Plato Parmenides and the Third Man Argument Plato ‘s Parmenides and the Third Man Argument Plato ‘s permutation of the infinite regress named by Aristotle as the “Third Man Argument ” is presented in Parmenides . The intellectual model exists as a critique of Plato ‘s Theory of Forms and is espoused by way of dialectical reasoning through dialogue . The basic idea of the “Third Man Argument ” is that the concept of forms allows for an infinite regress and therefore is not an adequate articulation of ontological reality . In the “Third Man Argument ” Plato begins by recognizing that the idea of forms coexists with the specific name individual example of a form , that is “The term “man ‘ can apparently be applied to both Socrates and the Form Man , so we need a third “man ‘ to explain what these have in common . The term “man ‘ will then apply to this third entity , and so we shall need a fourth , and so on (Lacey 352 ) obviously moving toward infinite regress . Plato ‘s example in Parmenides utilizes the concept of largeness as an example of the potential for infinite regress . In Parmenides he writes “I presume you believe that in each case there is one form [ .] whenever you think several things to be large , perhaps you think ,looking at them all , that there is some idea , one and the same hence you suppose that the large is one (Plato 61 ) and he goes on to express how then the over-encompassing idea of largeness must manifest in a form which has “come to be and the things that participate in it and over all these again another , by which all these will be large and thus you will no longer have one of each form , but an indefinite plurality (Plato 61 . The key to the infinite regress is that while what makes large things connected identically is the quality of largeness which exists in many forms however , if it “it turns out that we need a similar requirement for that large thing , then nothing can be large , for there would be no justification for the common predication . Thus , if the form is one (under the current hypothesis , it must be not just divisible , but indefinitely many . But it cannot be both one and many : it must be either absolutely one or absolutely many (Plato 62 ) so it would seem , there is an inherent paradox in the Theory of Forms , or at least an irrefutable duality in the nature of the perception of forms . The duality relative to universals and particulars is of great importance to ontological inquiry at all levels , but perhaps no more than at the level of theological metaphysics , an in particular within those fields of philosophical inquiry which attempt to elucidate and , in fact , prove or demonstrate the nature and true existence of a Divine power . Christian philosopher and Creation Theory apologist , J . P .Moreland , for example , has embraced the duality present in Plato ‘s “Third Man Argument ” not an unsolvable…