The Subjective Materialist Doctrine of Protagoras

But if [the materialist] Protogoras were correct, then physically existing things would have a fixed nature.

• Only the physicality would be true, not the abstraction.

But if so, then we would be talking about physical and abstract versions at the same time.

If he is like Protogoras who equally believes and does not believe, how would he differ from the plants?

Why would he walk to Megara and not stay still if he believes in walking and not walking?

Why does he take care not to fall into a ravine when he supposes equally that falling in is both good and not good?

It is because he supposes one thing to be better than the other.

So it means not all to him is equal.

The followers of Protogoras do this by opinion, not by knowledge.

I think they should use knowledge than opinion.

Furthermore, the system of Protogoras becomes inaccurate.

We do not say that:

• 2 is as equal to 3
• a man who allows a range of 4 to be 5 to be equal to a man who supposes 4 to be 1,000

In the system of Protogoras, both men are not mistaken, but one is less mistaken than the other.

There could indeed be some truth of which the more true is nearer.

Even if an absolute truth does not exist, a relative truth is better than the unmixed argument that prevents the intellect from determining anything.

The doctrine of Protagoras is derived from the same opinion.

Many people:

• suppose contrary things to one another.
• consider those who have different opinions from them to be wrong

And so the same thing is physical and abstract.

If so, then everything is true.

The difference is in the way of meeting all disputers.

• Some need persuasion
• Others need force [or constraint]

The ignorance of others is easily treated by focusing on their thought, not at the argument.

But for those who speak for the sake of argument, their cure is a refutation of the words they use.

This is because some are perplexed by sensible things when they see simultaneous contradictions from the same thing.

This makes it impossible for the abstract to become physical [reality], since the thing that pre-existed is contrary to the physical thing.

Anaxagoras’ System

But Anaxagoras says that everything is mixed in everything.

Democritus says the same: the empty and the full exist equally in any given part, although:

• the empty is abstract
• the full is physical

Likewise, some suppose that the world is the basis of these things.

I think that they are:

• correct in one way
• but wrong in another way

This is because they speak of physicality in 2 ways.

1. Something becoming physical from abstraction
2. Something both being physical and abstract at the same time, either as actual with potentiality, or potential with actuality

I think they are supposing some other kind of substance among existing things, which is beyond movement or destruction or coming-into-being at all.

The System of Democritus and Empedocles

Democritus believes in the truth of appearances through sensible things.

His followers think that the true should be judged not by instances.

This is because a sweet thing can be bitter to others.

Furthermore, animals and each person also experience contraries.*

That is why Democritus says that either nothing is true or unclear to us.

They believe that:

• perception is wisdom
• this perception is alteration
• what appears through perception is necessarily true

Empedocles says that as men change their bodily state, they change their understanding:

• ‘For to men understanding grows according to what is present.’

Yet in other places he says:

• ‘And in proportion as they were changed in nature, so did their thought always change in its nature.’

Parmenides declares in the same manner:

• The mind which thinks is like the limbs that walk
• The more that is perceived in everything, the more is the thought

Anaxagoras said that that existing things would be for them such as they supposed them to be.

The supporters of Anaxagoras say that Homer has this opinion too, because he described Hector, when he was stunned by the blow, as lying there ‘with a changed mind’

• This implies that even those who are mad possess understanding, but not the same kind.

If both are forms of understanding exist, then things are simultaneously so and not so.*

This is where the consequence is most difficult.

It means some have more truth and others who are seeking it have less.

Then how is it not right for those attempting to philosophize to lose heart?

For to seek the truth would be like chasing after flying things."