Comments on: Understanding the Third Man Argument

By: Henry utley md,phd

Henry utley md,phd — Wed, 09 May 2012 20:10:49 +0000

A difficult concept til your explanation. You must be a gifted teacher

By: Michelle

Michelle — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:28:24 +0000

But Plato did not mention Clinton, Bush, and Obama! Who’s the third man? Who are the first and second men? Why don’t we just call it the Argument of Infinite Regress, or the Argument of Superforms?>0

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 03:50:13 +0000

So, if I am understanding this correctly, a “Form” is like a cookie mold, and what we see in the world is like the cookie. But, something must have made the mold – a “cookie mold mold” . And something must have made that mold – a “cookie mold mold mold.” Is that right? It’s a bit confusing since Form’s are suppose to be the perfect idea of substantive things. The Form of Perfect Square can’t have another form of Perfect Perfect square. I mean, you can’t have more perfect square than a perfect square

By: SEN

SEN — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 01:26:14 +0000

As you indicated an interest in hearing…

Upon asking a freshman philosophy major to provide an answer to this argument, I was told that which a form has in common with that which participates in it is nothing other than the form itself.

I am enjoying this class very much. Thank you for teaching!

By: JPG

JPG — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:31:06 +0000

I remember my philosophy-major brother trying to explain the third man argument to me years ago… This provides a nice summary/review.

By: C.F.M

C.F.M — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:48:04 +0000

Does this mean I get a 100 for my h.w. grade??

By: Michael Probus

Michael Probus — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 17:18:18 +0000

The “Third Man Argument” definitely makes much more sense after reading this.

By: Taylor Marshall

Taylor Marshall — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:08:08 +0000

Mr. Mondragon,

So are you inferring that the Hen or Monad of Plotinus is the Form of all? Remember, the Third Man Argument isn’t simply infinite regress, but that each particular form would regress infinitely based on the definition of “participation.”

Amal,

Thank you. Welcome the site!

Metaphysically,
Taylor Marshall

By: Amal

Amal — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:50:17 +0000

I’m not in your class but I love this blog It makes Philosophy a lot less intimidating. Thanks!

By: Christian Mondragon

Christian Mondragon — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:04:20 +0000

Methinks, after reading about Plotinus and “The One”, that there cannot be a third man argument. If there is one divine being that is the simple explanation of everything then there is no infinite regress.