Comparing Plato's Theory Of Forms And The Third Man Argument
1937 Words8 Pages
In Plato’s writings, he offers the Theory of Forms and a refutation of the Theory called the Third Man Argument. In this paper, I will state the Theory of Forms along with details about the nature of Forms and the Third Man Argument in order to demonstrate that the argument does not strongly refute the theory because the self-exemplification and the non-identity assumptions can be satisfied simultaneously.
In Plato’s Theory of Forms, he describes Forms as being eternal, infinite, and unchanging entities (Phaedo 78 d). They are perfect and embody the best characteristics any entity could possess which makes them the paradigm for all other things. Although Forms are used as the paradigm, they are not real in any way that would be familiar to human beings because they exist in a world different from our own. The world in which human beings reside, the material world, is perceived through our…show more content… The two assumptions, non-identity and self-exemplification, are addressed in Plato’s work, but the latter does not need to be satisfied in the way for the Theory to function. In the Symposium, Diotima explains that Beauty is beautiful in a way unlike anything we ever can experience in our material world. Beauty can be described as beautiful, but it would be wrong to say that the participants can be described as beautiful in the same way. The way we say an object of the physical world is beautiful is completely different from the way Beauty is considered beautiful. We use the term beautiful for physical objects to mean it reminds us of the Form of Beauty. As explained in the ascent passage, when one finally arrives at the top of the ladder and understands the form, they will then understand that all other things were not actually