  For others, Parmenides’ criticisms are fallacies that someone who follows Parmenides’ recommended method of training will thereby be in a position to diagnose. On this view, the theory of forms emerges relatively intact at the end of the dialogue. The most influential version of this view belongs to Meinwald (1991; 1992; 2014) and Peterson (1996; 2000; 2003). According to Meinwald, Plato meant us to recognize the invalidity of Parmenides’ criticisms of the theory of forms by having us focus on the in-relation-to qualifications that are supposed to serve as one of the principles of division that explain the fact that the second part takes the shape of eight separate Deductions. These qualifications, properly understood, reveal that subject-predicate sentences (of the form “X is F”) are ambiguous: to say that X is F is to say either that X is F in relation to itself (i.e., pros heauto) or that X is F in relation to the others (i.e., pros ta alla), where to say that X is F pros heauto is to say that the F is definitionally true of X, and to say that X is F pros ta alla is to say that X displays the feature of being F. As Meinwald argues, if Plato meant us to recognize the existence of such an ambiguity, then he probably meant us to recognize that self-predicational sentences (of the form “The F is F”) are also ambiguous, and that the ambiguity of such sentences reveals that the Third Man argument and the Greatest Difficulty commit the fallacy of equivocation. The main problem with this particular interpretive strategy is that it is provably false that all versions of the Third Man argument (or Greatest Difficulty) come out fallacious if self-predicational sentences are ambiguous as between pros heauto and pros ta alla readings. (For details, see Frances (1996).)