Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 


[german]  

Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.

The author or concept searched is found in the following 2 entries.
Disputed term/author/ism Author
Entry
Reference
Recognition Protagoras
 
Books on Amazon
Taureck I 98
Erkenntnis/Welt/Protagoras/Taureck: These: Der Mensch ist das Maß aller Dinge. (Satz "M", "Homo mensura Satz"). "Aller Dinge Maß ist der Mensch, der Seienden, dass sie sind, der nicht Seienden, dass sie nicht sind."
Andere Übersetzung:
"...ein Mensch,...wie sie sind."
Interpretation auf den ersten Blick: Erkenntnis, Wahrheit, das Gute und Schöne sind anthropologisch verstehbar. >Relativität des Wissens.
I 99
HobbesVsProtagoras: (Leviathan, 1651): "Mensch" beschreibt die Quelle aller Irrtümer. BaconVsProtagoras: (1561 1626): die Behauptung, der menschliche Sinn sei das Maß aller Dinge, ist unzutreffend. Der menschliche Verstand gleicht einem Spiegel, der die Strahlen nicht gleichmäßig zurückwirft, sondern seine Natur in die Dinge hineinmischt und verfälscht.
Protagoras/Taureck: es gibt keinen Hinweis, dass Protagoras selbst seinen Satz irgendwie kritisch verstanden hätte.
I 100
Protagoras: über die Götter vermag ich nichts zu wissen, die Verborgenheit und die Kürze des Lebens hindert mich.
Taureck I 101
Sextus Empiricus: (150 - ~ 250) erklärt, warum die Skeptiker Protagoras nicht zu den ihren zählten: + ... verwechselt "metron" mit Kriterium...
I 104
Protagoras: Paradoxie von Sinnen und Verstand: die Sinne sprechen zum Verstand: "Unglücklicher Verstand, von uns nimmst du die Beglaubigungen, mit denen du uns wiederlebst. Deine Widerlegung ist Dein Untergang!".


Tau I
B. H.F. Taureck
Die Sophisten Hamburg 1995
Relativism Putnam
 
Books on Amazon
Horwich I 436
Realtivism/Putnam: My main concern in the book truth, reason and history. (Putnam Thesis: explanation, interpretation and ethics are not in the same boat - "Companions in guilt" argument: In case of partial relativism, the total relativism threatens - (PutnamVsHarman). ---
Horwich I 503
PutnamVsCultural Relativism/PutnamVsRelativism/M. Williams: internal contradiction: E.g. if I as a cultural relativist say that if you say that something is true according to the standards of your culture, then I say, in reality, that this is true according to the standards of my own culture. - I cannot express the transcendental assertion which is the heart of relativism that all cultures are in the same position. - Opposition: truth for a culture is something absolute, which contradicts the alleged relativity. ---
Putnam III 139f
Relativism/PutnamVsWilliams: acts as if science would consist of objective individual judgments, whereas one would have to take or reject the "culture" as a whole. ---
V 141
Awareness/PutnamVsLocke: that stones do not have one, is a fact about our notion of consciousness - Problem: that makes truth ultimately dependent on our cultural standards. ---
V 165
Relativism/tradition: easy to refute, because he himself had to set absolutely, otherwise its position is not more secure than any other. - PlatoVsProtagoras (relativist): Regress "I think that I think that snow is white". - PutnamVsPlato: it does not follow that it must be iterated indefinitely, just that it could. - Modern Relativism/Foucault, discourse relativity: everything is relative, also the relativism - Vs: Problem: if "absolutely true relative to person P": then no total relativism - no relativist wants the relativism applies to everything. ---
I 241
Justified Assertibility/Dewey/Rorty: depends on the majority in a culture. - Norms and standards are historical and reflect interests. - PutnamVsRorty: regardless of the majority, but not transcendental reality but characteristic of the concept of entitlement. PutnamVsRelativism/VsRealism: both claim they can be simultaneously inside and outside the language. ---
I 249
Relativism/Putnam: the world is not a "product" (of our culture), it is only the world.

Pu I
H. Putnam
Von einem Realistischen Standpunkt Frankfurt 1993

Pu II
H. Putnam
Repräsentation und Realität Frankfurt 1999

Pu III
H. Putnam
Für eine Erneuerung der Philosophie Stuttgart 1997

Pu IV
H. Putnam
Pragmatismus Eine offene Frage Frankfurt 1995

Pu V
H. Putnam
Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990


Hor I
P. Horwich (Ed.)
Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994

The author or concept searched is found in the following 2 controversies.
Disputed term/author/ism Author Vs Author
Entry
Reference
Garfinkel, H. Putnam Vs Garfinkel, H.
 
Books on Amazon
Horwich I 415
Relativism/Field pro: the relativism to which we are led here is coherent and manageable. Because it only refers to values, not to facts. Relativism/Garfinkel: (p. 119f): relativism about values is itself no evaluation, therefore there is no reason to believe that it itself is only relatively true. (Garfinkel "one liner").
PutnamVsGarfinkel: his argument is not applicable here.
Relativism/Protagoras/Plato/Field: this relativism is different: this claims that it is pointless to say that there is objectively Fs, but only Fs relative to us.
PutnamVsProtagoras: this relativism is incoherent. (Field ditto).
Internal realism/iR/Putnam: its own internal realism is immune to the objection VsProtagoras because Putnam says that our standards of rationality are objectively correct. So it is not a true relativism.

Pu I
H. Putnam
Von einem Realistischen Standpunkt Frankfurt 1993

Pu II
H. Putnam
Repräsentation und Realität Frankfurt 1999

Pu III
H. Putnam
Für eine Erneuerung der Philosophie Stuttgart 1997

Pu IV
H. Putnam
Pragmatismus Eine offene Frage Frankfurt 1995

Pu V
H. Putnam
Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990

Hor I
P. Horwich (Ed.)
Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994
Relativism Plato Vs Relativism
 
Books on Amazon
Putnam V 163
PlatonVsProtagoras (relativist): Protagoras: when I say X, I should actually say "I think X". No view has the same meaning for me as for anyone else.
PlatonVsRelativism: Recourse: if every statement X means: "I think X", then you have to insert infinitely:
(1) I think that I think that snow is white
V 164
PutnamVsPlaton: in this form the argument is not much good. Protagoras might agree, but it does not follow that his analysis must be indefinitely applied to itself, but only that it could! Plato, however, had noticed something very deep. Relativism, modern form: every culture, and every discourse has its own views, standards, requirements, and truth (and justification) is relative in relation to them.
Of course, it is naturally assumed that the question of whether X is relatively true to them, is something "absolute", in turn!

Pu V
H. Putnam
Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990