Vlastos and Sellars

4124 Words17 Pages
Johathan Ignemus Sellars’ reply to Professor Vlastos In “Vlastos and ‘The Third Man’: A Rejoinder”, Sellars comments on Vlastos’ criticism of Sellars’ previously made arguments in “Vlastos and ‘The Third Man’.” Professor Vlastos’ criticism was in response to Sellars’ own criticism of Vlastos’ interpretation of the Third Man Argument (TMA) found in the Parmenides. And Professor Sellars’ most recent comments are a response to Professor Vlastos’ criticism. The form of Sellars’ rejoinder entails giving the arguments presented by professor Vlastos and then shown in relation with his own response. But to understand the overall connection of their two arguments, it’s important to realize both of their views and the implications that stem from them. With respect to the two papers, I want to show (1) reasons for accepting or denying Self-Predication, (2) how this assumption leads one to a metaphysical or epistemological interpretation of the TMA, and (3) how this assumption determines their different views of the structure of the TMA. In the final section of Vlastos’ paper, Vlastos gives us his critique of only three discrepancies he has with Sellars’ interpretation of Self-Predication. It’s important to understand first why one should accept or deny the view of Self-Predication. And though it seems like a minor debate within the whole argument, the implications of either one’s assumption determines the reasons for many of their other discrepancies on the TMA as a whole. The first problem for Vlastos consists of Sellars’ attempt to discredit Self-Predication within the language used by Plato. One of the main staples of Vlastos’ interpretation consists of always looking at the text found in the dialogues, especially the Parmenides. So Vlastos finds it highly objectionable to believe that “the first part of the Parmenides is a deliberate and sustained critique
Open Document