Abstract

This commentary examines several key points in David Horan’s paper “The Argu­mentative Unity of Plato’s Parmenides.” First, I discuss the general view of the paper, which engages with the first two hypotheses and in particular, the thought experiment passage in hypothesis 2 that is seen as a key to resolving the dilemma of participation. I consider the proposed view that hypothesis 1 takes up from its premise a strictly unitary, or non-multiple “one,” and hypothesis 2 takes up from its premise a one that admits of multiplicity, not a non-multiple “one.” I argue for an alternative reading whereby the premise of hypothesis 1 is not “if one is one” and hypothesis 2 is “if one is not one,” but rather that both hypotheses fall under the premise “if one is.”