divisibility in Physics VI. I had been assuming at that time that
Aristotle's elimination of reference to the infinitely large in his
account of the potential inf inite--like the elimination of the
infinitely small from nineteenth century accounts of limits and
continuity--gave us everything that was important in a theory of the
infinite. Hilbert's paper showed me that this was not obviously so.
Suddenly other certainties about Aristotle's (apparently) judicious
toning down of (supposed) Platonic extremisms began to crumble. The
upshot of work I had been doing earlier on Plato's 'Third Man Argument'
began to look different from the way it had before. I was confronted
with a possibility I had not till then so much as entertained. What if
the more extreme posi- tions of Plato on these issues were the more
likely to be correct? The present work is the first instalment of the
result- ing reassessment of Plato's metaphysics, and especially of his
theory of Forms. It has occupied much of my teaching and scholarly time
over the past fifteen years and more. The central question wi th which I
concern myself is, "How does Plato argue for the existence of his Forms
(if he does )7" The idea of making this the central question is that if
we know how he argues for the existence of Forms, we may get a better
sense of what they are.