Third Man Argument Analysis

1144 Words5 Pages
Despite working together in a close “teacher-student” context, philosophers Plato and Aristotle were at odds with each other in their ways of thinking, specifically about what it means “to be.” While one dwelled in the physical realm, the other inhabited the world of ideals and non-physical potential, known as “the Forms.” As an atheist, my beliefs gravitate towards aligning with one and not the other, which I will explain in depth by the end of this paper. Plato, the mentor and teacher to Aristotle, had a strong belief in the existence of Forms that served as ideals for the physical world to follow. According to him, all objects matched a certain Form according to its characteristics and physical nature. For example, one of the highest…show more content…
It is called the Third Man Argument. In the Third Man Argument, we can envision a small group of objects or organisms linked by a certain physical characteristic. This characteristic makes it possible for us to determine what the object or organism is. It is the determining factor that separates it from others that may have overlapping features. For example, let’s use a dog to illustrate this point. We all know what a dog looks like because we have been exposed to dogs from an early age. At least, it is safe to say that. If Plato was indeed correct about the existence of the Forms, then there would be in another realm, the From of “Dogness” which would determine what constitutes as a dog here in the physical realm. But the question is, how do we know that? If we are to visually match the Form or Dogness, or the Ideal Dog to a dog here in the physical realm, then that Ideal Dog must physically also be a dog; this way, we humans can see with our own eyes the similarities. But if we can see that, the Form of Dogness must actually be in the physical realm! But if THAT is true, there must be another Second Form of Dogness must still exist to tell us what the First Form of Dogness looks like. This goes on and on. The point is simple; we must have determined what we call a dog, because we cannot see Plato’s Forms with our own eyes. From all of this, it is very
Open Document