THE THIRD MAN ARGUMENT (PARM .132 A 1- B 2)- A ‘PURELY’ METAPHYSICAL EXERCISE?
Fuente:
Redalyc
Salvato in:
| Autore principale: | |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Artículo científico |
| Lingua: | en |
| Pubblicazione: |
Universidad Panamericana
2010
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1876485599967313920 |
|---|---|
| author | Marcus Nabielek |
| author_facet | Marcus Nabielek |
| contents | THE THIRD MAN ARGUMENT (PARM .132 A 1- B 2)- A ‘PURELY’ METAPHYSICAL EXERCISE? Marcus Nabielek Filosofía 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. 2010 artículo científico 0188-6649 https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=323028514005 en http://www.redalyc.org/revista.oa?id=3230 Tópicos, Revista de Filosofía application/pdf Universidad Panamericana Tópicos, Revista de Filosofía (México) Num.38 |
| format | Artículo científico |
| id | redalyc_323028514005 |
| institution | Redalyc |
| language | en |
| publishDate | 2010 |
| publisher | Universidad Panamericana |
| spellingShingle | THE THIRD MAN ARGUMENT (PARM .132 A 1- B 2)- A ‘PURELY’ METAPHYSICAL EXERCISE? Marcus Nabielek Filosofía THE THIRD MAN ARGUMENT (PARM .132 A 1- B 2)- A ‘PURELY’ METAPHYSICAL EXERCISE? Marcus Nabielek Filosofía 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. 2010 artículo científico 0188-6649 https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=323028514005 en http://www.redalyc.org/revista.oa?id=3230 Tópicos, Revista de Filosofía application/pdf Universidad Panamericana Tópicos, Revista de Filosofía (México) Num.38 |
| title | THE THIRD MAN ARGUMENT (PARM .132 A 1- B 2)- A ‘PURELY’ METAPHYSICAL EXERCISE? |
| topic | Filosofía |
| url | https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=323028514005 |