existing things that they exist, and of non-existing things that they don't exist".

2) "Man" does not refer to an individual, but to mankind as a collective.

[Richbee]

1) That the Protagoras quote refers mainly to descriptive statements (what is), and not to prescriptive ones (what should be done). This becomes clear when you read the full quote.

"Man is the measure of all things, of existing things that they exist, and of non-existing things that they don't exist".

2) "Man" does not refer to an individual, but to mankind as a collective.

Plato refutes these ideas.

Morality is the issue, but yes, I suppose this could extend to a wide range of matters, like pagan gods.

Man was the measure of his gods.

[HRG_new]

Plato refutes these ideas.

Plato did not refute anything. Read "The Open Society and Its Enemies" (Sir Karl Popper).


Morality is the issue, but yes, I suppose this could extend to a wide range of matters, like pagan gods.

And the genocidal OT god.

[Richbee]

Plato did not refute anything. Read "The Open Society and Its Enemies" (Sir Karl Popper).

And the genocidal OT god.

I could have been wrong on that, and it might have been Socrates.

Any who, I will have to invite you over to Apologetics and we can go over the civil wars and the tribal wars of the Israelites. They had to survive, just like our Union of States. Was God genocidal to the Confedercy? If you were a Southern Plantation owner with slaves, what was "right".

Man is the Measure? Abe Lincoln morality, or an objective honest understanding of unalienable rights and Nature Law?
Equal by the gift of our Creator?

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that their liberties are the gift of God?"

[Richbee]

Hmmmm, sounds great in theory, but wait. Any thoughts?

The ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras claimed "man is the measure of all things."

O.K. so understood in the individual sense, this means each person is the standard for right and wrong. The morally right thing to do is what is morally right for me. And what is right for me may be wrong for another and vice versa.

Do no harm?

This theory is morally unacceptable because it implies that an act can be right for someone even if it is cruel, hateful, or tyrannical. Further, if this theory were put in practice, society would be rendered inoperative. There can be no true community where there is no common core of basic values. If everyone literally "did his own thing," chaos would result. Finally, this theory does not tell us which aspect of human nature should be taken as the measure of all things. One cannot simply beg the question by taking only the "good aspects." For that implies some standard of good beyond individuals or the race by which one can tell what is good and what is evil in human nature or activity.

[technomage]

For heaven's sake, Clutch, I have better things to do thatn sit here and listen to you quote yourself! :lol:

[Richbee]

For heaven's sake, Clutch, I have better things to do thatn sit here and listen to you quote yourself! :lol:

Something tells me that God has heard all of Protagoras as well. ;-)

Indeed, God is the measure for Good. Because quite literally, God is good.

[technomage]

Something tells me that God has heard all of Protagoras as well. ;-)

Indeed, God is the measure for Good. Because quite literally, God is good.

Y'know, Rich, I also had a time in my life where I couldn't hold a coherent conversation. That time ended about sixteen years ago when I stopped smoking pot. You might want to try quitting ... heaven knows your communication needs all the help it can get!

[Richbee]

Y'know, Rich, I also had a time in my life where I couldn't hold a coherent conversation. That time ended about sixteen years ago when I stopped smoking pot. You might want to try quitting ... heaven knows your communication needs all the help it can get!

Lighten up, can't you take a joke?

I trust that God had enough of the ramblings of Protagoras during his lifetime.

Now God, and by God's grace and mercy, he has had quite enough of all Humanistic philosophies.

And, that includes Wicca!

Thank goodness that God is a God of second chances!!! :yes:

[HRG_new]

Something tells me that God has heard all of Protagoras as well. ;-)

Indeed, God is the measure for Good. Because quite literally, God is good.

By whose definition of "good" ? Not by the usual definition of "good", which is incompatible with commanding or committing genocide.

P.S. No matter what some websites may say, "God" and "good" do not come from the same Germanic or Indo-European root.

[Richbee]

By whose definition of "good" ? Not by the usual definition of "good", which is incompatible with commanding or committing genocide.

P.S. No matter what some websites may say, "God" and "good" do not come from the same Germanic or Indo-European root.

God is also, Just.

While some refuse to read the Bible in context, for a few, with a little homework enlightenement is not far away.

Who are you to become a god, and Judge the Judgement of GOD?

[Geifodd]

Now God, and by God's grace and mercy, he has had quite enough of all Humanistic philosophies.

If he isn't going to bother revealing himself face-to-face to each and every single intelligent organism in existence and give concrete proof of his existence, then he doesn't have any right to complain about it. If he has had "quite enough" of it, then he can either snap his fingers and make us sinners roast right now, or he can shut up.

Who are you to become a god, and Judge the Judgement of GOD?

I use the brain my Creator gave me to determine truth and falsehood for myself. And sadly, the "case for Christ" is nonexistent, due to a complete lack of objective evidence. You can posit subjective opinions all you like, but until you quantify with objective proof, you've got nothing.

And once again, your cute little scriptures do not count as "objective evidence." They are as subjective as Hitler's Mein Kempf. At least, until you can offer some *objective proof* to the contrary!

[tmancour]

While some refuse to read the Bible in context, for a few, with a little homework enlightenement is not far away.



But Clutch, you still haven't addressed the scriptures of the other great religions, and their own competing claims of exclusive possession of the Truth. Some are more ancient than the Bible. Some are better written and have a more secure line of authenticity. Why the Bible, and not the Koran or Baghavad Gita? Please convince me how, based on the same standards and read "in context", that all of these are lies and the Bible, alone of all the scriptures of the world, is the one complete and utterly reliable Truth?

I eagerly await your reply.

Arion

[Geifodd]

tmancour,

Far be it from me to play the role of a seer...But in my crystal ball, I see that Clutch Cargo will not be able to answer your question...In fact, I predict that he will dodge it with yet another one of his little sale pitches...But it is quite clear that no matter what, he will not be able to produce the quantification necessary to give you a real answer. That much is clear as crystal. :)

[Richbee]

But Clutch, you still haven't addressed the scriptures of the other great religions, and their own competing claims of exclusive possession of the Truth. Some are more ancient than the Bible. Some are better written and have a more secure line of authenticity. Why the Bible, and not the Koran or Baghavad Gita? Please convince me how, based on the same standards and read "in context", that all of these are lies and the Bible, alone of all the scriptures of the world, is the one complete and utterly reliable Truth?

I eagerly await your reply.

Arion

I do believe that other scriptures have some truth. Better written? Authentic? - How so? Have you seen any autographed first editions? Who wrote them? Really? Can you provide proof? (Note, that "wicca" was influenced by Theosophy that was in turn influenced by Eastern philosophy.)

Why did Buddha reject the Hindu scriptures? What were his own exclusive truth claims? When was he born? When did he die? What books did he write? Or, when were his teachings committed to writing?

Here is some suggested reading, and I quote: "The earliest Hindu literature, the Rig Veda, speaks often of “the Creator,” of “the One,” a Great God over all the other gods. He is called Varuna, and is closely related to the Zoroastrian god Ahura Mazdâ (“Wise Lord”) and the Greek god Uranus (Ourania).

Though an insignificant sea god in the current pantheon, Varuna was a prominent god in the ancient system, and the subject of many hymns in the Rig Veda. Zwemer writes that Varuna is “the most impressive of the Vedic gods. He is the prehistoric Sky-god whose nature and attributes point to a very early monotheistic conception”. This god is an ethical god, capable of great wrath or merciful forgiveness of sins.

Note this passage from the Vedas:


I do not wish, King Varuna,
To go down to the home of clay,
Be gracious, mighty lord, and spare.
Whatever wrong we men commit against the race
Of heavenly ones, O Varuna, whatever law
Of thine we here have broken through thoughtlessness,
For that transgression do not punish us, O god

(Rig Veda VII.lxxxix.1-3).

Varuna is already on the decline by the time the Vedas were committed to writing; Indra, a warrior god, takes prominence in the later Vedic period. Yet even then, Varuna is qualitatively different from Indra and all the other gods that follow him in the Vedic literature; he is less anthropomorphic and more majestic. Other Hindu deities act like humans in the same way as the Greek gods, yet Varuna is above that.

It would seem that this god embodies many of the qualities of Jehovah, albeit diluted and removed by many hundreds of miles and years.

HOTLINK: Source (www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=4&itemid=2579)

Why the Bible?

In summary:

All religions are not the same.

All religions do not point to God.

All religions do not say that all religions are the same.

At the heart of every religion is a stubborn commitment to a particular way of defining who God is or is not - and a particular way of defining the meaning and purpose of life.

God is Speaking through his Word!!!

Contemplate the following account of:

A Hindu Testimony of finding Truth in the Bible:

....The Vedas and the other books were interesting, but they were decidedly speculative. There were no definite answers.

The Bible, on the other hand, pointed to definite answers. God loves people. God made His love known to people, of His own initiative, when He sent Jesus Christ to the world. A God pleading for me was a mind-boggling mystery.

I had been led to believe in searching for answers, and I had been taught that such a search could take many, many lives. Sages had attempted to discover the truth and the reality of Brahman for centuries, but without any success. I was under the conviction that real truth is found within oneself. God and man are essentially one. Separation comes from being born in this illusory world which catches man in its embrace and entices him away from finding the true meaning of life and existence. Deliverance is impossible unless one renounces the allurements of this world.

I had been trained to believe that God is unknowable, and therefore, beyond the reach of man.

And here was Jesus Christ, hanging on the cross, bleeding to death at the hands of Roman soldiers, declaring his forgiveness for their crass brutalities -- God searching for man and not man looking for God within himself."

Source:: Dr. Mahendra P. Singhal (www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-nwsl/web/crn0005a.html)

[Richbee]

Now God, and by God's grace and mercy, he has had quite enough of all Humanistic philosophies.

If he isn't going to bother revealing himself face-to-face to each and every single intelligent organism in existence and give concrete proof of his existence, then he doesn't have any right to complain about it. If he has had "quite enough" of it, then he can either snap his fingers and make us sinners roast right now, or he can shut up.

This area is about Wicca.

Would like to start a new thread under Apologetics and are you willing to TEST God?

And, on what basis do you believe in Satan, or the Devil? (Note, our only source is the Bible for this fallen angel.)

[Geifodd]

This area is about Wicca.

Indeed it is. If you can post here, so can I. What's your point?

Would like to start a new thread under Apologetics and are you willing to TEST God?

Already tested your god many times; he always fails. Complete waste of time.

And, on what basis do you believe in Satan, or the Devil? (Note, our only source is the Bible for this fallen angel.)

The basis of my belief is not important to the subject of this area. You yourself said it is about Wicca. Also, the basis of my belief is not really a subject for discussion anyway, considering that *I* am not the one trying to force my beliefs on others, like you are. Your claims are no better than anyone else's, nor are they any more verifiable; but the mere fact that you tell people that your claims are better than theirs puts the *burden of proof* on *your* shoulders. And objective evidence is one thing you haven't got. At least, not until you can yoink Jesus out of the heavens and shove him in my face. Maybe then you'll have objective evidence. Maybe.

But, just so you know where I'm coming from, I refer you to The Satanic Bible by Anton Szandor LaVey, The Book of Coming Forth by Night by Michael A. Aquino, and the The Mishaf Resh of the Yezidi Kurds. These all provide a source for the GOD OF THIS WORLD. Your Bible is not the "only" source by far.

Next!