Protagoras, Orthopéia, and the Measure of All Things
A Buddhist Perspective -
Let’s talk about Protagoras, the ancient Greek thinker whose ideas on language, perception, and knowledge resonate in intriguing ways with Buddhist thought. We will unpack three key concepts associated with him: orthopéia (ὀρθοπεία), the notion that "man is the measure of all things," and his stance on agnosticism and skepticism. We will also explore how these ideas intersect with Buddhist teachings, particularly sammā vācā (Pāli: right speech) and epistemic humility in the Dharma.
1. Orthopéia (ὀρθοπεία) and Right Speech
The term orthopéia comes from the Greek orthos (ὀρθός, "correct, right") and péia (related to speech or articulation). It refers to the idea of proper or correct speech, a concept that echoes sammā vācā (सम्या वाचा in Sanskrit), one of the steps in the Noble Eightfold Path. Just as the Buddha emphasized ethical and mindful speech to cultivate harmony and wisdom, Protagoras also seems to recognize the power of language in shaping reality and guiding human conduct.
In the Buddhist tradition, right speech involves abstaining from falsehood (musāvāda), divisive speech (pisuṁāvācā), harsh words (pharusāvācā), and idle chatter (samphappalāpa). While Protagoras’ focus on orthopéia was more linguistic than moral, both traditions highlight the role of speech in structuring our world and influencing our interactions.
2. "Man is the Measure of All Things" and Buddhist Epistemology
Protagoras is famously attributed with the statement: "Man is the measure of all things" (pánta chremata anthrópos metron estin, πάντων χρημάτων ἄνθρωπος μέτρον ἐστίν). This suggests a form of relativism: truth and knowledge are dependent on human perception rather than existing in an absolute form.
In Buddhist thought, we find a parallel in the concept of sammuti-sacca (Pāli: conventional truth) versus paramattha-sacca (ultimate truth). The Buddha acknowledged that human perceptions and language create a conventional reality (sammuti), but this does not necessarily correspond to the ultimate nature of things (paramattha). Much like Protagoras, Buddhism recognizes the subjective nature of experience, but it goes further by providing a path to transcend illusion and attain wisdom (prajñā or paññā).
3. Agnosticism, Skepticism, and Buddhist Non-Dogmatism
Protagoras reportedly claimed, "As for the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not" (peri men theōn ouk echō eidenai), marking him as one of history’s earliest agnostics. This skeptical approach resonates with aspects of Buddhist philosophy, particularly the Buddha’s refusal to engage in speculative metaphysical debates. In the Cūla-Mālunkya Sutta (MN 63), the Buddha refuses to answer questions about the cosmos’ origins, arguing that such inquiries do not lead to liberation.
Both Protagoras and the Buddha advocate for a practical, experience-based approach to truth. While Greek skepticism often led to a form of intellectual detachment, Buddhist skepticism (vicikicchā, doubt) is seen as an obstacle to be overcome through direct insight (vipassanā).
Conclusion: Where the Two Traditions Meet
Although Protagoras and the Buddha come from different traditions, their insights into language, perception, and knowledge share common ground. Both recognize the limitations of human understanding and emphasize the role of perception in shaping reality. While Protagoras leans toward relativism, Buddhism offers a structured path beyond mere subjectivity toward deeper wisdom. In the end, the dialogue between Greek philosophy and Buddhist thought reminds us that the search for truth transcends cultural and historical boundaries, urging us toward mindfulness in speech, humility in knowledge, and wisdom in perception.
Stay tuned for more episodes where we explore the intersections of philosophy, language, and the Dharma!
While modern skepticism is closely associated with doubt, it's important to note that doubt isn't a feature of Pyrrhonism. For example, in the surviving works of the Pyrrhonist philosopher Sextus Empiricus, none of the Greek words for doubt appear - which is not to say that one won't find "doubt" used in English translations. This is a translator's projection onto the meaning of the text, specifically the meaning of the Greek term "aporia," which means an impasse, in the sense that we remain perplexed about an issue.
Also, some people might be misled by "Greek skepticism often led to a form of intellectual detachment." That's true in the sense that it leads to the opposite of intellectual attachment (aka dogmatism), but it's not a detachment from intellectual pursuit. Inquiry, investigation, and curiosity are the central features of Greek skepticism - so much so that the Greek word we derive "skepticism" from means "inquiry." So what the Greeks meant by "skepticism" is much closer to what the Indians meant by "vipassanā" than to what we mean by "doubt."
Sextus Empiricus can be paraphrased as saying that the Pyrrhonist spiritual exercises allow the practitioner to be liberated from the conceits and delusions of dogmatism, allowing a clear seeing of the appearances. This clear seeing allows one to follow right reason and to live rightly, both with respect to virtue and in the ordinary sense.
This is a great clarification of the distinction between doubt and aporia in Pyrrhonism. It’s interesting how modern interpretations often conflate skepticism with a kind of radical doubt, whereas Sextus Empiricus presents it as a suspension of judgment (epoché) rather than a denial or rejection. The comparison to vipassanā is also thought-provoking—both involve a form of clear seeing that cuts through attachment to fixed views. Would you say that Pyrrhonist skepticism, like vipassanā, also has a liberative function, not just intellectually but in a more existential sense?