The third man argument parm .132 a 1- b 2- a ‘purely’ metaphysical exercise? Report as inadecuate




The third man argument parm .132 a 1- b 2- a ‘purely’ metaphysical exercise? - Download this document for free, or read online. Document in PDF available to download.

Tópicos, Revista de Filosofía 2010, 38

Author: Marcus Nabielek

Source: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=323028514005


Teaser



Tópicos, Revista de Filosofía ISSN: 0188-6649 kgonzale@up.edu.mx Universidad Panamericana México Nabielek, Marcus THE THIRD MAN ARGUMENT (PARM .132 A 1- B 2)- A ‘PURELY’ METAPHYSICAL EXERCISE? Tópicos, Revista de Filosofía, núm.
38, 2010, pp.
135-151 Universidad Panamericana Distrito Federal, México Available in: http:--www.redalyc.org-articulo.oa?id=323028514005 How to cite Complete issue More information about this article Journals homepage in redalyc.org Scientific Information System Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative “topicos38” — 2011-1-11 — 15:03 — page 135 — #135 T HE T HIRD M AN A RGUMENT (PARM .132 A 1- B 2)A ‘P URELY ’ M ETAPHYSICAL E XERCISE ? Marcus Nabielek 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. Resumen Todos los comentaristas del ‘Parménides’ están de acuerdo en que el argumento del ‘Tercer Hombre’, 132a1-b2, ofrece una dificultad a la teoría de las formas de Platón.
Muchos comentaristas, siguiendo a Vlastos, creen que el regreso al infinito del argumento es vicioso por razones epistemológicas.
Rickless sostiene que el regreso al infinito es vicioso por razónes únicamente metafísicas. Este trabajo quiere mostrar que la interpretación dada por Rickless es insuficiente. Quiere tambien confirmar la interpretación de Vlastos 1. Commentators on the Third Man argument (TMA) tend to agree that Plato intended the argument to be a vicious infinite regress...





Related documents