And so ... "man is the measure" of reality at the personal scale?
Man is a measure of his own reality. No one else can measure his reality. Just as a woman is a measure of woman's reality and man (male) is of his because they are distinct realities. After all, each person is a measure of his or her reality by virtue of how they are.
And that somehow one's personal proclivities and preferences along this line determine what happens in the real world on a universal scale? Is that what you're saying?
Each person will try to create conditions that best suit his or her physical and psychological makeup, how each experiences and deal with the world. For example, overweight people may prefer stretchable clothes; non-smokers may wish to create a smoke-free environment; disabled individuals may wish to see more wheel chair ramps, etc. Along with these desires they also create a set of values that reflect their reality.
Very few people attempt to change or influence things they cannot influence, such as earthquakes or hurricanes; heat waves; tidal waves, etc. At best they can hope to come up with technology that will give them some time to escape or seek shelter. The reality of Nature is simply accepted as such and man can do no more than hope he will manage to escape the natural (impersonal) wrath of the physical world.
If so, I'd reply: Man can conceive of the universe any which-way he wants to. But the REAL universe goes on, irrespective of man's imaginings
I agree.
Man is part and participant of/in the real ["objective"] universe. As such, he never determines it. In short, human rhetoric does not change actual Reality
Again, that is correct. However, that does not mean that man does not measure or change the world (within means) according to human standards, according to his measure.
In subjective experience, a man may well believe that he is the measure of his own reality (i.e., of the reality of which he is — finally — merely part and participant during his mortal existence). Indeed, it seems such an idea gained considerable traction with the Enlightenment, which deemed the power of human reason to be unlimited in principle. (Of course, the philosophes had to bump off God first.)
In objective experience, this "subjective man" is also and necessarily a part and participant, not only in the world of Nature, but also in the social world; i.e., of human society. What he thinks in subjective moments inevitably bleeds out into the way he relates to the natural world and the social world of his fellow men.
If every man believes that he is the measure of his own reality, it goes without saying that inevitably conflicts will occur between two systems of perceptual reality that lack a common ground.
You give examples of this, dear kosta: e.g., the non-smoker insists on a smoke-free environment; the smoker would like to enjoy a post-prandial cigar or cigarette over his coffee at the conclusion of a meal in a fine restaurant. If every man is his own "measure," then both are "right." But if an argument breaks out between the two sides (as usual), where is the higher, objective (i.e., common to all) standard or "measure" to which to appeal to resolve the conflict? And so it becomes a political matter, to be resolved "by the numbers." And thus yet another "political minority" is thrown under the bus.
Reflecting on the practical moral relativism your view seems to invoke, I find it useful to remember certain great classical insights about the nature of man and his relations to God, world, and society.
The classical Greek philosophers recognized that man had a given nature; that is, his nature is not something that he can remake or construct for himself — no matter how much he would like to.
Plato thought man is the microcosm, the image or eikon of the Cosmos; and as such fundamentally alike, syngenes, to the Cosmos.
In other words, man recapitulates in his own being all of the components of cosmic order. The Cosmos is laid out as a hierarchy, at the summit of which is the Epikeina, or divine Nous (the structuring principle of the Cosmos), and at its root the Apeiron, the cosmic depth (the unlimited, indefinite, unbounded; the unlimited source of all particular things — i.e., it is pure as-yet nonexistent potentiality). Because it transcends all limits, the Apeiron is in principle indefinable (that's a limit on reason right there).
In Plato's myth of the Cosmos, the Apeiron of non-existence is not merely a negative dimension of the Whole but the reality that is the creative origin or Beginning of existent things, including life and the order of the "things" called men.
In between Epikeina and Apieron, we find man. He mirrors the cosmic hierarchy, recapitulating all the orders of the Cosmos in himself, including, in descending order, the divine first and foremost (for man is "the ensouled animal that thinks," i.e., possesses reason, which is divine). Then there are five levels descending from there: the levels of human psyche (1) — nous (reason, mind); human psyche (2) — the emotional life, passions; animal nature; vegetative nature; and inorganic nature. Man is naturally structured by this hierarchy, which bottoms out in the unfathomable Apieron from which he arose as a physical creature, an into which his body will return at death.
The implication is that man, as part and participant of the Whole, somehow contains the Whole within himself. Two of the hierarchical levels represent the "poles" of transcendent reality in which man immanently participates: Epikeina and Apeiron, the Limited and the Unlimited. Both are divine.
It is fashionable today to reject the possibility of transcendent reality because by its nature it is not something that can be advanced on the basis of verifiable propositions, or subjected to empirical tests.
Yet empirical tests "reduce" the universe to only what can be observed and tested. Huge sectors of human experience lie completely outside of such methods.
What empirical method could test the truth of Plato's pregnant insights, e.g., that man, as microcosm, is the Cosmos "writ small"; that society is man "writ large?"
Back to my original point: If every man is his own measure, then that is tantamount to saying that there is no measure in the world, but only that which individuated human consciousness can produce in response to transient conditions. And if every man's measure is unique to himself, it is difficult to see how the various and sometimes mutually-opposing measures can be reconciled — absent a higher criterion of Truth that can justly adjudicate the contending claims.
You conceded my point (I think) that "the Real universe goes on, irrespective of man's imaginings." But then almost instantly seemed to refute it by saying "...However, that does not mean that man does not measure or change the world (within means) according to human standards, according to his measure."
Which begs the point I'm trying to get at: The man's self-measure either conforms to a measure beyond himself or (to me) man's "measurements" ought quite property to invoke skepticism and doubt.
Thank you so very much, dear kosta, for your provocative essay/post, and for participating in this rather strange conversation!
p.s.: I'm sorry to be so tardy replying. I've been pretty busy myself lately.... I'm not on-line as much as I'd like nowadays.