Topoi 23 (1):33-59 (2004)
|Abstract||This article aims at elucidating the logic of Arist. SE 22, 178b36–179a10 and, in particular, of the sophism labelled "Third Man" discussed in it. I suggest that neither the sophistic Walking Man argument, proposed by ancient commentators, nor the Aristotelian Third Man of the , suggested by modern interpreters, can be identified with the fallacious argument Aristotle presents and solves in the passage. I propose an alternative reconstruction of the Third Man sophism and argue that an explanation of the lines regarding the identity of Coriscus and Coriscus the musician (178b39–179a3) is indispensable for its correct understanding, since they hint at another sophism in some important aspects analogous. Finally, I show that two contradictions concerning spotted by scholars in the passage are only apparent and can be dissolved once the assumption that the anti-Platonic Third Man argument is at stake here is discarded, and once the passage is read in the light of its agonistic context.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Albert W. Vanderlaan, Marcus Tullius Cicero: A Look Into the Role of Rome's Greatest Orator During the Decline and Fall of the Roman Republic.
P. Schweizer (1994). Self-Predication and the Third Man. Erkenntnis 40 (1):21 - 42.
Terrell Carver (2004). Men in Political Theory. Published Exclusively in the Usa by Palgrave.
James Edward Nicholson (1943). Anthropos; or, the Problem of Man. London, Watts & Co..
Nicholas Shackel (2010). Sophism and Pragmatism. Logique Et Analyse 53:131-149.
D. T. J. Bailey (2009). The Third Man Argument. Philosophy Compass 4 (4):666-681.
S. Marc Cohen (1971). The Logic of the Third Man. Philosophical Review 80 (4):448-475.
Scott Aikin & John Casey (2011). Straw Men, Weak Men, and Hollow Men. Argumentation 25 (1):87-105.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads5 ( #160,518 of 551,007 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 551,007 )
How can I increase my downloads?