EPT3rd Man argument:
http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/third-man-argument.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_man_argument
[Help] Third Man Argument
| Blogs > Fulgrim |
|
Fulgrim
United States560 Posts
3rd Man argument: http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/third-man-argument.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_man_argument | ||
|
bITt.mAN
Switzerland3693 Posts
| ||
|
drag_
England425 Posts
| ||
|
Fulgrim
United States560 Posts
Thanks drag, i'm reading over this, and it clears up some issues. Maybe its the example that's giving me trouble though. Why does there have to be a form for a plurality of objects? Am I way far off in even that previous question from what they actually mean? | ||
|
hp.Shell
United States2527 Posts
| ||
|
Grebliv
Iceland800 Posts
now you have a new largeness to explain (a b c F1) and since "No form partakes of itself" (F1 is a part of the F2 group so it can't be the same thing) you'll have to make up a new form of largeness, F2; which then falls into a new bracket (a b c F1 F2). You can do this forever. the problem is then that the uniqueness kicks in, there's only supposed to be one type of F but the statements about it's properties contradict themselves. All the statements about the theory of forms have a hard time coexisting. Don't really remember this stuff and was never too hot at it (looked at the wiki a bunch). the wiki however and the stanford thing after the namedropping stuff should cover it. | ||
|
Iranon
United States983 Posts
Non-identity is basically the same as regularity in set theory -- no set is (identical to) a member of itself. This is to prevent exactly this sort of infinite descending chains of membership that would otherwise pop up. Self-predication is sort of the same thing, but backwards. Huh? Not sure why this is a reasonable thing to posit. Seems very fishy with regularity afoot. One-over-many, oh lord, now we've got real problems, this is unrestricted comprehension -- for all properties P, there exists a set of all elements x for which P(x) is true. This pretty much just gives you Russell's paradox, and that's why unrestricted comprehension is not part of mathematics, restricted comprehension is. BAM, inconsistencies. By Oneness, all the forms are distinct things, so they should all be characterized by some property. What's that property they have in common? Why, being a form, of course. Formness, I guess. Okay, then there should be a Formness form. That's a form too, and immediately gives you the whole "third man" problem all over again, as well as Russell's paradox if there's a form for "non-formness". Blahhhhh. | ||
| ||
