Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Engaging in rational persuasion thus commits Protagoras to the existence of mind-independent evaluative standards—precisely the objectivism he denies.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Persuasion need only appeal to shared standards both parties accept, not standards that are metaphysically objective.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Protagoras can rationally argue for relativism using intersubjective logic without requiring mind-independent evaluative facts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The charge conflates 'objective standards' with 'standards that work as reasons in dialogue'—relativists can accept the latter.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Rational persuasion assumes the persuader can show the other person their current view is mistaken, not merely different.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Showing someone mistaken requires standards of correctness that exist independently of what any individual believes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Protagoras's relativism denies such mind-independent standards, making rational persuasion logically incoherent for him.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.