Abstract

The aim of the paper is to discuss Parm. 132b3-c11, i.e. the "conceptualist" argument, in relation to the "Third Man" argument and to the whole dialogue. I deny that the "Third Man" is a conceptualist argument, as recently proposed by Helmig, and I maintain that it is consistent with the problematic text of Phaedr. 249b6-c4. I argue that the passage of the Parmenides actually contains two arguments, not just one, and that the first of them proposes an intentional (not relational) conception of the Form-thought link. More in general, I contest that the Parmenides promotes an explicit conceptualist argument in order to reject it, although it is rejected the possibility that forms are not real entities. Finally, I defend the suggestion that the passage is controversial with Antisthenes.