Protagoras, a renowned professional in the art of persuasion, has an office at 37th floor of the Trump Tower in Manhattan, which is adjacent to the Pierre and Central Park. His date - Plato - wants to consult him "urgently" on a problem of "the utmost importance".
Plato gets out of the lift
But Plato is already coming out of the lift.
-Greetings, Plato!
-Protagoras!
Protagoras's vast office faces the bay window; at the end of the day, it is bathed in a shimmering orange glow that gives the vast work table a bronze sheen. Protagoras gave his client the choice of sitting with his back to the sun or facing it; nervous people often get irritated by low-angled light. Plato seemed agitated.
-Did you want to consult me?
-That's right!
Taking courage, Plato :
-The situation is becoming unbearable!
-Could you tell me more?
The problem
-Falsehood, Protagoras! Lies, illusions, fantasies, the denial of reality; the rejection of true reality, which is as blinding as this twilight sun! Lies spread their sordid mantle everywhere; nothing seems to stop them... Who will stand in their way? Who will correct the false conceptions of our contemporaries?
-Is falsehood on the rise?
-But it's everywhere! Can't you see it? The noble art of persuasion is being prostituted!
-I read the newspapers, which are more concerned with partisan politics than truth. Social networks are full of official and changing truths.
-It would be very difficult to identify even a remnant of objective thought! Who cares about truth, beauty.... of the general interest!
-What do you want from me?
-You have a reputation as a professional listener, trained in the art of persuasion. I would like you to help me forge an objective definition of truth, the better to combat sophistry.
Is there an objective reality?
Protagoras has not taken his eyes off Plato. He opines, without excess, in the face of a discourse that is certainly excessive, but not devoid of logic or sincerity.
-Could you explain exactly what you mean by a "sophistical conception of truth"?
-But... (Plato hesitates for a moment in view of the magnitude of the task). Let's start at the beginning: these sophists get paid! Advertisers, communications consultants, copywriters... They get paid! You heard me, getting paid! They hunt down the wealthy to sell them their services. Isn't this prostitution of knowledge disgusting?
-Do you associate with any of these sophists, Plato?
-I can't give a talk without them pestering me with questions about my supposedly 'absolutist' conception of truth!
The sophists
-If you don't mind my asking, Plato, how do you ensure your livelihood?
-I come from one of the oldest families in the North East. I don't have to worry about my livelihood. My business is ideas.
-Are these "sophists", as a rule, younger than you?
-Rather young.
-So, unlike you, most of them have no wealth at all?
-We can assume that this is the case.
-Shouldn't everyone earn their keep?
-I don't disagree. But what are you getting at? I'm not criticising them for earning their "pittance", as you put it. But of prostituting their knowledge!
-Isn't it natural for everyone to make their own bread using their own skills rather than those of their neighbours?
-The way to do things differently!
-But then, if your sophists do indeed possess knowledge, as you point out, is it surprising that they offer it as a service?
-Sophism! I don't blame them for making a living. It's that they sell their technique to clients who don't hesitate to use it to tell lies!
-Is my mother accountable for the use I make of the language she taught me?
Plato, taken aback:
-What are you talking about your mother? Of course she's not responsible for the way you use the language she taught you! - of the language she taught you!
-Will we hold the sophist to account for the uses made of the technique he teaches? For the same reasons, Plato?
As Plato pauses, Protagoras contemplates his handsome and noble face. Plato seemed to gain in intellectual concentration what he had lost in nervousness. Protagoras continues:
-If you don't mind, Plato, I'd like to get to the heart of the matter: the strange conception of truth that these sophists have.
Man is the measure of all things
-At last!
-What is the Sophistic concept of truth?
Plato thought for a moment, then said:
-One of them, whose name escapes me, had this horrible phrase " Man is the measure of all things: for those that are, of their existence; for those that are not, of their non-existence.. " That sums up the whole affair, and reveals the dreadful relativism of sophistry, this unveiling of the fine art of persuasion!
-How do you interpret this sentence?
-Isn't it crystal clear? Nothing exists without the endorsement of an individual judgement. Man decides on the existence of all things - literally, he decrees their existence! - and the non-existence of anything he doesn't like. What appalling hybristic buffoonery!
-Stated in these terms, this sentence does indeed seem comical.
-So we're in agreement!
-However, Plato, isn't it possible to interpret this sentence in another, more... measured, way?
-The terms are clear! Are you a relativist, Protagoras?
The problem of relativism
-Heaven forbid!
-Let's hear it!
-Well - and this is just a hypothesis - what do you think of this observation? measure of everything.
-And?
-Measurement, not author.
-I'm not following you.
-If the author of this sentence had wished to express a thesis as perfectly relativistic as you suppose, why use the word measure - What is the meaning of a word such as 'author', 'creator', or even 'demiurge'? Would we say of a demiurge that he is the 'measure' of the world, or that he is its creator?
-Once again, I can't hear you. You remind me of those ratiocinators mocked by Aristophanes in the Clouds ! Besides, don't you see that the sentence continues: "Man is the measure of all things, for those who are, of their existence, ... " There is no better way to express the idea that man - the individual! - decides to existence of things, and not only of their measure !
The two components of reality
-That notwithstanding, the word measure is first, in form and in substance.
-Please explain.
-Well, if I say "Man is the measure of all things, for those that are, of their existence, ...", I mean that for existing things, man is the measure. The measure, not the authorthe decision-maker, the inventor. To tell the truth, I only see a humble surveyor in this sentence, Plato, no demiurge.
Plato, musing:
-I understand and respect your logic, because it's based on objective factors. But you don't convince me. It all sounds like a lot of sophistry to me!
At no point did Protagoras stop staring at his interlocutor's face. The art of persuasion is a strange dynamic, he mused. He was interested in the intellectual mechanics unfolding before him, a fragile and peculiar interweaving of reason and emotion.
Straightening up, Plato :
-Well, my dear Protagoras, it's my turn to ask you a question.
-You're welcome!
-Here I am, face to face with you. Would you say that my existence, that of Plato, depends on your judgement? That I didn't exist before entering your office, and that I will cease to exist as soon as I leave the atrium of this imposing building?
-I certainly wouldn't venture to support such a burlesque thesis!
The objective component
Plato, triumphant:
-Which shows you, my dear Protagoras, that you are in no way the measure of my existence. Your art of persuasion doesn't impress me. My existence, an objective fact, escapes your judgement entirely. This claim to be the 'measure' of a reality we have no control over is nothing but a vulgar sophism! Reality is not arbitrary !
-Admirable reasoning.
In satisfaction, Plato silently smoothed his beard. He thinks of the intrinsic superiority of his being, which can in no way depend on the judgement of an inferior creature.
-However, ...
-Your "however" puts my nerves to the test, Protagoras. What sense does it make to concede the argument, only to retract it in the moment?
-I'm not retracting anything. I'm just making a clarification.
-Because I have to!
-Even if I agree with your enlightening demonstration, the term existence remains polysemous.
-I don't see how existence is polysemous. What is exists, what is not, does not exist. Read Parmenides again!
-Remember when you came into this office. I let you choose whether to sit facing the sun or with your back to it.
-That's right.
-You choose to leave the celestial flame behind you.
-That's right.
-Why is this?
-Because I can't stand the sun in my eyes!
The subjective component
-Would you describe this discomfort as real?
-There's no doubt about it: my eyes get irritated, red and itchy, and then I cry!
Protagoras pauses; then :
-It won't have escaped you that I'm facing the sun.
-Your eyes are probably less sensitive than mine!
-I'm in.
-But I'm guessing, Protagoras, that a "however" is looming on the horizon of your soothing speech!
-The 'however' you've just expressed is that you're blinded by the blaze of the sun on the horizon, whereas I'm indifferent to it.
-The fact remains that my discomfort is real, it exists!
-My lack of discomfort is just as real; in my case, it doesn't exist!
-Oh, please, Protagoras, don't tell me you're equating sensation with science! Sensation is not science!
-Did I make such a claim? Is it not important, when questioning a thesis, not to sew onto it a scope that is not its own? "Sensation is science' seems to me to be a very silly idea indeed!
-Weren't you just saying...?
-That your discomfort is real and that my lack of discomfort is no less real. Will we invent disagreements?
Dismayed, Plato:
-We are sophists and relativists! What a catastrophe! What was the point of coming to consult the Trump Tower philosopher if it meant adding to the world's misery?
-Is there not a reality which, beyond your embarrassment and my lack of embarrassment, somehow transcends them? A truth that imposes itself, independently of you and me?
Sunshine in your eyes
-For my part, I believe that it is in the secret of my soul that I am best able to contemplate the truth of things. Indeed, I believe that my soul, before being united with my body, was bathed in the world of essences and that by concentrating the powers of my mind, it is up to me to reconstruct the memory.
-Isn't it a kind of paradox, Plato, to seek in your subjectivity the essence of this truth that you deny everyone else the right to measure?
-What are you proposing?
-Of course! The sun! The sun's out and it doesn't give a damn about the inconvenience it causes us!
-So where does the truth lie, Protagoras?
-You're right: it's time to summarise our exchange. Shall I risk it?
-Please do!
- Feel free to correct me. We have shown that, in the search for truth, two theses must be rejected. The first is the relativist thesis, according to which there are only individual truths, and nothing beyond the judgements and opinions of each individual. This thesis, which we could call the individual as the living law of the Universe, is false and untenable in practice. Do we agree?
-Entirely! This is the interpretation I was proposing of the sophist maxim. Interpreted in this way, the maxim is as false as it gets!
-Similarly, we reject the objectivist thesis, according to which truth is one, whole, intangible and external to man. We have shown, with the example of the sun, that this claim of a dehumanised Universe is just as excessive as the previous one. Do you still agree?
In conclusion
-Your illustration of the sun forces me to recognise the individual component of truth. However - now I'm talking like you! - we lack a general definition of truth!
-That's a question I've often asked myself, Plato. What is truth? I confess that I am unable to answer it.
-But how? Should we be satisfied with a definition that has barely been sketched out, and only by rejecting what it is not? What a curious concept of the art of persuasion!
Plato and Protagoras agree to meet again.
Cogito Library, 2023. Resources marked 'Bibliothèque Cogito' may be freely reproduced, quoted or copied, even in their entirety, on the sole and express condition that a hyperlink is included to the page of the resource borrowed.