In Search of Aristotle’s Third Man
In: PhronesisSearch for other papers by Timothy Clarke in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
Aristotle thinks that the Platonic theory of Forms is vulnerable to the Third Man regress. According to Alexander of Aphrodisias, the regress arises from the conjunction of three Platonist claims, which I label ‘Exemplification’, ‘Similarity’, and ‘Distinctness’. It is clear why, taken together, these three claims generate an infinite regress of Forms. What is not clear is why Aristotle thinks that a Platonist should have to accept each of the claims. My answer begins from the fact that, in Metaphysics A and M, Aristotle mentions the Third Man as a consequence, not of positing Forms, but of certain ways of arguing for Forms. By working out what these arguments are likely to have been, we can understand why he took the Platonist to have been committed to all three claims, and thus why he saw the Third Man as a serious difficulty.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Berti, E. (1962). La filosofia del primo Aristotele. Padua.
-
Bostock, D. (1994). Aristotle: Metaphysics Books Z and H. Oxford.
-
Broadie, S. (2004). Plato’s Intelligible World? Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 78, pp. 65–79.
-
Cherniss, H.F. (1944). Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato and the Academy. Baltimore.
-
Clarke, T. (2012). The Argument from Relatives. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 42, pp. 151–177.
-
Code, A. (1985). On the Origins of Some Aristotelian Theses about Predication. In: Bogen, J. and McGuire, J.E., eds., How Things Are: Studies in Predication and the History of Philosophy and Science, Dordrecht, pp. 101–131.
-
Cornford, F.M. (1939). Plato and Parmenides. London.
-
Di Lascio, E.V. (2004). Third Men: The Logic of the Sophisms at Arist. SE 22, 178b36–179a10. Topoi 23, pp. 33–59.
-
Fine, G. (1982). Aristotle and the More Accurate Arguments. In: Schofield, M. and Nussbaum, M.C., eds., Language and Logos, Cambridge, pp. 155–177.
-
Fine, G. (1984). Separation. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 2, pp. 31–87.
-
Fine, G. (1993). On Ideas: Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Theory of Forms. Oxford.
-
Fortenbaugh, W.W. (2002). Eudemus’ Work On Expression. In: Bodnár, I. and Fortenbaugh, W.W., eds., Eudemus of Rhodes, New Brunswick, pp. 59–83.
-
Frede, D. (2012). The Doctrine of Forms under Critique, Part I: Metaphysics A.9, 990a33–991b9. In: Steel, ed., pp. 265–96.
-
Frede, M. and Patzig, G. (1988). Aristoteles ‘Metaphysik Z’: Text, Übersetzung, und Kommentar, 2 vols. Munich.
-
Gazziero, L. (2010). ‘καὶ ὅτι ἔστι τις τρίτος ἄνθρωπος’ (Aristotelis sophistici elenchi 22, 178b36–179a10). Prolégomènes à une histoire ancienne de l’argument du ‘troisième homme’. Rhizai 7, pp. 181–220.
-
Geach, P.T. (1956). The Third Man Again. Philosophical Review 65, pp. 72–82.
-
Gill, M.L. (1996). Introduction. In: Gill, M.L. and Ryan, P., Plato: Parmenides, Indianapolis, pp. 1–109.
-
Gill, M.L. (2001). Aristotle’s Attack on Universals. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 20, pp. 235–260.
-
Golitsis, P. (2022). Alexander of Aphrodisias: Commentary on Aristotle, Metaphysics (Books I–III), Critical Edition with Introduction and Notes. Berlin.
-
Grote, G. (1865). Plato and the Other Companions of Sokrates, vol. 2. London.
-
Harlfinger, D. (1975). Edizione critica del testo del ‘De ideis’ di Aristotele. In: Leszl, pp. 15–39.
-
Hayduck, M. (1891). Alexandri Aphrodisiensis in Aristotelis metaphysica commentaria. Berlin.
-
Kung, J. (1981). Aristotle on Thises, Suches and the Third Man Argument. Phronesis 26, pp. 207–247.
-
Leszl, W. (1975). Il ‘De ideis’ di Aristotele e la teoria platonica delle idee. Florence.
-
Mansion, S. (1949). La critique de la théorie des Idées dans la Περὶ ἰδεῶν d’Aristote. Revue philosophique de Louvain 47, pp. 169–202.
-
Meinwald, C.C. (1992). Good-bye to the Third Man. In: Kraut, R., ed., The Cambridge Companion to Plato, Cambridge, pp. 365–396.
-
Owen, G.E.L. (1957). A Proof in the Περὶ ἰδεῶν. Journal of Hellenic Studies 77, pp. 103–111.
-
Owen, G.E.L. (1966). The Platonism of Aristotle. Proceedings of the British Academy 51, pp. 125–150.
-
Owen, G.E.L. (1968). Dialectic and Eristic in the Treatment of the Forms. In: Owen, G.E.L., ed., Aristotle on Dialectic: The Topics, Oxford, pp. 103–125.
-
Peacock, H. (2017). The Third Man and the Coherence of the Parmenides. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 52, pp. 113–176.
-
Primavesi, O. (2012). Aristotle, Metaphysics A: A New Critical Edition with Introduction. In: Steel, ed., pp. 385–516.
-
Rapp, C. (2012). Urbild. Platonische Ideen als Urbilder. In: Ott, M. and Döring, T., eds., Urworte: Zur Geschichte und Funktion erstbegründender Begriffe, Munich, pp. 95–119.
-
Robin, L. (1908). La théorie platonicienne des Idées et des Nombres d’après Aristote. Paris.
-
Ross, W.D. (1924). Aristotle’s Metaphysics: A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1. Oxford.
-
Ross, W.D. (1951). Plato’s Theory of Ideas. Oxford.
-
Schofield, M. (1996). Likeness and Likenesses in the Parmenides. In: Gill, C. and McCabe, M.M., eds., Form and Argument in Late Plato, Oxford, pp. 49–77.
-
Sellars, W. (1955). Vlastos and ‘the Third Man’. Philosophical Review 64, pp. 405–437.
-
Sharma, R. (2005). What Is Aristotle’s ‘Third Man’ Argument Against the Forms? Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 28, pp. 123–160.
-
Steel, C., ed. (2012). Aristotle’s Metaphysics Alpha: Symposium Aristotelicum. Oxford.
-
Taylor, A.E. (1916). Parmenides, Zeno, and Socrates. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 16, pp. 234–289.
-
Taylor, A.E. (1934). The Parmenides of Plato. Oxford.
-
Vlastos, G. (1954). The Third Man Argument in the Parmenides. Philosophical Review 63, pp. 319–349.
-
Vlastos, G. (1969). Plato’s ‘Third Man’ Argument (Parm. 132a1–b2): Text and Logic. Philosophical Quarterly 19, pp. 289–301.
-
Wilpert, P. (1941). Das Argument vom ‘dritten’ Menschen. Philologus 94, pp. 51–64.
-
Wilpert, P. (1949). Zwei aristotelische Frühschriften über die Ideenlehre. Regensburg.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 477 | 477 | 12 |
| Full Text Views | 90 | 90 | 5 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 230 | 230 | 15 |
In Search of Aristotle’s Third Man
In: PhronesisSearch for other papers by Timothy Clarke in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
Aristotle thinks that the Platonic theory of Forms is vulnerable to the Third Man regress. According to Alexander of Aphrodisias, the regress arises from the conjunction of three Platonist claims, which I label ‘Exemplification’, ‘Similarity’, and ‘Distinctness’. It is clear why, taken together, these three claims generate an infinite regress of Forms. What is not clear is why Aristotle thinks that a Platonist should have to accept each of the claims. My answer begins from the fact that, in Metaphysics A and M, Aristotle mentions the Third Man as a consequence, not of positing Forms, but of certain ways of arguing for Forms. By working out what these arguments are likely to have been, we can understand why he took the Platonist to have been committed to all three claims, and thus why he saw the Third Man as a serious difficulty.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 477 | 477 | 12 |
| Full Text Views | 90 | 90 | 5 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 230 | 230 | 15 |
