APA 6th Edition Bučan, D. (2021). Prisjećanje na Protagoru. Filozofska istraživanja, 41 (2), 273-277. https://doi.org/10.21464/fi41203
MLA 8th Edition Bučan, Daniel. "Prisjećanje na Protagoru." Filozofska istraživanja, vol. 41, br. 2, 2021, str. 273-277. https://doi.org/10.21464/fi41203. Citirano 31.07.2021.
Chicago 17th Edition Bučan, Daniel. "Prisjećanje na Protagoru." Filozofska istraživanja 41, br. 2 (2021): 273-277. https://doi.org/10.21464/fi41203
Harvard Bučan, D. (2021). 'Prisjećanje na Protagoru', Filozofska istraživanja, 41(2), str. 273-277. https://doi.org/10.21464/fi41203
Vancouver Bučan D. Prisjećanje na Protagoru. Filozofska istraživanja [Internet]. 2021 [pristupljeno 31.07.2021.];41(2):273-277. https://doi.org/10.21464/fi41203
IEEE D. Bučan, "Prisjećanje na Protagoru", Filozofska istraživanja, vol.41, br. 2, str. 273-277, 2021. [Online]. https://doi.org/10.21464/fi41203
Sažetak “Πάντων χρημάτων μέτρον ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος, τῶν μὲν ὄντων ὡς ἔστιν, τῶν δὲ οὐκ ὄντων ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν [Pántôn khrēmátôn métron éstin ánthrôpos, tôn mèn όntôn hôs éstin, tôn dè ouk όntôn hôs ouk éstin]” – “The measure of all things is man; of things that are that they are, of things that are not that they are not”, said Protagoras. He who wants to consider (and to discuss) Protgoras’ statement should first look for the answer to the preliminary question “what man is?” Therefore, first the answer to this question will be sought for (with the help of Aristotle), so that Protagora’s statement be considered from the point of view of those answers, and tested within the scope of two aspects of man’s life – θεωρετικός βίος (theōretikόs bíos) and πολιτικός βίος (politikόs bíos). Finally, if Plato’s interpretation of Protagora’s statement as the affirmation of the principle of relativism (as in his criticism of Protagora in Theaitēt) is accepted, a tentative positioning of relativism and its meaning from the point of view of these two aspects of man’s life, as well as from the point of view of difference between sophism and philosophy (sophist and philosopher) will be proposed. At the end it will be suggested that Protagora’s statement could be interpreted differently, and that each of different interpretations can be meaningful from different philosophical positions.