Monday, February 23, 2009

A Small Philosophy Rant

Protagoras, a professional sophist of ancient Greece, saw the world through a completely subjective lens. He believed that what a person feels is true, is true for that person. Thus he concluded that all opinions are true, and that all truths are equal. In this entry I will point out an error in reasoning that I believe Protagoras committed in his assertion that all reality is subjective.

Protagoras once said, “Of all things the measure is man.” In this statement, “things” represent any given object or condition in the universe, the “measure” is the judgment or “truth” ascribed to these objects or conditions, and “man” in any individual person. Therefore, we can rewrite his statement in such a way that it more directly states what he wanted to convey as, “The truth about reality is completely dependent on your own views and opinions.” Protagoras used several examples to demonstrate his point of view. He spoke of the wind blowing upon two individuals, one feeling cold and the other comfortable. This example, he felt, proved that the wind itself had no intrinsic quality and that it being “cold” was totally up to the interpretation of those feeling it. Thus, he concluded that objective reality does not exist; rather, all reality is subject to each person’s experience of it.

I contend that Protagoras was making an error in the way he defined objective reality. Specifically, cannot claim what is inherently subjective to be objective. Qualities such cold, hot, nice, mean, exciting, depressing, horrifying, comedic, etc, are all subjective by nature. One cannot objectively state what is “hot” without selecting a completely arbitrary temperature and saying, “everything above this is now considered hot.” In this sense, Protagoras was correct; the sensation of cold wind or hot soup is subjective to one’s own experience. However the problem with his reasoning is that he neglects the fact that reality does have objective qualities about it that we interpret subjectively. The objective fact about the wind, for example, may be that it is blowing at five miles an hour, at 30 degrees Fahrenheit. These are the objective facts about the wind. Whether these facts cause one to feel “cold” or not is subjective to their experience, but it does not change the facts of reality. The soup may be 100 degrees Fahrenheit, comprised of chicken broth and noodles, etc. These are the objective facts about the soup. To ignore the objective nature of the reality in favor or subjective ratings such as “I think the soup is hot, therefore it is hot to me and thus has no objective nature on its own,” is to commit a serious fallacy in reasoning.

The distinction between objective reality and subjective interpretations of reality is an important one to grasp. If a person is diagnosed as having a tumor in their leg, yet they state that they experience it as “a bad leg cramp,” it doesn’t change the inarguable fact that they have a tumor. This is where the distinction needs to be applied. The existence of the tumor is objective (given proper medical analysis). The belief that it’s “not that bad” is a subjective opinion drawn from the facts. Opinions do not equate to facts, and thus the tumor must be acknowledged for what it is. It is because of this objective/subjective distinction that weathermen cannot report a “Category Two” hurricane as a “small storm” simply because they don’t feel that it’s very serious. The incontrovertible fact is that a hurricane is approaching, and subjective interpretations of how bad it may or may not be aside, the people need to know the facts.

It is my opinion that the divide between objective reality and subjective interpretations of reality is at the heart of every single argument, from the trivial to the very serious. For example, a husband paints the bedroom walls lime green because he thinks it “looks groovy.” The wife gets home and is furious because she thinks it “looks hideous.” There are hundreds of objective facts about the situation; chief among them is that the walls are now lime green. Another objective fact that comes into play is that the husband did not ask the wife if she would like the walls to be lime green. The argument arises out of the subjective interpretations of lime green walls. The husband thinks they look groovy and the wife thinks they look hideous. In truth, the walls are neither groovy nor hideous; they are lime green. This is the distinction I mentioned above at work. Reality exists in definite terms, and cannot be equated with interpretations.