So Plato is a dark-age idiot. Looks like you are trying to be smarter and more philosophically intelligent than Plato. Plato did not agree but he understood what Protagoras meant.
Note my reply to Phyllo above.
Note this is not an English forum but a Philosophical Forum where language is merely a crude tool of Philosophy-proper.
Note my reply to Phyllo above.
Note Plato mentioned ‘absolute truth’ [not interpretations] in the first para and refer to Philosophical Realism in the latter para.
Prism, you really need to make your own case and stop trying to argue what much older and wiser people than you believed and said. You are not understanding anyone’s words properly (nor using them properly) and confusing yourself considerably. Fortunately most people can see your errors pretty easily.
Everyone, except you it seems, already knows that. They are way, way past you. You haven’t gotten out of the shallow waters yet.
And if you are going to throw Plato into it, it might help if you would stop conflating absolute morals with absolute truth. Plato also believed that NO ONE was predisposed to evil, shooting down yet another of your sermons.
I did not say I agree with Plato’s all or even his main thesis, e.g. Forms, Universals, the Ideal, etc.
I stated in the OP, Plato understood [not agreed] Protagoras re absolute truth.
Btw, do you have any solid counters against Protagoras subject to you understanding his philosophy re the OP.
I will counter/argue/debate with YOU, not with what you think other people have said.
Now what is YOUR argument? And try to get the words right.
The central point of argument is Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism which I have raised in various posts.
Many posters here think the ideas of Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism is my own invention.
The purpose of the OP is to highlight the issue of Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism in Western Philosophy it traceable to Protagoras in 420 BC.
Any commentary or critique of the Protagoras’ statement is thus still related/relevant to the issue of Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism.
And in those posts, you have demonstrated that you don’t understand the words.
Which words? Note it is very typical different people have different views in relations to words used in Philosophy. For example the term ‘realism’ in Philosophical Realism is a farce.
What is worst from you is, your philosophical knowledge is so narrow and shallow that you do not understand the philosophical terms.
I suggest you research on the topics extensively and do not just confine to ‘Wiki’ which I had used merely as a lead and convenience.
So that’s your argument?
Well you noticed the right word, “Realism”. You still don’t comprehend what the word means. You keep wanting to argue about whether there is a Reality. The word “Realism” isn’t about Reality. It is about only the belief that there is a Reality.
A realist is one who (just as your own quote stated) accepts the point of view, the perspective, the belief, that there is a reality. Whether he is right or wrong about that is irrelevant to the fact that he is a “Philosophical Realist”.
Realism is a BELIEF concerning a Reality.
Now. Can you understand at least that one word? That it is merely a belief or point of view and not a statement or declaration?
You are again refusing to - at least - try to understand what other ILP members say. This is because of your stubborn ignorance. You are ignoring all arguments that have proven you wrong, and you are isolating those arguments of the other ILP members that can only be attacked then if and only if they are isolated from their context, so that they just look like mere statements but not like arguments any more. Your many logical fallacies and your anti-logical mindset in general can be proven very easily. Almost everyone has done this in each of your threads.
Another point is that you misuse famous, preferably the most famous philosophers like Kant and Plato as strawmen. The last time you misused Kant as a strawman, this time you misuse Plato and Protagoras as strawmen.
Plato interpreted as well as you do. You yourself quoted this:
Yes, INTERPRETED BY PLATO.
Note what I said about the truth.
But what does your “anti-reality” mean?
Every “anti-reality” refers to reality. It is also an interpretation of reality. Otherwise a speaker of “anti-reality” would not know what this speaker is talking about (this reminds me of somebody.)
Plato said that the true reality was an ideality as the reality of the ideas. The ideal realm is different from the real realm. But in order to exist, the ideal realm must be a bit similar to the real realm. Otherwise we could not say anything about it, since we would not know know what it “is”. We have to refer to reality even then if we are talking about ideality.
If ideality is to you what you call “anti-reality”, then it is your interpretation, so that you would have to tell us what your definition of “reality” is, but you have already said almost everywhere that you believe in your schizoid and delusional “multiple realities”. So it is very probable that you believe that the “anti-reality” also belongs to this “multiple realities”. In addition, you believe in an “anti-objectivity”, which means that you believe in solipsism. So according to your belief, each solipsist has an own reality or/and an own “anti-reality” or/and even own “multiple realities”, and you do not care about the contradictions that are integrated in your belief and religion.
So if I only see the front of an object (e.g. human face) and assume that this object has a back of specific kind (e.g. back of head) I am not the one who is performing this measurement? Instead, this measurement is objective i.e. true no matter what? Simply because one says so?
You really don’t understand the answer to this question?
What one believes and how one acts are two different things. I can believe in realism but act like a solipsist. If I think that all of my opinions are necessarily true, i.e. that they are necessarily unquestionably reality itself, then I am practically a solipsist even if I believe that my opinions reflect an external reality that is somewhere out there.
‘BElIEF’ is worse.
The critical point is how do you prove your belief of Realism is true?
Truth = facts = verifiable and justifiable by evidence and supported by reason.
I contradict as no one has contradicted hitherto, and am nevertheless the reverse of a negative spirit. I am the harbinger of joy, the like of which has never existed before; I have discovered tasks of such lofty greatness that, until my time, no one had any idea of such things. Mankind can begin to have fresh hopes, only now that I have lived. Thus, I am necessarily a man of Fate. For when Truth enters the lists against the falsehood of ages, shocks are bound to ensue, and a spell of earthquakes, followed by the transposition of hills and valleys, such as the world has never yet imagined even in its dreams. The concept “politics” then becomes elevated entirely to the sphere of spiritual warfare. All the mighty realms of the ancient order of society are blown into space—for they are all based on falsehood: there will be wars, the like of which have never been seen on earth before. Only from my time and after me will politics on a large scale exist on earth.
-Nietzsche, Ecce Homo
Note Philosophical Anti-Realists do not believe in anti-reality per se. “Anti-” in this case is merely ‘against’ and Philosophical Anti-Realists have their own theory of what-is-reality.
What is reality is reality and that has to be justified philosophically and rationally.
What happened was within the Western Philosophy community, a group of people claimed their views represent reality, thus ‘Realism’.
Note this is only a claim but it is not necessary true.
Philosophical Realism as representing what-is-reality is a half-cooked theory.
The Philosophical Anti-Realists are a group of those who do not agree with the Realists’ view of ‘what is reality’.
The Philosophical Anti-Realists has their own philosophical views of ‘what is reality.’
The Philosophical Anti-Realists general believe reality is mind-interdependent but there are various forms to this general view.
You may not realize it, in fact your views are solipistic and implicit/inherent your view of reality is solipsism. Note my proof of this in this thread;
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193716
Try to prove me wrong on this!
There is such a thing as linear thinking and in some minds this form of thinking is the only form of thinking that exists.
It’s possible that any opinion that you have, can be false/wrong.
However, nobody goes around thinking “I have this opinion and I know it’s false”. That wouldn’t make any sense. Everybody thinks that the opinions they hold are true.
False.
“Realism” is the belief that there is a Reality, regardless of whether anyone fully understands that reality.
Learn the words.
False.
The “Anti-realist” believes that there is NO Reality (just as you have claimed in the past). I would say that YOU are an “anti-realist”, but in reality, I think that you are merely confused and too busy preaching your sermons to learn anything.
He has a good reason to “not realize this”, because it is nonsense.
The question is WHO decides whether any given opinion is true or false. Is it humans, as Protagoras says, or is it something that is independent from humans e.g. objective reality? If you say the former, i.e. humans, then you’re a dark-age idiot as per James’s definition. (I believe James is a dark-age idiot too.)