Plato’s Parmenides is a notoriously challenging dialogue. To provide a completely satisfying interpretation of it, each argument needs to be reconstructed on its own terms and if all the reconstructions are accurate, the logical interconnections among the arguments of both parts of the dialogue should reveal the overall message of the Parmenides. Here I would like to summarize my interpretation, and consider a few prominent objections and alternatives to it, particularly as they appear in the work of Constance Meinwald and Mary Louise Gill. I want to explain why Meinwald’s interpretation is significantly less persuasive than mine and, because Gill and I reach similar conclusions, I want to highlight the important differences between our interpretations.Plato’s Parmenides is a notoriously challenging dialogue. To provide a completely satisfying interpretation of it, each argument needs to be reconstructed on its own terms and if all the reconstructions are accurate, the logical interconnections among the arguments of both parts of the dialogue should reveal the overall message of the Parmenides. Here I would like to summarize my interpretation, and consider a few prominent objections and alternatives to it, particularly as they appear in the work of Constance Meinwald and Mary Louise Gill. I want to explain why Meinwald’s interpretation is significantly less persuasive than mine and, because Gill and I reach similar conclusions, I want to highlight the important differences between our interpretations.Plato’s Parmenides is a notoriously challenging dialogue. To provide a completely satisfying interpretation of it, each argument needs to be reconstructed on its own terms and if all the reconstructions are accurate, the logical interconnections among the arguments of both parts of the dialogue should reveal the overall message of the Parmenides. Here I would like to summarize my interpretation, and consider a few prominent objections and alternatives to it, particularly as they appear in the work of Constance Meinwald and Mary Louise Gill. I want to explain why Meinwald’s interpretation is significantly less persuasive than mine and, because Gill and I reach similar conclusions, I want to highlight the important differences between our interpretations.Plato’s Parmenides is a notoriously challenging dialogue. To provide a completely satisfying interpretation of it, each argument needs to be reconstructed on its own terms and if all the reconstructions are accurate, the logical interconnections among the arguments of both parts of the dialogue should reveal the overall message of the Parmenides. Here I would like to summarize my interpretation, and consider a few prominent objections and alternatives to it, particularly as they appear in the work of Constance Meinwald and Mary Louise Gill. I want to explain why Meinwald’s interpretation is significantly less persuasive than mine and, because Gill and I reach similar conclusions, I want to highlight the important differences between our interpretations.Plato’s Parmenides is a notoriously challenging dialogue. To provide a completely satisfying interpretation of it, each argument needs to be reconstructed on its own terms and if all the reconstructions are accurate, the logical interconnections among the arguments of both parts of the dialogue should reveal the overall message of the Parmenides. Here I would like to summarize my interpretation, and consider a few prominent objections and alternatives to it, particularly as they appear in the work of Constance Meinwald and Mary Louise Gill. I want to explain why Meinwald’s interpretation is significantly less persuasive than mine and, because Gill and I reach similar conclusions, I want to highlight the important differences between our interpretations.O Parmênides de Platão é um diálogo notoriamente desafiador. Para apresentar uma interpretação completamente satisfatória dele, cada argumento precisa ser reconstruído em seus próprios termos e se todas as reconstruções forem acuradas, as interconexões lógicas entre os argumentos de ambas as partes do diálogo devem revelar a mensagem geral do Parmênides. Aqui gostaria de resumir minha interpretação e considerar algumas importantes objeções e alternativas a ela, particularmente como estas aparecem nos trabalhos de Constance Meinwald e Mary Louise Gill. Quero explicar por que a interpretação de Meinwald é significativamente menos convincente do que a minha e, como Gill e eu chegamos a conclusões semelhantes, quero destacar as diferenças importantes entre nossas interpretações.