Whole-Problem Theory Vs Socrates Theory

1011 Words 4 Pages
Introduction:
In Parmenides, Zeno and Parmenides also Socrates joins in the conversation; they are talking about the theory of forms in which they are discussing. I will be discussing that the whole-problem theory can be defended, but to a certain extent. I will start off with Zeno reading a book to Socrates and their discussion about the theory of forms. I will then move on to my criticism, on why I agree with the idea that the form won’t be the same and I will disagree with the point of the forms not being equal.
Exposition:
Zeno begins by reading a book and then Socrates asks him to repeat the first hypothesis of the first argument that the book mentions. Socrates then asks him “if things are many, they must then be both like and unlike, but that is impossible, because unlike things can’t be like or like things unlike?”(Cohen 642). Then Zeno confirms that, that’s what he said. Socrates then continues on to say that if it’s impossible for things to be both liked and unlike, then
…show more content…
The first one is the extent problem, the next one is the whole-part dilemma and (the last one was presented by Dr. Corner) and it’s the third man argument. The extent problem is where it’s the extent of forms. For example “beautiful paintings and beautiful sunsets are beautiful because they participate in the form of beauty”(Corner). The next one is that the third man argument in which A and B share something in common. If A is large that would mean that it also share the concept of being large with B. This then introduces the concept of separation, in which “form of F is separate from the things that it causes to be F. The form of F, which also causes things to be F, is itself F”(Corner). The next problem the theory of forms faces is the whole-part dilemma. The dilemma would keep on dividing the forms. It would partake a part; from the part that is a whole and that would no longer be considered to be whole, but a part of a

Related Documents