Was the third man argument in Plato's dialogue Parmenides an example of philosophical irony?
>>22740335Nope. Plato rejected the forms late in life and replaced them with numbers. That’s why he wrote dialogues refuting them.
>>22740335No, literally all the other dialogues were, though.
>>22740340not true>>22740335Because later on he realized that having the forms be separated from the particular things creates this unsolvable logical problems, similar in nature as the ones Parmenides and his school led to, which in Plato's lifetime where considered to lay the foundations for sohpistry in the style of the Euthydemus for making the phenomenal realm an essentially illusory realm devoid of any truthful reality but the unchanging One. In the Sophist later on he solves this by not only separating the forms from particular reality, but also separating them from each other, and thus introducing negativity, finitude and in the end, determination into the forms themselves. So then, non-being exists in a certain way, as in the way that this thing is not another thing (determinate negation). There are many interpretations though but this i find the most interesting one.
>>22741831I was also thinking in terms of whether we could use the third man argument to debunk the claim that Being is a genus, that certain things could be predicated of it, or that Being can be reduced to its constituent beings.>In the Sophist later on he solves this by not only separating the forms from particular reality, but also separating them from each other, and thus introducing negativity, finitude and in the end, determination into the forms themselves.What do you mean by negativity? I see that phrase used a lot in metaphysics but I'm not always sure what it means. Also, does it make sense to think that, after The Sophist, Plato and Aristotle's metaphysics look extremely similar?
>>22741831> by not only separating the forms from particular reality, but also separating them from each other, and thus introducing negativityCan you explain and elaborate this more
>>22741831Lmao, this is your brain on platonism. Very similar to the inane ramblings of a hegelian or some other German. Plato solved x, hegel squared the circle, etc.>>22742559Platonists essentially never learnt the eleatic lesson that there only is what there is. By "negativity", he means they tried to posit a "beyond being" or a "non being" that can be relied on or leveraged to tamper with Being (what is). Of course, to say that there IS something other than what there is results in a direct contradiction. Basically, platonists couldn't cope with some core eleatic teachings regarding the complete and unchanging nature of reality (Being). Thus, the aforementioned a mental break down and incoherent teachings about "negation" as something that has significance but is other than that which is subsumed by the term "Being". Absolute embarrassment, but most philosophers commit similar errors. Eleatics perfected metaphysics, but the truth was too hard to swallow.
>>22742617What do you think of the third man argument?
>>22742800I don't have anything brilliant to add to what you might find over at the Stanford site or some other secondary material. I'm not a platonist, and I'm not too concerned with attacking models insofar as they constrain themselves to operating within Being (hence im more interested in laughing at the contradiction of positing a negation/something beyond Being). But it is interesting insofar as it involves problems with infinity. Also, insofar as it gives us a reason to reject certain models of "participation" and forms, and platonism generally, but again I am okay with letting Platonists play in their cave as long as they confess the absolute omnipresence and perfection of Being.
>>22742914Do you think self-predication is a valid solution to that kind of problem? In conjunction with distancing oneself away from fragmented forms and towards Being itself, of course.
>>22740335I never got that argument...If we have a man and the idea of a man...why can't the material man not just be caused by the ideal one ?Why has there to be a third man that connects both ?Never got that !
>>22740335i read this as ‘paramedics’
>>22742950because just by positing two substances, the material and the mental, you've caused a split that causes them to not interact with each other by their very nature. like deals with like. so you need a third "thing" that can deal with the two somehow.
>>22742935Isn't self-predication part of the problem? It's the answer to this anon's question:>>22742950Why does the form of something, like large, have that property? If you're retarded, you might say "well the form of large is large because it has largeness". In which case the man partakes in largeness, and the form of large also partakes in largeness, so now there is a largeness that is over the man and the form. But why is that third thing large? I guess it participates in largeness too, lmao.I don't know why you would say that the form of large has "large" as a predicate (self-predication) rather than it per se being the large and being present wherever largeness is present, but I'm not familiar with all the hand wringing about models of "participation" and forms.To go back to the first anon, yes, I think we have to be strict about viewing reality a cohesive, unified whole (Being). Reality is one unchanging, perfect thing and whatever details or information there is, it is of Being. Not some strange model of independent things that partake in other independent things and can change into "what is not" in accordance with this system and as powered by the magic of negation/beyond-Being.
>>22743039>I don't know why you would say that the form of large has "large" as a predicate (self-predication) rather than it per se being the large and being present wherever largeness is present, but I'm not familiar with all the hand wringing about models of "participation" and forms.NTA but yeah I feel like that's an extremely autistic objection that only a certain type of man would raise. IMO the "paradigmatic" interpretation of the Forms is the closest view to the truth that you'll find in academia.
>>22743039The problems of self-predication seem like a tripping over language to me.>that thing is largeworks>that thing has largeness [large as a property belongs to it]clumsy, but it works. "largeness" seems like a form that something can "participate" in, in some sense.>that thing is participating in the form of largeness [you can assign largeness as a property to that thing]even worse than the last example, but it tentatively works.>the form of largeness is large >the form of largeness has largeness. I don't know if either of these two work. There is no specific object that is being referred to here. >large has largeness. >largeness is large. Clumsy, but these seem to make sense though.Idk. To me, the adjective is simply being converted to a noun, or more accurately, a noun which serves as a "pointer" or a "class" to the adjective. And the problem is confusing the "class" (largeness) with the pointer to the class (form of largeness). forms aren't large in the same way that names aren't large. that's not what they do. but largeness is large. perhaps another way of saying it is that "largeness" is already a form, and that forms are a matter of hypostatic abstraction (taking inspiration from Charles Sanders Peirce). calling it the "form of largeness" is to prescind away what it serves to describe (the quality of largeness) while focusing on the abstract class of thought itself. if you rethought "form" as "class", you wouldn't say that the "class" of largeness is large unless you meant to say that many things belonged to that class. idk, just some thoughts.
>>22740335basic Paul posting
Plotinus says trans rights :)
>>22740335Give me the qrd on neoplatonic transgenderism
>>22744446it's based and redpilled and the final destination of neoplatonism.
>>22744446matter is not real, only form is real.