Third Man Argument

1. Introduction

The Third Man Argument (TMA) is a classic regress argument drawn from Plato’s dialogue Parmenides that challenges a straightforward reading of the Theory of Forms. It focuses on how a single abstract Form—for example, Largeness itself—is supposed to explain why many different things are large. Under a set of apparently natural assumptions about Forms and their relation to particulars, the argument seems to show that positing one Form to explain a group of similar things inevitably leads to an infinite sequence of further Forms, thereby threatening the theory’s explanatory ambition.

In its simplest outline, the TMA targets the idea that:

• whenever several things are all F (large, beautiful, just, etc.), there is one Form of F‑ness that makes them F;
• the Form itself is also F;
• the Form is numerically distinct from its participants.

On the face of it, these assumptions generate a regress: if both the original Form and the particulars are F, they together constitute a new plurality of F things that, by the same principle, require a further Form; that new Form is again F, and so on without end. This is the “third man” and his successors.

The TMA has been interpreted variously as a self‑critique of early Platonism, a dialectical exercise, a puzzle about universals and predication, and a paradigm of how infinite regresses can undermine explanation. It has shaped later debates about the status of universals, the nature of abstract entities, and the logical structure of predication, and continues to serve as a central reference point for both historians of philosophy and contemporary metaphysicians.

2. Origin and Attribution

2.1 Textual Origin

The Third Man Argument originates in Plato’s dialogue Parmenides, especially at 130e–131e. In this passage, the elder Parmenides interrogates a young Socrates about the Theory of Forms, pressing him on how a single Form could explain the common property shared by many particulars. Although the term “Third Man Argument” does not occur in Plato, later commentators coined it to capture the core pattern of the regress: besides the many F things and the Form F‑ness, a “third” entity (another Form) is introduced, and this can be iterated indefinitely.

"

“Then another Form of largeness will make its appearance, which will be over and above largeness itself and the things that participate in it; and yet another over all these, and so each time a new Form will always appear, if the one over many is always to be one.”

— Plato, Parmenides 132a–b (paraphrastic rendering based on standard translations)

2.2 Attribution to Plato

Scholars generally agree that the regress pattern is explicitly developed in Plato’s text, but they disagree on attribution in at least two senses:

Because the dialogue is written by Plato and contains the explicit regress reasoning, the argument is usually attributed to Plato in the broad sense, while remaining open whether it reflects his mature convictions or a staged challenge internal to the development of Platonism.

3. Historical and Textual Context in Plato’s Parmenides

3.1 Position within the Dialogue

In Parmenides, the Third Man-style reasoning appears in the first part of the dialogue, where Parmenides critically examines Socrates’ version of the Theory of Forms. The TMA occurs amid a sequence of objections about:

• whether Forms exist for trivial or purely negative predicates (e.g., hair, mud, not‑large);
• whether Forms can be “in” many places at once;
• and how particulars participate in Forms.

Within this series, the TMA builds on the One‑over‑Many principle and the assumption that Forms are what the many things are, but “in themselves.”

3.2 Dramatic and Philosophical Setting

The dialogue is set as a conversation between a very young Socrates and the older Parmenides and Zeno. This dramatic framing has been central to interpretation: readers are shown Socrates’ still‑developing theory being examined by an experienced dialectician. The TMA arises as Parmenides presses Socrates to clarify participation and the status of Forms.

Historically, the Parmenides is often dated to Plato’s middle‑to‑late period (c. 370–360 BCE), after dialogues such as Phaedo and Republic had articulated more confident versions of the Forms doctrine. This positioning has led many to treat the TMA as part of Plato’s own reflective re‑examination of his earlier metaphysics.

3.3 Relation to Other Critiques in the Dialogue

The TMA is intertwined with nearby arguments about:

• the “Third Bed”‑style worry (in Republic 10) that multiplying ontological levels can seem extravagant;
• the problem of “participation by parts” (is each particular F because it has a “part” of the Form?);
• the question whether Forms are separate from particulars or in some sense immanent.

Commentators often read the TMA together with these neighbouring passages, taking the first part of Parmenides as a unified exploration of difficulties facing a naïve, strongly transcendent and self‑predicative Form theory.

3.4 Manuscript and Translation Issues

The Greek text of Parmenides is comparatively well preserved, and no major textual corruptions are thought to affect the core of the TMA. Nonetheless, particular Greek expressions—such as terms for “being over many,” “sharing,” or “being itself”—have been translated and construed in different ways, sometimes supporting stronger or weaker versions of the regress. These exegetical nuances play a role in how strongly the TMA is taken to press against the Forms doctrine.

4. Plato’s Theory of Forms and Its Commitments

The Third Man Argument presupposes several features of the Theory of Forms as Plato presents it in dialogues like Phaedo, Republic, and as recounted by the young Socrates in Parmenides.

4.1 Core Commitments

Most reconstructions attribute at least the following commitments to this theory:

These commitments give the theory both a metaphysical and an epistemological role: Forms ground what things are and provide stable objects for knowledge.

4.2 Self-Predication and Non‑Identity

Two more specific theses are especially important for the TMA:

• Self‑Predication: The Form F‑ness is itself F. For example, Beauty itself is beautiful; Largeness itself is large. Plato’s language in several dialogues appears to treat Forms as paradigms that possess their own property “most perfectly.”
• Non‑Identity of Form and Participants: The Form is not identical with any of the many F things; it is “one over many.”

The interaction of Self‑Predication with Non‑Identity and the One‑over‑Many principle is what the regress exploits.

4.3 Motivations for the Theory

The Theory of Forms, as background to the TMA, is motivated by concerns about:

• stability in a world of changing particulars;
• the possibility of objective knowledge about general truths;
• the need for a single explanation of why many distinct things share a property.

The Third Man Argument engages these motivations by questioning whether a single, separate Form can, in fact, perform this explanatory function once the theory’s other commitments are accepted.

5. Formulation of the Third Man Argument

The label “Third Man Argument” refers to a particular regress pattern reconstructed from Parmenides 130e–131e. Different scholars formulate the argument with varying emphases, but most versions share a common structure centered on the property of largeness as an illustrative case.

5.1 A Standard Reconstruction

A widely cited formulation (inspired by analytic reconstructions) proceeds roughly as follows:

1. There are many large things—say, a, b, and c.
2. By the One‑over‑Many principle, there is a single Form of Largeness (L₁) by virtue of which a, b, and c are large.
3. The Form L₁ is itself large (Self‑Predication).
4. L₁ is not identical with any of a, b, or c (Non‑Identity).
5. Hence, a, b, c, and L₁ now form a new plurality of large things.
6. By the same One‑over‑Many principle, there must be another Form of Largeness, L₂, that explains why this new plurality are all large.
7. L₂ is itself large and distinct from the members of that plurality, generating another, larger plurality and requiring yet another Form L₃, and so on ad infinitum.

This schema attempts to make explicit how iterating the explanatory principle leads beyond the original single Form.

5.2 Variants in Formulation

Different commentators emphasize different aspects:

While the details vary, all such formulations capture the central idea that, under certain assumptions, the attempt to explain many by one does not stop with a single Form but proliferates indefinitely.

6. Logical Structure and Regress Mechanism

The Third Man Argument is commonly interpreted as a reductio ad absurdum: it assumes standard Platonic theses and derives an infinite regress that appears to undercut their explanatory purpose.

6.1 Overall Form

The logical form can be represented as:

1. Assume a set of principles about Forms (One‑over‑Many, Self‑Predication, Non‑Identity, Participation).
2. Derive that for any group of F things, there exists a distinct Form F‑ness that explains their being F.
3. Show that, given Self‑Predication, the Form itself becomes a member of a new F‑plurality.
4. Re‑apply the One‑over‑Many principle to that new plurality.
5. Conclude that the process iterates without terminus, producing infinitely many Forms of F‑ness.
6. Infer that the original set of principles is problematic, since the theory aimed at a single explanatory Form.

In this way the TMA is deemed valid: if the premises hold, the regress follows.

6.2 The Regress Step

The regress mechanism hinges on moving from one stage to the next:

The crucial move is that at each stage, the new Form both:

• qualifies as F (by Self‑Predication), and
• is distinct from the previous Form and particulars (Non‑Identity),

thus providing fresh material for another application of the One‑over‑Many principle.

6.3 Threat to Explanatory Sufficiency

Proponents of the argument maintain that the regress is vicious because:

• The original aim was to provide a single, stable cause of F‑ness.
• If there are infinitely many Forms of F‑ness, no single Form uniquely explains why particulars are F.
• The regress therefore appears to undermine explanatory sufficiency rather than enhance it.

Some later interpretations challenge whether the regress is indeed vicious or merely a harmless feature of a carefully understood theory, but the internal logic of the TMA relies on the thought that an unending hierarchy of Forms defeats the point of positing Forms as explanatory entities.

7. Key Assumptions: One-over-Many, Self-Predication, and Participation

The force of the Third Man Argument depends heavily on a cluster of assumptions about Forms. Three are especially central.

7.1 One-over-Many Principle

The One‑over‑Many principle asserts that for any plurality of things that are all F, there is a single Form F‑ness “over” them that explains their sharing the property F. It encodes both a metaphysical claim (there exists a Form) and an explanatory claim (this Form is what makes them F).

In Parmenides, this principle is elicited from Socrates and then pushed to its limits. Commentators note that Plato elsewhere seems strongly attracted to something like this thesis, especially in contexts where he argues from many beautiful things to “the Beautiful itself.”

7.2 Self-Predication

Self‑Predication is the thesis that each Form F‑ness is itself F: the Form of Largeness is large, the Form of Justice is just, and so on. This is suggested by passages where the Forms are said to be what they are “most of all” or “in themselves.”

In the TMA, Self‑Predication allows the Form to be counted among the many F things: once Largeness is itself large, it appears to join the set of large particulars that need explanation. Some interpreters propose that Self‑Predication is meant in a special or analogical sense (e.g., Forms are F “in a different way”), which, if accepted, might prevent this assimilation.

7.3 Participation and Non‑Identity

The Platonic notion of participation or “sharing in” (methexis, koinōnia) is relatively schematic in the dialogues; the TMA exploits this indeterminacy. Two related assumptions are usually extracted:

• Participation Principle: Particulars are F by participating in the Form F‑ness.
• Non‑Identity: No particular is identical with the Form it participates in.

In the regress, participation links each plurality of F things to a distinct Form, while Non‑Identity ensures that the new Form counts as another F thing rather than collapsing into the previous entities.

7.4 Interaction of the Assumptions

It is the combined effect of these principles that drives the regress:

Later responses to the TMA often focus on weakening, re‑interpreting, or selectively restricting one or more of these assumptions.

8. Interpretive Debates on Plato’s Intent

Scholars have proposed markedly different views about what Plato intended to accomplish with the Third Man Argument in Parmenides.

8.1 Self-Critique of Early Platonism

One influential reading treats the TMA as Plato’s own critical reassessment of his earlier Theory of Forms. On this view:

• The young Socrates represents an earlier, relatively unsophisticated version of Platonism.
• Parmenides’ regress shows that this version is untenable as it stands.
• Plato thereby signals the need for a more nuanced treatment of Forms, participation, or the One‑over‑Many principle.

Proponents see this as consistent with Parmenides’s broader pattern of subjecting Forms to searching scrutiny.

8.2 Purely Dialectical or Pedagogical Exercise

An alternative approach regards the TMA as primarily dialectical. Here, Plato’s aim is to:

• Display the rigor of Eleatic dialectic in the person of Parmenides;
• Train readers (and the fictional Socrates) in the art of examining assumptions;
• Illustrate how powerful but loosely stated principles can lead to paradox.

On this view, the dialogue does not straightforwardly endorse the regress as a decisive refutation; instead, it dramatizes a method of philosophical testing whose results remain open-ended.

8.3 Neutral Problem-Setting

A related but more neutral interpretation holds that Plato is setting a problem for any theory of universals, not just his own earlier formulations. The TMA is then seen as:

• A general challenge to any account that posits separate, self‑exemplifying universals;
• A device to motivate subsequent metaphysical creativity, whether in Plato’s later thought or in the work of others (e.g., Aristotle).

Plato’s personal commitment to the premises or conclusion of the TMA is left deliberately underdetermined.

8.4 Interpretive Cautions

Debate also centers on how literally to take the argument as stated:

Because the dialogue does not include a simple authorial verdict, the TMA remains a central locus of dispute over how to read Plato’s development and the function of dialectic in his work.

9. Standard Objections and Responses

Subsequent philosophers and scholars have developed a range of objections to the Third Man Argument and responses that defend or modify its force. These typically target specific premises or transitions in the regress.

9.1 Objections to Self-Predication

Many critics contend that the regress arises only because Forms are treated as self‑predicative in the same sense as particulars. They propose:

• Distinguishing between being F paradigmatically (the Form) and being F derivatively (particulars).
• Or denying that the Form satisfies the predicate F at all in the ordinary sense.

On these views, the Form should not be counted among the many F things, blocking the formation of the expanded plurality that drives the regress.

9.2 Objections to Applying One-over-Many Iteratively

Another line of objection challenges the iterative use of the One‑over‑Many principle. It argues that:

• The principle is meant to apply only to first‑level pluralities of particulars;
• Once a Form is posited, there is no warrant for demanding a further Form to explain the relation between that Form and the particulars.

Here the key step—re‑grouping Form and particulars as a new homogeneous plurality—is deemed illegitimate, rendering the regress unsound.

9.3 Category and Type–Token Distinctions

A further response stresses a category difference between Forms and particulars:

If accepted, such distinctions defeat the assumption that Form and participants together constitute a single F‑plurality to which One‑over‑Many must apply.

9.4 Benign vs. Vicious Regress

Some interpreters concede that an infinite hierarchy of Forms may result, but argue that this regress is benign rather than destructive. For example:

• Each Form might still play an explanatory role at its own level.
• Or the infinite sequence might be structurally acceptable, analogous to other infinite series in mathematics or metaphysics.

Defenders of the TMA’s critical force typically reply that the original motivation for positing Forms—one Form over many—is not satisfied if explanation disperses across infinitely many entities.

9.5 Pedagogical and Misinterpretation Concerns

Finally, some scholars maintain that the TMA has been misread: what appears as a fully general refutation may function instead as a pedagogical warning about careless formulations. On this reading, the “objections” are not so much directed at Plato as at overly literal or unrefined reconstructions of his theory, and the TMA’s premises should be treated as provisional targets of refinement rather than strict dogmas.

10. Revisions of Platonism in Light of the Third Man

Although it is debated how directly Plato himself responded to the Third Man Argument, both ancient and modern thinkers have proposed revisions of Platonism designed to accommodate or circumvent the regress.

10.1 Restricting or Recasting Self-Predication

One strategy revises the status of Self‑Predication:

• Forms are said to be F only analogically or in a special sense, such that “the Form of Largeness is large” does not treat the Form as one item among large things.
• Alternatively, the predicates applied to Forms are taken to be metalinguistic or logical rather than straightforwardly attributive.

Such revisions aim to preserve the paradigm role of Forms while preventing them from entering the very classes they explain.

10.2 Modifying the One-over-Many Principle

Another strategy is to qualify the One‑over‑Many principle:

These refinements seek to retain the explanatory power of a single Form while avoiding over‑generation of further Forms.

10.3 Reinterpreting Participation

Platonists and neo‑Platonists have also reworked the notion of participation:

• In some readings, participation becomes more like a causal dependence or emanation relation, less susceptible to simple re‑application.
• Others propose a hierarchical structure of being, where lower levels participate in higher ones in ways that do not themselves re‑create the same explanatory demand.

By altering participation, the aim is to make the step from one explanatory level to another non‑iterative.

10.4 Non-Transcendent or Immanentized Forms

A more radical family of revisions retains the language of Forms but softens their separation:

• Forms can be interpreted as immanent universals, present in the very things that instantiate them.
• Or as structural patterns or laws, not further entities standing “over” many.

While such views move closer to Aristotelian or later realist positions, they are sometimes presented as refined Platonisms that take the TMA as a stimulus to reconceive what a Form is, rather than to abandon the theory altogether.

11. Impact on Theories of Universals and Predication

The Third Man Argument has played a significant role in shaping later discussions of universals (properties, kinds, relations that can be shared) and the logic of predication.

11.1 Pressure on Transcendent Universals

Because the TMA targets a view on which universals are:

• separate from particulars,
• yet self‑exemplifying, and
• invoked to explain similarity,

it has been used as a paradigm challenge to robustly transcendent realism about universals. Later philosophers, even when not explicitly discussing Plato, often aim to avoid regress patterns reminiscent of the TMA when formulating their own accounts.

11.2 Encouraging Immanent Realism and Moderate Views

Various forms of immanent realism, including Aristotelian theories, can be seen as partly motivated by worries structurally similar to the TMA:

Even where the historical influence is indirect, the TMA crystallizes the sense in which a theory of universals must specify how universals relate to particulars without generating an explanatory regress.

11.3 Refinements in Predication Theory

The TMA also intersects with debates on predication:

• It highlights potential equivocations between first‑order predication (of properties to particulars) and higher‑order or metaphorical predication (of properties to universals).
• It prompts distinctions between attributive and non‑attributive uses of predicates when applied to abstract entities.

In contemporary philosophy of language and logic, the TMA is often cited as an early recognition that treating “Largeness is large” as structurally identical to “Socrates is large” may be problematic.

11.4 Regress Arguments as a Methodological Tool

Finally, the TMA has contributed to a more general toolkit for theorizing about universals:

In this way the Third Man Argument has become a standing reference point when assessing the coherence and explanatory adequacy of metaphysical theories of properties.

12. Comparisons with Aristotelian and Later Realisms

The Third Man Argument has often been read in light of Aristotle’s critique of Platonic Forms and subsequent realist theories of universals.

12.1 Aristotelian Immanent Realism

Aristotle explicitly criticizes Platonic Forms for leading to duplication of entities and regress‑like problems. His own theory of immanent universals contrasts with the Platonic target of the TMA:

Many scholars see Aristotle’s view as partially motivated by difficulties akin to the TMA: by rejecting separate, self‑instantiating Forms, he aims to avoid infinite hierarchies of universals.

12.2 Medieval and Neoplatonic Developments

Later Neoplatonists (e.g., Plotinus) reinterpret Forms within a more hierarchical ontology, sometimes softening the self‑predicative aspects and integrating them into a cascade of emanations from the One. Although they remain recognizably Platonist, these systems often refine participation and separation in ways that address regress concerns raised by the TMA.

Medieval thinkers, engaging both Plato (mostly via intermediaries) and Aristotle, develop an array of realist and nominalist positions. Some explicitly worry about “universals of universals” or higher‑order Forms, echoing TMA‑like patterns and using them as arguments for more parsimonious or categorially stratified ontologies.

12.3 Later Realisms and Structural Universals

In modern metaphysics, realist theories—such as those advanced by certain contemporary analytic philosophers—often confront regress problems that resemble the TMA. Strategies include:

• Treating universals as immanent only, thereby ruling out a strong “over and above” relation;
• Distinguishing levels of properties so that higher‑order universals do not recursively demand further universals in the same way.

Some accounts of structural universals or laws of nature can be compared to refined Platonisms: they posit abstract structures that explain regularities but carefully limit self‑exemplification to avoid Third Man‑style regresses.

12.4 Nominalist and Trope Theoretic Contrasts

Although not realist, nominalist and trope theories of properties frequently deploy TMA‑like considerations to argue against transcendent universals:

These positions often present themselves as alternatives made vivid partly by the challenges exemplified in the Third Man Argument, even when they do not engage the Platonic text directly.

13. Contemporary Metaphysical Reassessments

In contemporary metaphysics, the Third Man Argument continues to be reassessed both as a historical artifact and as a live metaphysical challenge.

13.1 Reconstructing the Argument in Modern Terms

Analytic philosophers have translated the TMA into modern logical and metaphysical frameworks, using:

• Quantified logic to formalize the One‑over‑Many principle and Self‑Predication;
• Set-theoretic or model-theoretic tools to represent pluralities, types, and tokens.

These reconstructions aim to clarify exactly which premises are needed for the regress and how strong the resulting conclusion is.

13.2 Evaluating the Regress

A central question is whether the TMA yields a vicious or benign regress:

Discussions of similar regresses (e.g., in truth, justification, grounding) often draw analogies to the TMA when assessing which infinite structures are metaphysically problematic.

13.3 Distinctions in Levels and Categories

Contemporary metaphysicians frequently propose level or category distinctions to address TMA‑like worries:

• Differentiating first‑order properties (of concrete objects) from higher‑order properties (of properties) and insisting that explanatory principles differ across levels.
• Employing type–token, object–property, or abstract–concrete distinctions to prevent illicit applications of One‑over‑Many.

The TMA thus functions as a case study prompting more precise categorial frameworks.

13.4 Influence on Debates about Abstract Objects

The TMA also features in debates about abstract objects more broadly—numbers, propositions, sets, and so on. The concern is that:

• If such entities are both explanatory and self‑exemplifying (e.g., the number 2 is itself even),
• and if their relation to instances is characterized too loosely,

similar regresses might arise. The argument therefore serves as a cautionary example for any theory that treats abstracta as both paradigmatic and participants in their own properties.

13.5 Ongoing Historical-Philosophical Dialogue

Recent scholarship often combines detailed exegesis of Plato with contemporary metaphysical analysis. This dual approach treats the TMA as:

• A sophisticated early exploration of problems about universals and predication;
• A continuing source of insight for current theories seeking to balance ontological economy with explanatory adequacy.

14. Methodological Lessons from the Regress

Beyond its specific historical role, the Third Man Argument has been used to illustrate broader methodological lessons in philosophy.

14.1 The Role of Regress Tests

The TMA exemplifies how philosophers use regress arguments as tests for theories:

This has encouraged careful scrutiny of whether additional entities genuinely terminate explanation or simply defer it.

14.2 Clarity about Levels and Categories

The regress underscores the importance of specifying levels of discourse and ontology:

• Treating Form–participant predication as if it were the same as participant–participant predication can initiate the regress.
• Failing to distinguish object language from metalanguage (for example, in predicates applied to Forms) can hide category shifts.

Methodologically, this motivates explicit categorial frameworks and attention to type restrictions in principles like One‑over‑Many.

14.3 Precision in Explanatory Principles

The TMA illustrates how powerful yet loosely formulated principles (e.g., “for any many F things there is a single F‑ness”) may have unforeseen consequences when generalized. This has led many philosophers to:

• Demand precise formulations of explanatory principles, with clear domains of application;
• Be alert to ways in which iteration of such principles might generate paradox or regress.

14.4 Diagnostic, Not Merely Destructive, Use of Paradoxes

Some interpretations take the TMA as a model of using paradox or regress in a diagnostic spirit:

• The argument does not merely demolish a theory but reveals which assumptions interact problematically.
• This, in turn, guides more refined theorizing about universals, participation, and predication.

In this methodological light, the Third Man Argument is not just a historical curiosity but a case study in how philosophical puzzles can shape theory‑construction by forcing clarification of key concepts and relations.

15. Legacy and Historical Significance

The Third Man Argument has had a sustained impact on both the history of philosophy and the development of metaphysics.

15.1 Influence in Antiquity and the Middle Ages

In antiquity, the themes crystallized in the TMA resonated with:

• Aristotle’s criticisms of Platonic Forms, contributing to his preference for immanent universals;
• Neoplatonic attempts to articulate a layered ontology in which participation and separation are carefully structured to avoid regress while preserving a hierarchy of being.

In medieval philosophy, worries about “universals of universals” and infinite chains of explanatory entities often echo concerns traceable to the TMA, even when Plato’s text is not directly cited.

15.2 Role in the Reception of Platonism

The TMA has significantly shaped how later thinkers understand Platonism:

It thus functions both as a standard objection to certain versions of Platonism and as a source of pressure leading to its transformation.

15.3 Place in Modern and Contemporary Thought

In modern philosophy, especially in the analytic tradition, the TMA has become:

• A canonical example of an infinite regress undermining explanation;
• A touchstone in discussions of universals, abstract objects, and predication;
• A reference point for distinguishing vicious from benign regresses.

It is frequently included in textbooks and surveys of metaphysics as a foundational case study.

15.4 Continuing Relevance

The argument’s continued study reflects its capacity to:

• Connect detailed textual exegesis of Parmenides with live questions in metaphysics and logic;
• Exemplify how apparently natural principles can interact to produce paradoxical results;
• Serve as a model of rigorous scrutiny of theoretical commitments.

Because debates about the nature of properties, abstract entities, and explanatory hierarchies remain central in philosophy, the Third Man Argument continues to occupy a prominent position in both historical scholarship and systematic metaphysical inquiry.