What is knowledge? Knowledge, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. Knowledge is also known to be “true, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion”. Knowledge can be objective, but can also be relative. Knowledge can be objective meaning it is free of any bias or prejudice caused by personal feelings or beliefs. Knowledge can be relative meaning that a term, thing, or concept that is dependent on something else. But then again, which is correct; this argument came up in Protagoras’ claim. Protagoras claimed that man is the measure of all things. In this paper I will argue that Protagoras’ claim is true.
What is Protagoras denoting by his use of the word measure? Suppose someone is making milkshakes at home and the glasses are different sizes. One can claim that one has less of the milkshake than the other one because of the size of the glasses. How do you think this would normally be settled? Of course this would be done by measuring the drinks. Using one measuring cup of pouring each individual drink in at a time to measure it and repeat the process with the other drink. That would indicate who has more of the milkshake than the other. One might believe that one has less, but once it is compared in the measuring cup, one can give up the claim. The measuring cup is a measure and the resulting measurement signifies what we should believe about the amount of the milkshakes. Most of us would naturally say that it gives us the truth; it tells us who has the majority of the milkshake. So therefore, a measure is an independent standard, a criterion, in which we refer to when...
... middle of paper ...
... me wrong or you wrong, all we would go on is our own separate belief.
Since Protagoras claimed that man is the measure of all things it is true or reflective of reality, then nobody is ever wrong about anything. This means that nobody deserves criticism, judgment, or correction for anything that they say, their beliefs, or their actions. Protagoras’ claim empowers us; it implies that each of us, as individuals having individual beliefs, are the creators of his or her own truth. Our truth is based on the social traditions in which we are accustomed to. Our truth is determined by our culture and our habituation. It is shaped by the experiences that we have had, those that are yet to come, and our precise biopsychology. There is no way a person can form a culture-free or perspective free belief. Truth is the relativeness of one’s inner most innate tug with morality.
His text offers philosophical and cultural meaning that is completely original. Certain beliefs are threaded through out the content of the
(160d) Socrates points out the contradicting beliefs that Protagoras would have had in maintaining relative truths, for to do so would be to remove the ability for one man to know more/better than another (161). It seems strange to say then, again coming from Protagoras, that one is more knowledgeable than another, and is worthy of payment to teach men who are less knowledgeable. In addition to this, as discussed above, Protagoras’ account is based on future possibility and thus has no place in discussing what actually is or in the process of becoming. To claim truth based on a future event (that which has not yet come to pass) fails requirement (1) of any definition of knowledge. Similar issues are faced in theories of knowledge and justification that rely heavily on probability. Mainly that the probability of a claim being true cannot provide actual, instant, justification for a belief (which in turn makes the theory that K=JTB
For many years humans have pursued the meaning of truth, knowledge and understanding. For many this pursuit of understanding the meaning of truth doesn’t end until one finds a “truth” that is nourishing to them. Even if this is the case one may choose to look for an alternate truth that may be more satisfactory to them. This pursuit of truth does not always have to follow the same path as there may be different ideas for everyone on how truth is actually obtained and which is a better way to obtain the truth is. Two philosophers of their time, Plato and Charles Peirce had their own methodologies and ideas on how truth and knowledge could be obtained.
...that what they believe might not be correct, it is what they believe but others do not have to believe that they are right.
...lliams, it would be impossible for either the alien or myself to convert between each other’s systems. It is not the case that the alien refuses to convers with me about my belief because he is confident in his belief. Rather, the alien cannot even assess what my beliefs are. In the terms Schafer provides, our trutho differ so drastically that our truths cannot even be assessed in the same system, let alone same context. The alien case shows that notional confrontations are mistaken to be resisting a conversation because they appear to be conversations towards convergence, yet are actually conversions.
(DK80b1): “Of all things the measure is man, of the things that are, that [or "how"] they are, and of things that are not, that [or "how"] they are not.” Protagoras brand of ethical relativism suggested that morality is subjective to the relative context, such as culture, within a family, or even autonomous authority. In the Plato’s Theaetetus Socrates and Theaetetus have a discussion that centers primarily around the epistemology of Protagoras and Heraclitus that knowledge is only perceptions. Socrates puts forth his objections and alternatives. His alternatives likewise center around his theory of the forms and the objectivity of this theory. If knowledge is perceptions to Protagoras, then you can see how morality would be subjective. If I say it is wrong to eat a horse, and someone from Europe says that it is not wrong to eat a horse, then the wrongness of that statement is relative to the culture. Taken further, if one person perceives x as wrong and another person perceives x as right the truth value is relative to an autonomous authority. The distinction in this the ethical nihilism of Gorgias is that there is still belief that these statements have normative value that is truth value.
The dictionary definition of knowledge is information acquired by a person through experience or education. Knowledge in the 21st century is viewed as a thought that is backed up by facts or evidence, therefore making this idea a very credible one to many. I believe that there is no such thing as knowledge, but rather justified true belief. The facts and the evidence used to amount to so called knowledge are just opinions of very educated people meaning they are falsifiable just like any other opinion. Edmund Gettier backs up this claim with, “it is possible for a person to be justified in a proposition that is in fact false” (109). On the other hand, a justified true belief is one that has plenty of evidence and reasons to believe that it is true, but it is also known that there could very well be evidence against this belief. A good example of justified true belief would be the principle of God. There is no way to know for a fact that the God people learn about and worship exists, for the fact that no one that is alive today has met God. However, as far as the other end of the argument goes there are reasons such as; reproduction, respiratory relationship between plants and humans, the urge to seek love, and many others to believe that God is alive and well today. If these ideas were facts that could be wholeheartedly
In Plato’s Theaetetus, Socrates examines the first definition of knowledge that theaetetus gives that knowledge is perception. Socrates gives us many example that both supports and refutes that knowledge is perception. The basic claim from Protagoras is that truth is based on the perception of every man. This means that things are to any person as they seem to that person. Socrates explains to us Protagoras’s view with the cold wind example.
By definition, knowledge is the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (Merriam-Webster.com). In the novel Frankenstein, Mary Shelley considers knowledge as a “dangerous” factor. The danger of it is proved throughout the actions of the characters Robert Walton, Victor Frankenstein, and the creature. The characters all embody the theme of knowledge in different ways. Shelley supports her opinion on knowledge by using references from the Bible and Paradise Lost.
Edward Schiappa's cogent and eloquent book fully deserves the praise it has received. As Donovan Ochs observes in his 1991 review of the book (RSQ 21: 3942), Schiappa, presents a clear account of Protagoras' philosophy and supports his reading with a detailed analysis of each of Protagoras' five extant fragments. But even though Schiappa's reading is compelling, we need not necessarily be persuaded by it; for as Protagoras himself remarks, it is always possible to articulate two opposed accounts about everything, and to make the ostensibly weaker account stronger. In this review I will undertake a "Protagorean" project, articulating and defending an account of Protagoras' philosophy that is opposed to Schiappa's account. To this end I will briefly sketch Schiappa's account, which I label an "enlightenment" reading of Protagoras, and I will then sketch an opposed, "rhetoricist" reading of the Sophist.
How we approach the question of knowledge is pivotal. If the definition of knowledge is a necessary truth, then we should aim for a real definition for theoretical and practical knowledge. Methodology examines the purpose for the definition and how we arrived to it. The reader is now aware of the various ways to dissect what knowledge is. This entails the possibility of knowledge being a set of truths; from which it follows that one cannot possibly give a single definition. The definition given must therefore satisfy certain desiderata , while being strong enough to demonstrate clarity without losing the reader. If we base our definition on every counter-example that disproves our original definition then it becomes ad hoc. This is the case for our current defini...
Protagoras is a sophist, he is a teacher of wisdom knowledge and virtue and persuades his students that what he is saying is believable. While Protagoras and Socrates get into an argument
In his epistemological quest for truth, through thought experiment, Descartes’ Meditations offers the reader a method of doubt that could be used in order to discover what is absolutely certain, and free oneself from the errors caused by misjudgments. Descartes’ purpose is to find indubitable truth. He makes used of the method of hyperbolic doubt in order to establish an absolute and convincing foundation of truth. He discovers that sense experience can be put to doubt, but Descartes cannot doubt that he actually doubts. Furthermore, he fears deception about everything. However, he cannot be deceived about his own existence since to be deceived, one must first exist. “I think, therefore I am”. I...
This paper will dispute that scientific beliefs are not the right way to accept a belief and it will question if we should let one accept their rights to their own beliefs. In Williams James article Will to Believe, we accept his perspective on how we set and fix our beliefs. This paper will first outline his overview on the argument that someone does not choose their belief but rather one just has them. Following, it will outline my perspective on how we set our beliefs and agreement with purse. Then it will explain how other methodologies such as science cannot conclude to one’s true beliefs. Science has been seen as a way to perceive life and taken to consideration as the truth. This paper should conclude that humans define ourselves by
Nietzsche’s contradictory remarks about the nature of truth raised many controversial debates in the scientific and philosophical world. At first sight, the rejection of the theory seems quite paradoxical. The denial of the existence of truth causes the problem of self-reference. In asserting: ‘Is it true that there is no truth?’, the claim turns out to be true in either affirmative or negative sense. Nietzsche analyses the notion of truth mostly in the unpublished essay Truth and Lie in which he raises various arguments. It is important to distinguish between the causal and normative evaluative sense concerning the question of truth: ‘why do we value truth?’ and ‘why should we value truth?’ The causal and genetic account of truth consists in the essential utility to know the truth of certain beliefs as a tool for survival. For example, the Darwinian evolutionary account describes the likelihood of an offspring to adapt and survive in a given environment. On this proposal, truth is valuable as a way to further human reproduction in the generations to come. On the other hand, there is the normative evaluative theory that analyses the ultimate meaning of truth. On this view, Nietzsche is mostly not concerned about metaphysical truth but, rather, analyses the reason why humans care about truth as the most overriding value. The former theory fails to provide an answer to this question, unless we consider survival as the ultimate motivating force of life. According to Nietzsche, truth is not the only ultimate value that there is in life, but also other important aspects of life such as the promotion of high culture and genius. These two values will be analyzed In greater detail later in this essay.