Sarah (Sacha) Lescofitt, elev ved Edvard Munch videregående skole i Oslo, oppnådde en imponerende 5. plass i Norgesmesterskapet i filosofi for skoleåret 2023-24. Dette skoleåret deltok 796 elever fra 41 skoler, og finalejuryen besto av Sara Kasin Vikesdal fra Universitetet i Oslo og Håvard Løkke fra Universitetet i Agder. Vi i FilosofiAvisen er glade for å kunne presentere det tankevekkende essayet nedenfor. For mer informasjon om Norgesmesterskapet i filosofi, besøk filosofiforeningen.no.
Man is the measure of all things.
Plato. The theaetetus and philebus of plato. sophist. translated by H.f. Carlill. Edinburgh: The riverside press limited, 1906, p.25.
The statement is essentially claiming that human uses itself as the standard to define
everything. The claim is suggesting relativity. The deeper underlying questions needed to answer this statement are what is “measure”? What is “all things” referring to? And are there objective truths which exist beyond human reality? Or is everything only relative to the human experience?
First, let’s take a closer look at what “measure” is. Suppose you have a blue ball. A group of humans are observing this ball. First, through their senses, then, using scientific instruments to test the balls characteristics. Using their senses, the humans will likely observe a blue ball. Maybe they think it’s heavy. Maybe they find the texture to be smooth, and perhaps the smell to be strong. Notice none of these empirical conclusions are guaranteed to be definite; the same among all the humans. There is no guarantee that two humans experience blue in the same way, although the label they use does match up. Another problem we face in this situation, is that there are no clear labels. Imagine some of the humans claim the ball is purple. Well, you can’t really argue against that, can you? They are observing the same light waves, but they interpret the colour under another name. This is where the second empirical tests come in. Suppose we use a scientific instrument to measure the ball’s emitting light waves. We can say: “the ball is emitting this exact number of waves per second”. Okay, then the ball is blue, because we measured it to emit light at the speed within the frame of what we call blue light.
The difference between the first and the second type of observations, is that the second used a scientific method. Using the first method would not lead to what some would call a scientific truth, or an “objective” measure, while the second, using a mathematical measure, would. Mathematics is the language which helps us measure the things which affect us and the world we experience. Math is not an existing language given to us by the universe, it is a language of interpretation. Much like sheet music is a language to help translate and explain sound, while not being sound itself. It is merely a language of communication, not only between us and the universe, but also amongst ourselves to help us set clear boundaries and labels which would not be possible using only the first type of empirical observations. In that sense, can we assume that measure itself is a tool existing only for the sake of human convenience? Is it limited to the human experience? And if so, are there things in this world which mathematics could not interpret for humans?
This leads into the second question: what is “all things” in the statement referring to? Is it referring to everything within the universe and beyond? Is it referring every existing thing across all dimensions of time and space? I would argue that claiming such is in a way paradoxal. Saying “all things” already implies there is an amount to count. The claim that “all things” refer to the entire universe, even the one which is beyond humans, is thus already expecting the existence of amount and measure. In the last paragraph I discussed the possibility of measure only being a tool created by humans for humans, and not a preexisting phenomenon of the universe. Let’s look at this problem through an even bigger lens.
Suppose our universe as we can currently observe it, meaning the ever-expanding tissue of space created due to the big bang, is a in box which exists within another, bigger universe. There is of course the question about the universe being finite or not, and if so, what lies beyond it? For the sake of this argument, let us assume there is something beyond our universe (which for now exists within some kind of abstract box). Now, imagine the universe in which this box exists. Is it any similar to our own? That we cannot know. Does it follow the same laws of physics? That we cannot know either. Would we theoretically be able to use a system of measure in this universe, where 1 + 1 equals 2 and such? That is not guaranteed. In fact, we cannot for sure claim that’d we’d even be able to count to 1 at all. Measure may not make sense in this universe beyond our own. As such, the label “all things” becomes in a sense meaningless if we start making speculations about the universe beyond our reality. Man cannot be the measure of all things even beyond our universe simply because “measure” may not be possible.
If we look at this question from a more religious and anthropocentric point of view, one could argue that the entire universe in itself, even that which exists beyond our world, is centered around humans. If so, we could raise questions surrounding the role of humans in the universe, and even if we are the ones defining the universe, not just for fellow humans, but for other creatures or objects as well. I won’t delve too deep into this topic, however, as it takes distance from the initial questions and my understanding of Plato’s claim.
If “all things” is referring to the observable universe, the statement becomes a lot less speculative. Sure, “the observable universe” doesn’t have set boundaries. Our understanding of the universe expands as time goes on thanks to technology, and our definition of it likely changes every day. For example, it wasn’t long ago when we didn’t know about the existence of the quantum realm, which has opened a box of entire new physical laws. Some of them clashing with our observations from our realm (which I will discuss more later). But by limiting “all things” to the observable universe, we are limiting the claim to what which can affect humans. Meaning, using mathematics to prove the earth is round affected humans since travel routes could now be done differently. The quantum realm affects us because it sets rules for our realm, though we don’t know exactly how yet. Gravity affects us, the law of attractions affects us, sound and light waves affect us, and, well, you get where this is going. By furthering science, we are furthering our understanding of what affects us and why. In a way, you could claim that this in itself is an answer to the statement. If humans only seek the knowledge to understand only the things which affect humans, the concept of “the universe” is actually only a human concept, and “all things” can only be human definitions since humans decided to put labels only on the things which are relevant to us. “All thing” thus becomes relative to the human experience only.
For the sake of furthering this discussion, however, lets look at the possibility of an objective measure. I have already discussed in detail what measure is, but can it be truly objective The first type of observations which I presented, empirical observations only through senses, is typically not referred to as an objective method of measure. The main argument is that such observations cannot be objective since it relies on the interpretation of information.
Since humans can interpret differently, it becomes impossible to decide who is wrong and who is not. Such a game is infinite. Others would argue more like Descartes’ demon argument: how can I guarantee that what I am observing is real? What if everything is a demon is feeding information and senses to my brain? Though this argument would also deny the possible objectivity of the second method of observation, the scientific measurements, since I have argued that numbers and measurements are also an interpretation of the observable universe. The ultimate objectiveness of the scientific method is thus questionable, but there is certainly an objectiveness to it. As I have previously mentioned, mathematics is not only a language to interpret the universe, but it is also a language to communicate between humans. If we look back at the blue ball example, the humans could not agree on the observable colour. However, they could agree that the scientific instrument was giving them a certain unbiased number, which corresponded to the label “blue”. Under the same circumstances, scientific measurements need to be reproduceable by anyone. Thus, measurements become a tool for objective labeling which exists outside of human sensory interpretation. Such an objective method, however, does not deny the claim that “Man is the measure of all things”, since measurement and scientific methods remain human interpretations. Further than that, I can only speculate about the existence of an objective measurement beyond our mathematical language. Perhaps quantum physics will give us the answer to this in the future?
Now comes the big questions of relativity, which is arguably the biggest question concerning the statement. Relativity claims that any characteristics of any thing is labeled based on the viewpoint/angle of the labeler. A basic example would be that ants are small for humans, but humans are big for ants. We are assigning labels to each other based on how we compare to one another. Such reasoning seems logical. We have also observed this phenomenon within science with the theory of relativity. Bigger objects are affected by bigger forces ect. It seems counterintuitive to believe otherwise, however, in modern times we have discovered that the quantum realm does not follow this theory. I am no expert on this matter, but from my understanding, the quantum realm does not react to forces the way they should according to the theory of relativity. The scientific claim of relativity is thus being questioned. However, Plato’s claim is not necessarily one about advanced science, but rather about the human experience. When Plato claims “Man is the measure of all things”, in the premise that “all things” is the universe which is relevant to the human experience, the statement essentially claims that everything we put a label on is necessarily done in a manner of comparison. So when we’re used to doors being 190 to 200 cm tall, seeing a 300 cm tall door will make a human go “Wow, that’s a tall door!”. Another way to explain Plato’s quote would be that everything, for humans, is relative to the human experience.
In the premise that “all things” is the universe which is relevant only to the human experience, “Man is the measure of all things” is simply stating that humans can only observe and define the world through their experience, and thus become the standard in their own world view. However, if consider that relativity is not the focus of the claim, then the statement becomes a claim that our reality is only a limited interpretations of a universe well beyond our understanding, and perhaps a warning against only doing research on what concerns humans. Meaning, the universe and all things in it can only ever be relevant to humans and our small world.
FilosofiAvisen 