Central to this art icle is a basic phi losophical concept of the nature of man' knowledge which exists amongstudProtagorians of the sophist era, who postulates that 'man is the measure of all things' Our daily experience ofudhuman nature however, continues to give us reasons to unlearn much of what has turned out to be prejudices anduderrors in our conception of man. Consequently, The question "What is Man?" still perplexes us, and the answersudwe provide to this question often reveal how distorted our vision of history and thought have become over theudyears. Philosophers and Psychologists who have approached the problem in terms of already accepted views andudtheories of the nature of man' knowledge continues to run in to more difficulties. In add ition, the absence ofuddirect elaborat ion to the proposition has given rise to endless controversies about its meaning. This paper shall,udvia the reconstructive methods of critical analysis in philosophy, examine Protagoras' postulate of man 'sudknowledge of man against the Socratic philosophy of what the knowledge of man really is. The study revealsudthat there is yet a lot to be understood about Man. The reality of the absurdi ty of knowing and not knowing at theudsame time is however, identified as one factor that militates against man's quest towards attaining trueudknowledge. The paper submits that Protagoras' maxim about man is simply an opinion which acknowledges theudtruth of its denial. It fo llows that you can never know anything the truth of which you fa il to attain
展开▼
