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, 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, 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?

Thomas Jefferson

"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?"

© source where applicable

[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?

Norman "Norm" L. Geisler

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.

© source where applicable

[technomage]

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

[Richbee]

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

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!!!

[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?