Dialogue between Pablo and Protagoras of Abdera

A Dialogue between Pablo and Protagoras of Abdera
By: D. McManaman

Pablo: Who’s the most popular Philosopher in the 20th Century?
Teacher: That’s debatable. Perhaps one can argue that--
Protagoras: Excuse me, fellas, but that’s not debatable. The most popular philosopher in the 20th century is none other than me.
Pablo: You?
Protagoras: Yes, me.
Pablo: Who are you?
Protagoras: Protagoras of Abdera.
Pablo: I’ve never heard of you before taking this course. How can you be the most popular philosopher?
Protagoras: Most people have never heard of me either. But they have fully embraced my ideas.
Pablo: So your ideas are the most popular, not you.
Protagoras: You cannot separate me from my ideas. They flow from my very identity.
Pablo: Really? And what are those ideas, might I ask?
Protagoras: "Of all things the measure is man, of the things that are that they are, and of the things that are not that they are not"
Pablo: What in the world does that mean?
Protagoras: Man is the measure of all things.
Pablo: I’ve never heard of that either.
Protagoras: Have you ever heard the expression “Everyone has a right to his own opinion”?
Pablo: Sure. I hear that all the time.
Protagoras: That’s my idea.
Pablo: Well how did you manage to determine that everyone has a right to his own opinion?
Protagoras: It’s easy. Parmenides did most of the work. Remember him?
Pablo: Indeed. “Is not” is nothing, and “nothing” is unthinkable.
Protagoras: That’s it.
Pablo: And change is an illusion because it is impossible to go from ‘is’ to ‘is not’.
Protagoras: Very good. But there is something else that is impossible, something that Parmenides failed to consider.
Pablo: Failed to consider? Parmenides?
Protagoras: It always happens in the history of philosophy. The great 20th century historian of philosophy, Etienne Gilson, said it best: “In the first place, philosophers are free to lay down their own sets of principles, but once this is done, they no longer think as they wish--they think as they can. In the second place,…any attempt on the part of a philosopher to shun the consequences of his own position is doomed to failure.”
Pablo: Are you telling me that you have drawn out the consequences of his position?
Protagoras: I am.
Pablo: What did he fail to consider?
Protagoras: If ‘is not’ is nothing, then falsity is also an illusion.
Pablo: Huh?
Protagoras: What do we mean when we say that something is false?
Pablo: We mean that is it not true.
Protagoras: Right.
Pablo: Right?
Protagoras: Right. ‘Is not’ true. “Is not’ is unthinkable, remember? And so it is unthinkable that something is not true.
Pablo: What does that prove?
Protagoras: That every perspective is just as true as any other perspective.
Pablo: Or, that everyone has a right to his own opinion because every opinion is just as true as any other opinion?
Protagoras: You learn fast.
Pablo: But what if I don’t believe you?
Protagoras: That’s your opinion, and you have a right to your opinion.
Pablo: Because it is right?
Protagoras: No, because it is your opinion.
Pablo: And if my opinion is wrong?
Protagoras: You mean false?
Pablo: I get it. So whatever my opinion is, --
Protagoras: You have a right to it.
Pablo: So do you have a right to your opinion because it is yours? Or, for some other reason?
Protagoras: Because it is mine.
Pablo: Why then are you imposing your opinion on me?
Protagoras: (Gasp) What a horrible thought. I’m not imposing my opinion on you. How dare you suggest such a thing!
Pablo: But you are telling me that I have a right to my opinion.
Protagoras: You do.
Pablo: That’s your opinion.
Protagoras: Of course it is.
Pablo: You’re imposing it on me.
Protagoras: You don’t have to accept it.
Pablo: I don’t. I don’t think that we necessarily have a right to our own opinion.
Protagoras: That’s your opinion. You have a right to it.
Pablo: There you go again. Imposing your opinion on me.
Protagoras: But I’m not. I’m just saying that you have a right to your own opinion. I’m giving you the right to your own opinion.
Pablo: And that’s your opinion. You argue that I have no right imposing my opinion on you--for you have a right to your opinion--but you insist on imposing your opinion on me. You are telling me that I have a right to my own opinion.
Protagoras: Okay, fine. You don’t have a right to your opinion. Does that make you feel better?
Pablo: Perhaps. But you are merely asserting it. You are not demonstrating it.
Protagoras: Because that is not my opinion, but yours.
Pablo: But you really didn’t demonstrate that I have a right to my own opinion. You merely asserted it. You did not show it.
Protagoras: Why do I have to show it?
Pablo: Because your reasoning could be invalid, or your premises might be false.
Protagoras: You’re telling me that there is such a thing as falsity?
Pablo: Of course.
Protagoras: Can you show this?
Pablo: Well, don’t you regard as true the opinion that I have a right to my opinion?
Protagoras: That’s my opinion.
Pablo: You really believe this?
Protagoras: I do indeed.
Pablo: So it’s a matter of faith?
Protagoras: If I believe it, I guess it is.
Pablo: In whom have you put your faith?
Protagoras: Huh? What do you mean?
Pablo: Faith is simply accepting as true something somebody tells you because you have evidence that the speaker is well informed about the subject and is honest.
Protagoras: Hey, I reasoned to my conclusion. Perhaps most people in your country believe it on faith. And you must admit, it sounds like it is the only opinion that respects our right to complete freedom and autonomy.
Pablo: Soundes like? I will certainly admit to that.
Protagoras: And if everyone has the right to his own opinion, we have to respect people’s autonomy.
Pablo: Perhaps I don’t believe this.
Protagoras: That’s your opinion, and you have a right to it. Just be sure to respect my right to my own opinion, or my right to my autonomy.
Pablo: Why should I respect your opinion? That’s your opinion, not mine.
Protagoras: It is.
Pablo: What if my opinion is not to respect your opinion, as well as your personal autonomy.
Protagoras: You’re violating my right to my opinion.
Pablo: But I have just as much right to my opinion as you do to yours.
Protagoras: That’s right.
Pablo: My opinion is that your personal autonomy need not always be respected.
Protagoras: Okay.
Pablo: Who is right?
Protagoras: Both of us.
Pablo: Both of us?
Protagoras: Both of us.
Pablo: But we’re contradicting ourselves.
Protagoras: That’s right.
Pablo: How can contradictories be true?
Protagoras: They can, because every perspective is true. Nothing can be false.
Pablo: Your opinion is wrong. You don’t have a right to your opinion!
Protagoras: Why do you say that?
Pablo: Because you said that I have a right to my own opinion.
Protagoras: Huh?
Pablo: If your opinion is right, then it is wrong at the same time. And if you have a right to your opinion, then you don’t have a right to your opinion.
Protagoras: That’s crazy!
Pablo: It is. But I got it from you.
Protagoras: How?
Pablo: You said that everyone has a right to his own opinion.
Protagoras: I did.
Pablo: That all opinions are equally true.
Protagoras: I did.
Pablo: Therefore, contradictories can be true at one and the same time.
Protagoras: Okay.
Pablo: That means you cannot be right without being wrong at the same time and in the same respect, and you cannot be wrong without being right at the same time and in the same respect..
Protagoras: I’m confused!
Pablo: You should be.
Protagoras: Why?
Pablo: Because denying the principle of non-contradiction leads to confusion. Every point of view is “fused with” (con-fused) every other point of view. What is true is false, and what is false is true.
Protagoras: Sounds good to me.
Pablo: Good? What is good is evil, and what is evil is good.
Protagoras: Now you are really not making any sense.
Pablo: That’s true.
Protagoras: Is it?
Pablo: Yes. And false at the same time.
Protagoras: Which is it?
Pablo: Both.
Protagoras: What do you mean, both?
Pablo: Both. It is both true and false at the same time and in the same respect.
Protagoras: This is intolerable! Totally irrational!
Pablo: Yes it is. You object to this?
Protagoras: Of course.
Pablo: Why?
Protagoras: Because we can’t enter into any kind of dialogue or communication. We can’t even begin to make any progress towards the truth.
Pablo: You mean there’s truth?
Protagoras: There has to be. We couldn’t live with one another if there wasn’t. That’s why my original point was that every perspective is true.
Pablo: But if every perspective is true, then it is also the case that we really cannot live with one another or engage in dialogue or any sort of intelligible communication. We cannot even begin to make progress towards the truth, since no one can be wrong. And since no one can be wrong, everyone is right, even those who contradict one another. We’re back to that crazy irrationality you complained of earlier.
Protagoras: In other words, truth can exist only on condition that there is a real possibility that someone can be wrong, mistaken, false?
Pablo: That’s true.
Protagoras: It is?
Pablo: It is.
Protagoras: I was expecting you to say that it isn’t.
Pablo: Why would I say that?
Protagoras: Because you deliberately contradicted me before. I thought you’d do it again.
Pablo: Can we agree that we mustn’t contradict one another anymore?
Protagoras: We can.
Pablo: Do we agree that nothing can be both true and not true at the same time and in the same respect?
Protagoras: Agreed.
Pablo: Does it not follow that not everyone has a right to his own opinion?
Protagoras: I’m not sure anymore.
Pablo: Well, if something cannot be true and false at the same time and in the same respect, does it not follow that if something is true, its contradictory is false?
Protagoras: I guess.
Pablo: If you got an “A” in philosophy, would it be false to say that you got an “F”?
Protagoras: Indeed.
Pablo: Therefore, nothing can be true and false at the same time and in the same respect.
Protagoras: That has to be true.
Pablo: And so not everyone has a right to his own opinion.
Protagoras: Why not?
Pablo: Because if your opinion is true, then its contradictory cannot be true.
Protagoras: That’s true.
Pablo: Do I have a right to the opinion that you should be forced to drink hemlock?
Protagoras: You have no right to force me to drink hemlock.
Pablo: Then I don’t have a right to my opinion.
Protagoras: You have a right to your opinion; you just don’t have a right to force me to drink hemlock.
Pablo: But my opinion is that I have a right to force you to drink hemlock.
Protagoras: If it is wrong, then you don’t.
Pablo: So are you saying that I have a right to my opinion on condition that my opinion is right?
Protagoras: Right.
Pablo: I only have a right to a right opinion?
Protagoras: But how will you know if your opinion is right?
Pablo: Reason.
Protagoras: Reason?
Pablo: Dialectical reasoning.
Protagoras: What is that?
Pablo: Exactly what we’ve been engaged in all along. The process of trying to reach a conclusion by examining the implications of our principles until the right principles and conclusion are found.
Protagoras: Such as the principle of non-contradiction?
Pablo: Yes. If we deny the principle of non-contradiction, everybody is right, and no one is right. It is impossible to tell the difference between an unjust man and a just man, a wise man and a stupid man.
Protagoras: And the search for knowledge would be pointless.
Pablo: Exactly.
Protagoras: Are you saying man is not the measure of all things?
Pablo: It would seem not.
Protagoras: I hope you don’t plan on a career in politics. You will have no chance of success.
Pablo: Perhaps not.
Protagoras: Ciao!
Pablo: Ciao!

home