Abstract

All commentators of the ‘Parmenides’ agree that the Third Man argument, 132a-b2, raises a difficulty for Plato’s theory of forms. Many commentators, following Vlastos, hold that the argument’s infinite regress is vicious for epistemic reasons. Rickless contends that the infinite regress is vicious for exclusively metaphysical reasons. This essay intends to show that Rickless’ interpretation is inadequate, as well as to vindicate Vlastos’ interpretation.