Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and The Third Man Argument
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21363334 |
|---|---|
| Authors | René Ardell Fehr (0000-0002-1644-7371, Dominican University College, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 102 |
| Issue | 1100 |
| Pages | 517-533 |
| Publication date | 2021-07-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | New Blackfriars (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0028-4289 • E-ISSN: 1741-2005 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1111/nbfr.12560 |
| OpenAlex | W3037985538 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 8 |
The Third Man argument, as it originated in Plato's Parmenides , is unjustly read into Aristotle. The Parmenides argument is briefly examined, followed by an analysis of the relevant Aristotelian texts, with a special emphasis on the commentary of Thomas Aquinas. Three different versions of Aristotle's Third Man argument are identified, of which none contain the essential infinite regress that characterizes the Parmenides argument. Finally, current scholarship on the Third Man argument, especially as it pertains to Aristotle, is reviewed. In this respect, I note that the overwhelming tendency has been to identify Aristotle's Third Man argument with that of the Parmenides , in spite of the fact that Aristotle only once articulates his version of the Third Man argument, and that this articulation is vastly different from its Parmenides counterpart. I conclude that contemporary Third Man scholarship must take this into account
Argument (complex analysis) · Argument map · Argumentation theory · Articulation (sociology) · Epistemology · Scholarship · Classical Philosophy and Thought · Law · Medicine · Medieval and Classical Philosophy · Philosophy · Seventeenth-Century Political and Philosophical Thought
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |