25 - I . Conclusion A . The upshot of the TMA is that the...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
I. Conclusion A. The upshot of the TMA is that the Theory of Forms cannot provide a complete account of predication by means of the notion of participation. B. But since all three assumptions work together to yield the regress, why single out OM? So long as Plato’s theory likens forms to standards (in their role as paradigms), SP and NI seem correct. OM should then be rejected on the grounds that it is in the nature of a paradigm of F -ness that nothing explains its being F . Rather, it explains other things’ being F . This means that there will always be at least one “many” (at least one set of F ’s) to which we cannot apply OM. C. What the TMA shows is that a paradigmatic theory of predication cannot be both complete (in the sense of providing an explanation of every case of predication) and non-circular. For the paradigm itself must bear the predicate, and there we have a case of predication that the theory cannot explain without circularity. I I. Plato’s Reaction
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 2

25 - I . Conclusion A . The upshot of the TMA is that the...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online