Tfw read about the third man argument

>tfw read about the third man argument
can platonists ever recover?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_man_argument
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>the third man argument
Give a little summery

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_man_argument
plato perpetually btfo

Plato was literally the first one to formulate the critique, right before he descended into even wackier eleatic monism

"he posits that if a man is a man because he partakes in the form of man, then a third form would be required to explain how man and the form of man are both man, and so on, ad infinitum."

"Plato's theory of Forms, as it is presented in such dialogues as the Phaedo, Republic and the first part of the Parmenides, seems committed to the following principles:

"F" stands for any Form ("appearance, property"). Plato, in the Parmenides, uses the example "largeness" for "F-ness"; Aristotle uses the example "man".[1]

One-over-many: For any plurality of F things, there is a form of F-ness by virtue of partaking of which each member of that plurality is F.
Self-predication: Every form of F-ness is itself F.
Non-self-partaking: No form partakes of itself.
Uniqueness: For any property F, there is exactly one form of F-ness.
Purity: No form can have contrary properties.
One/many: The property of being one and the property of being many are contraries.
Oneness: Every form is one."

"However, the TMA shows that these principles are mutually contradictory, as long as there is a plurality of things that are F:

(In the following sentences, large is used as an example; however, the argumentation holds for any F.)

Begin, then, with the assumption that there is a plurality of large things, say (A, B, C). By one-over-many, there is a form of largeness (say, L1) by virtue of partaking of which A, B, and C are large. By self-predication, L1 is large.

But then we can add L1 to (A, B, C) to form a new plurality of large things: (A, B, C, L1). By One-Over-Many, there is a form of largeness (say, L2) by virtue of partaking of which A, B, C, and L1 are large. But in that case L1 partakes of L2, and by Non-Self-Partaking, L1 is not identical to L2. So there are at least two forms of largeness, L1 and L2. This already contradicts Uniqueness, according to which there is exactly one (and hence no more than one) form of largeness.

But it gets worse for the theory of Forms. For by Self-Predication, L2 is large, and hence L2 can be added to (A, B, C, L1) to form a new plurality of large things: (A, B, C, L1, L2). By One-Over-Many, there is a form of largeness (say, L3) by virtue of partaking of which A, B, C, L1, and L2 are large. But in that case L1 and L2 both partake of L3, and by Non-Self-Partaking, neither of L1 and L2 is identical to L3. So there must be at least three forms of largeness, L1, L2, and L3.

Repetition of this reasoning shows that there is an infinite hierarchy of forms of largeness, with each form partaking of the infinite number of forms above it in the hierarchy. According to Plato, anything that partakes of many things must itself be many. So each form in the infinite hierarchy of forms of largeness is many. But then, given Purity and One/Many, it follows that each form in the infinite hierarchy of forms of largeness is not one. This contradicts Oneness."

>But it gets worse for the theory of Forms
This sounds like it was written by one of you shit posters

Plato must have been trolling, using 'largeness'

>Repetition of this reasoning shows that there is an infinite hierarchy of forms of largeness,

Didnt need any reasoning to know that,

This is like the 'how many grains of sand until you have a pile?

If you made that wiki entry, delet it. The Form of Embarrassment has plurally embarked upon me and you, possibly equally, it is just that in good truth, you seem to be unaware

Is Aristotle 3rd man suggestion hinting at the missing link between chimps and humans?

>But it gets worse for the theory of Forms.
Seriously, someone deengrave this emotional slobbering from The Stone that is wiki

Also, who proposed the argument? Socrates? Are you assuming everything Socrates says is what Plato believes is The Truth? Did the character Plato propose the argument?

Delete your account.

How's grade 8 treating you man? Have you gone through your fedora phase yet?

Yeah, faggot. Read Leibniz and take out all the wacky Timaeus-tier shit and Platonism works just fine.

And if it doesn't have faith (delude yourself) and ignore logical inconsistencies.

>Delete your account.
Now this here, ladies and gents, my dear Zeus, is a glorious example of that most evil and eternal form, the grand corruptor and degrader of the human spirit and its gallant valiant process of progress: That Form I speak of, many varieties, many pluralities thereof, but of The Same Eternal Form none the less (though it be nearly the least; right (the Form correctness) up (the Form upness) near (the Form nearness) the (the Form theness) most (the Form of mostness) lowness (the Form lowness) and (the Form andness) most smallness (the Form smallness) the Form (the Form of Formness) of (the Form of ofness) Not An Argumentness (the Form of Not An Argumentness)

I deleted this post originally because I realized I could add a word or two to make it make the sense I originaly set out to make but hastily posted and forgot, to add these two words. And lo and behold, to my astonishment, the person I presume responded to me, responded again! And.. would we guess it, my dear reader, they made an even (the Form of evenness, or in this case, moreness) worse (the Form of worseness) crimeful committal of 'not an argumentation', I can only now presume, that they will respond again, something to the extent of 'why did you delete that post cuck, I totaly btfoed you out', but this time, they might becompelled to treat us with including 3 ad hominems in their absence of any argument. Instead of the 2, in response of me calling them out on failing to provide any argument whatsoever.

Now this begs the question: How can there be 1 singular Form: Not An Argument. And yet, This poster clearly displays a multiplicity of values in relation to said form? How can, the second post, reach a further level in the singular oneness of Not An Argument? How can his second post be "even more of not an argument"?

Clearly, Plato was wrong about everything.

>How's grade 8 treating you man? Have you gone through your fedora phase yet?
(note the tense urge, the anxiety, to struggle, with creativity, of including 2 ad hominems in this worthless waste of cyber space)

Now (the Form of nowness) I (the Form of Iness) truly (the Form of truness) am (the Form of yesness) beginning (the Form of beginning) to (the Form of toness) suspect (the Form of suspecting) this poster is the anal-lick-tic poster of said wiki entry. For shame (the Form of shameness).

Which begs the question, how can a singular form, Shame, contain a plurality of possibilities. This is the second time I have now indubitably demonstrated Plato as being full of the Form of Shit (but this implies there are different levels of fullness? Largnessness? Of Shits?) and I do not believe (the Form of belief) I used a single ad hominem against Plato.

Never stop

Yes, it's even explicitly stated in a dialogue (Parmenides).

Think about it: Aristotle *knew* that Plato had already addressed that misconception, but decided to criticize it anyway, because quite simply he couldn't understand in which way it could be avoided.

The interesting thing is that the modern person, which is a bit more skilled than the ancient greeks in abstract thinking and in recognizing the limits of language, can easily succeed were genius Aristotle has failed.

>which is a bit more skilled than the ancient greeks in abstract thinking
lol

Think about it... at some point Plato had to explicitly (and awkwardly) create a theory just to explain why "the apple is red" can be a true sentence even if "apple" is not equal to "red". And in so doing he solved 90% of the problems that had occupied philosophy up to that time.

Plato and Aristotle had to make a considerable effort to detect all the ways in which language was limiting their thought, and many of the discoveries they had to lay down come now naturally to almost anyone - not because we are smarter than them, but because we grew up and were educated in a culture where these things are built-in, thanks to those two and to the countless scholars that elaborated and perfected their theories.

And that's far more of a task than asking speciazilied questions, don't you think? Proving axiomatic things is fucking hard I find.

tho i'ms tu pudid as fuck

Heavenly.

*Diogenes approaches Plato and friend on the patio of the academia, he is clearly drunk as referenced by the Form of his stumbling (though it is not entirely clear yet, as he could have sprained his ankle on the way over here, or be possessed by his Daemon, though we suppose that could be an and/or, or the latter merely another inconsequential fact, or redundant obviousness; he is drinking fermented figs from the upturned anus of a plucked chicken*
"Ayyhhh, Pttato!! Howsss, this form of Man, ...multiple?/ plural??1?1 and a Cup?.. you fucky foolll! one fooorm kkanttt be 2 thingss sillllyyy!"

>create a theory just to explain why "the apple is red" can be a true sentence even if "apple" is not equal to "red".

Can you explain this? What was the theory to explain. That 'redness' was an eternal form? And that some apples 'accessed' it?

Basically, that the verb "to be" can be used with different meanings and doesn't need to imply identity. This is what it boils down for a modern reader, but from all the turns of phrases he does you can imagine he is sweating from the effort.

Can you add any more clear (opaque) substance to this; I dont understand what you are saying.

The apple is not equal to red.

the apple is red, is a true statement

'to be' doesnt need to imply identity.

Can you be any more clear?

Can an apple be red? Is an apple red? In reality? To perception? Is red a quality of the apple? Only partly? Relating to its molecular structure and movements, and relating to light, and relating to the eye/body/brain/mind system?

Form of Excepting Other Forms From Needing A Form

Can red be an apple?

Was Plato even real?

underrated my good and true brethren

>Can red be an apple?
No, can an apple be red?

is trippy the worst namefag on this board?

yes socrates

>is trippy the worst namefag on this board?
Only on backwards day XDDDDDD

Theres not many at all, so its really not much of a contest

>is trippy the worst namefag on this board?
How many times have I BTFOed you so far?

Well since trippy doesn't know how to properly use a trip code, I'd say no