<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Philosophy of Being &#187; Third Man Argrument</title>
	<atom:link href="http://philofbeing.com/tag/third-man-argrument/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://philofbeing.com</link>
	<description>by Dr. Taylor Marshall of the College of Saint Thomas More</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:02:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Understanding the Third Man Argument</title>
		<link>http://philofbeing.com/2009/09/understanding-the-third-man-argument/</link>
		<comments>http://philofbeing.com/2009/09/understanding-the-third-man-argument/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:36:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Taylor Marshall</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Forms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plato]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parmenides]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Third Man Argrument]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Third Man Argument]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://philofbeing.com/?p=24</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plato&#8217;s Parmenides contains an argument against the so-called Platonic theory of forms known as the &#8220;Third Man Argument&#8221;.
Here&#8217;s how it goes:

Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama are each &#8220;human&#8221;.
We infer that there must be a Form called &#8220;Human-ness&#8221; by which these &#8220;humans&#8221; participate.
Now these three men are alike because they are human. Moreover, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Plato&#8217;s <em>Parmenides</em> contains an argument against the so-called Platonic theory of forms known as the &#8220;Third Man Argument&#8221;.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s how it goes:</p>
<ol>
<li>Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama are each &#8220;human&#8221;.</li>
<li>We infer that there must be a Form called &#8220;Human-ness&#8221; by which these &#8220;humans&#8221; participate.</li>
<li>Now these three men are alike because they are human. Moreover, these humans are like the Form of &#8220;Human-ness.&#8221; Consequently, we now have new set of things that are human: Human-ness, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.</li>
<li>We now need a new Form of Human-ness to account for all these human things, including the original Form of &#8220;Human-ness&#8221;. Let&#8217;s call this new overarching Form &#8220;Super-Human-ness.&#8221;</li>
<li>But now we have an entirely new set of things all alike by way of being human: Super-Human-ness, Human-ness, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. It doesn&#8217;t stop with this third &#8220;Super-Form.&#8221; We would have to keep on supplying &#8220;Super-Duper Form of Human-ness&#8221; and &#8220;Even-More-Super-Duper Form of Human-ness: it goes on and on forever. We have an infinite regress, which shows that the theory is absurd.</li>
</ol>
<p>What does this all mean? The theory of forms assumes that predication is explained by participation and that arguments should not be circular. The Third Man Argument indicates a problem.</p>
<p><strong>Here are some helpful articles on the Third Man Argument:</strong></p>
<p>Cohen, S. M., “The Logic of the Third        Man,” <em>Philosophical Review </em>80 (1971) 448-475.</p>
<p><a name="geach"></a>Geach, P. T., “The  Third Man Again,” <em>Philosophical Review </em>65 (1956) 72-82.</p>
<p><a name="owen"></a>Owen, G.E.L., “The Place of the <em>Timaeus </em>in Plato’s Dialogues,” <em>Classical Quarterly</em> n.s. 3 (1953)        79-95; also in <em>Studies in Plato</em>’<em>s Metaphysics</em>, ed. by        R. E. Allen (London: Routledge &amp; Kegan Paul, 1965) 313-338.</p>
<p><a name="sellars"></a>Sellars, W., “Vlastos and the Third        Man,” <em>Philosophical Review </em>64 (1955) 405-437.</p>
<p><a name="strang"></a>Strang, C., “Plato and the Third Man,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Suppl. vol. 37 (1963) 147-164; also in <em>Plato: A Collection of Critical Essays</em>, vol. 1, ed. by G.        Vlastos (New York: Anchor, 1971) 184-200, and on reserve in OUGL.</p>
<p><a name="vlastos"></a>Vlastos, G., “The Third Man Argument        in the Parmenides,” <em>Philosophical Review </em>63 (1954) 319-349;        also in <em>Studies in Plato</em>’<em>s Metaphysics</em>, ed. by R. E.        Allen (London: Routledge &amp; Kegan Paul, 1965) 231-263.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://philofbeing.com/2009/09/understanding-the-third-man-argument/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

