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.
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.
I believe it was none other than the guy you suggested I get a room with, Richard Dawkins, who observes that to an insect surface tension is a heck of a lot more important than gravity. To us, of course, surface tension means very little but gravity is a major issue.
Or, using a cosmic example, who cares if there is a supernova in NCG4696?! It's real, but in our life here on earth it's trivia: it doesn't help you get a job, pay the bills, get a date, keep you young, or healthy, etc. But to an astronomer who makes his living finding such cataclysmic events just may be the most important thing in his life! :)
So, assuming Plato was correct, what difference does it make to us? In what way does Plato's transcendentals affect us any more than surface tension does (unless you are hoping to get a job teaching Platonism)? This life we have is about us making it comfortable here and now, having a job, food, comfort, loved ones, etc. What goes on in the background we cannot see, detect, feel, and even know for certain, does not pay the bills or keep the water warm and might as well not even exist.
You unwittingly confirm this when you say
When I say that man is his own measure it means how he fits himself into the material world, and that is by no means subjective. To the contrary, subjective is what man imagines himself to be; not necessarily what he is. Objective is realizing that a VW Golf is not the car to buy if someone barely fits into an SUV. Subjective is that we are transcendental spirits, and objective is that "man's gotta know his limitations." ["Dirty Harry"]
No, betty boop, the unseen and the undetectable, is not always important in our lives, let alone essential. But, likewise, empiricism isn't ether; just because we can measure it doesn't mean it's significant. It depends what it is. That's why it's so important for me to know what is God.
Surface tension is a perfect example. We can measure it but so what. Our keyboards and telephones are a certain size because they are best suited for the size of our hands. They could be larger or smaller, but we made them just right. This is an example where man manipulates and creates his environment to his measure, what's best for us. And that becomes the standard.
Disagreeing with me, you observe
Yes they are. But the one who has more power is "more" right. :) Former Governor of New York Nelson Rockefeller is rumored to have quipped "we are all equal, but some are more equal" or words to that effect. It doesn't seem "fair," but that's got to do with our culture and not absolute values. Some cultures believe that each man is where he is because God wanted them to be there and that's fair to them.
You ask
and I say there isn't any common to all higher standard; we can approximate it. There are agreed-upon standards. In the case of smokers versus non-smokers the scale of "fairness" is tipped in favor of the latter because they are the ones being harmed. Our society sides with those being harmed. You may say that's because of the Bible. Maybe, but the same can be observed in societies that don't use the Bible.
So, is "do no harm"a common higher standard to all? Pretty much (generally speaking), because being harmed it not something too many people like (again man's own measure)! :) Smoking is unhealthy and that is harmful for the smokers as well as those around them (besides, for non-smokers the smell of smoke is really obnoxious).
I know you like Plato, but I don't. I think he was a brilliant man with too much time on his hands (and possibly a disturbed childhood—just joking!).
Perhaps it's because the world realized that it, like surface tension, doesn't pay the bills and keep the water warm, and is therefore of limited if questionable value.
By showing that they have a pragmatic value.
To a transient man transient conditions are important, else life will pass him by; carpe diem.
They have been reconciled by agreement or by force. The agreement exists on the appropriate level of commonality of the subject. On the very basic level there is no agreement or even a need for reconciliation.
For example, all our homes are different even if they were mass produced with the same layout; none is furnished exactly the same way. Our homes are our own communal microcosm, a miniature society, where someone calls the shots and someone obeys them. However, our homes may have to conform to some standards of safety and community we live in, typical of the development, county, city, state or country.
Man conforms to those measures which are imposed upon him either by himself (his physical and psychological makeup) or the world around him. No matter how you turn it around, we measure (and judge) everything and all that we experience by our own ruler. When conditions exceed the scale of our rulers we quit, move, rebel, etc. trying to re-establish a measure suitable to us.
At least that's how it looks to me.