Articles
Published 2013-11-28
Keywords
How to Cite
Nabielek, M. (2013). The third man argument (Parm. 132A1-B2)-A ’purely’ metaphysical exercise?. Tópicos, Revista De Filosofía, 38(1), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.21555/top.v38i1.109
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Altmetrics
Citas
Abstract
All commentators of the ‘Parmenides’ agree that the Third Man argument, 132a-b2, raises a difficulty for Plato’s theory of forms. Many commentators, following Vlastos, hold that the argument’s infinite regress is vicious for epistemic reasons. Rickless contends that the infinite regress is vicious for exclusively metaphysical reasons. This essay intends to show that Rickless’ interpretation is inadequate, as well as to vindicate Vlastos’ interpretation.
References
- BURNET, J. (1991): Platonis Opera. Tomus II. Oxford.
- FINE, G. (1993): On Ideas: Aristotle’s criticism of Plato’s theory of forms. Oxford.
- FREDE, D. (1993): Plato: Philebus. Indianapolis.
- GILL, M. L., RYAN, P.(eds.) (1996): Plato: Parmenides. Indianapolis.
- GOLDSTEIN, L., MANNICK, P. (1978): ‘The Form of the Third Man Argument’. Apeiron, 12, 6-13.
- PANAGIOTOU, S. (1971): ‘Vlastos on Parmenides 132a1-b2: some of his text and logic’. Philosophical Quarterly, 21, 255-259.
- RICKLESS, S. C. (1998): ‘How Parmenides saved the theory of forms’. Philosophical Review, 107, 4, 501-54.
- ——– (2007): ‘Plato’s Parmenides’. In: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-parmenides/
- SEDLEY, D. M. (1998): ‘Platonic Causes’. Phronesis, 43, 2, 114-132.
- TELOH, H., LOUZECKY, D. (1972): ‘Plato’s Third Man Argument’. Phronesis, 17, 1, 80-94.
- VLASTOS, G. (1954): ‘The Third Man Argument in the Parmenides’. Philosophical Review, 54, 319-349.
- —— (1969): ‘Plato’s Third Man Argument (Parm.132a1-b2): Text and Logic’. Philosophical Quarterly, 19/1, 283-301.