Abstract
The study aims for formulation and justification of the metaphysics of measure and the anthropology of universal measure, drawing on an interpretation of Protagorean man-measure fragment, proposed by the author. Metaphysics and anthropology formulated in such a manner make it possible to outline the answer to the problem of ‘human-world’ relation. Based on the ultimate generalization of a notion of measure, authored by Aristotle, the article formulates a version of panexperientialism, which can be also represented as relationism. As an intermediate thesis, an epitome of the metaphysics of measure, there appears – ‘everything is a measure’. In addition, the author introduces some distinctions of measure, in particular universality-partiality, that allow for differentiating the human being from the world as a universal measure. The latter property of measure, with some restrictions, can be elucidated as openness to the world according to Scheler and its numerous counterparts. To explicate that in virtue of what the human being is a universal measure, the study uses the phenomenon of the form of forms, for the first time described by Aristotle. The notion of measure is transferred to the rank of the fundamental structure of reality, thereby forming metaphysics of measure. Drawing on the latter, the human being is described as a universal measure. In its turn, the status of this being is grounded in such a phenomenon as the form of forms. The human being and the world, as well as the relation between them, viewed in the light of an interpretation of the famous ‘man-measure’ fragment, proposed by the author, allow for understanding the serious potential of humanity to influence reality, together with simultaneous threat and necessity of realizing of the responsibility for such influence.
References
Ainsworth, T. (2024). Form vs. Matter. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2024). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/form-matter
Aristotel. (2022). Metafizyka. Tempora. Retrieved from https://www.tempora.com.ua/uk/books/metafzika [In Ukrainian].
Armstrong, D. M. (1978). A Theory of Universals: Vol. 2: Universals and Scientific Realism. CUP Archive.
Assaturian, S. (2021). What’s Eleatic about the Eleatic Principle? Revista Archai, e03122. https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_31_22
Berkel, T. A. van. (2013). Made to Measure: Protagoras’ metron. In Protagoras of Abdera (pp. 37-67). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004251243_004
Burnyeat, M. (1979). Conflicting Appearances: Dawes Hicks Lecture on Philosophy. Retrieved from https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/2249/65p069.pdf
Caws, P. (2000). Structuralism: A Philosophy for the Human Sciences. Humanity Books.
Chalmers, D. (2015). Panpsychism and panprotopsychism. In Consciousness in the physical world: Perspectives on Russellian monism (pp. 246-276). Oxford University Press Oxford.
Corradi, M. (2023). Protagoras on Being: Between ὀρθοέπεια and the Eleatic Legacy. Rhizomata, 11(2), 189-207. https://doi.org/10.1515/rhiz-2023-0012
Correia, M. (2018). Themistius on the Human Intellect. Soul and Mind in Greek Thought. Psychological Issues in Plato and Aristotle, 233-244. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78547-9_12
Cowling, S. (2015). Advice for Eleatics. In The Palgrave handbook of philosophical methods (pp. 306-330). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137344557_13
Gehlen, A. (1988). Man, His Nature and Place in the World. Columbia University Press.
Heidegger, M. (1982). Nietzsche: Nihilism (1st ed., Vol. 4). Harper & Row.
Heis, J. (2014). Ernst Cassirer’s Substanzbegriff und Funktionsbegriff. HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 4(2), 241-270. https://doi.org/10.1086/676959
Hintikka, J. (2004). Aristotle’s Theory of Thinking and Its Consequences for His Methodology. InHintikka, J. (Ed.). Analyses of Aristotle (pp. 45-75). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2041-4_3
Houlgate, S. (2021). Hegel on Being Vol. 2: Quantity and Measure in Hegel’s ‘Science of Logic’ (Vol. 2). Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350189881
Husserl, E. (1972). Erfahrung und Urteil: Untersuchungen zur Genealogie der Logik. F. Meiner.
Hysteron proteron. (2024). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hysteron_proteron
Kelsey, S. (2021). Mind and World in Aristotle’s De Anima. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108966375
Landmann, M. (1969). Philosophische Anthropologie: Menschliche Selbstdeutung in Geschichte und Gegenwart. de Gruyter.
Landmann, M. (1978). The system of Anthropina. In Organism, Medicine, and Metaphysics: Essays in Honor of Hans Jonas on his 75th Birthday (pp. 13-27). Springer.
Miller, J. T. M. (2022). Metaphysical Realism and Anti-Realism. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009006927
Minchin, E. (2001). How Homeric Is Hysteron Proteron? Mnemosyne, 54 (Fasc. 6), 635-645. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685250152952112
No free lunch in search and optimization. (2024). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_free_lunch_in_search_and_optimization
Notomi, N. (2013). A protagonist of the sophistic movement? Protagoras in historiography. In Protagoras of Abdera (pp. 11-36). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004251243_003
Pareto efficiency. (2025). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pareto_efficiency
Plessner, H. (1975). Die Stufen des Organischen und der Mensch: Einleitung in die philosophische Anthropologie. De Gruyter.
Priest, G. (2014). One: Being an Investigation into the Unity of Reality and of its Parts, including the Singular Object which is Nothingness. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688258.001.0001
Rorty, R. (2021). 5 Pan-Relationalism. In Pragmatism as Anti-Authoritarianism (pp. 84-103). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674270077-006
Scheler, M. (2018). Die Stellung des Menschen im Kosmos. Felix Meiner Verlag.
Schiappa, E. (2003). Protagoras and Logos: A Study in Greek Philosophy and Rhetoric. Univ of South Carolina Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv6wgm1h
Schramm, M. (2017). Der Homo-Mensura-Satz des Protagoras. Méthexis, 29(1), 20-45. https://doi.org/10.1163/24680974-02901002 (in German)
Segesvary, V. (1999). Existence and Transcendence. International Scholars Publications.
Skrbina, D. (2005). Panpsychism in the West. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5220.001.0001
Smith, D. W. (2018). Phenomenology. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer, 2018). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/pheno menology
Weberman, D. (2001). HEIDEGGER’S RELATIONALISM. British Journal for the History of Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1080/09608780010012710
Zaborowski, R. (2017). Revisiting Protagoras’ Fr. DK B 1. Elenchos, 38(1-2), 23-43. https://doi.org/10.1515/elen-2017-0002
Zakony zberezhennia. (2024). In Vikipediia. Retrieved from https://uk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Закони_збереження [In Ukrainian]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
