Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Coherency in Philosophy

Coherent knowledge is possible through exclusivity. But is any context exclusive? I argue that the term "absolute" is avoidable because afterall real objects can exist which are not absolute. This is similar to saying that "not everything is the sun" etc.

When it is realized that a context is composed of "qua-objects" it can also be realized that properties relatively exist or relatively do not exist. When there is ambiguity, we can say ambiguity exists or does not exist, or we can say that subtlety exists or does not exist.

In this context, I find it compelling that in a relative sense all terms used in a genuine system have some degree of absoluteness. There can be measurements of the degree of absoluteness, but this implies a "clausality" that power or some other distinct property is being measured.

In reality, a categorical system treats this property of measurement, say "power", "money", "pleasure", "pragmatism", just like any other word. Because of this, and because in axiometry opposites are used to contextualize exclusivity, it may be concluded that this form of exclusivity is relatively exhaustive.

Returning to the coherent concept from exclusivity does not imply much difference; only that 'system' or 'symbol' can be questioned. Yet, questioning the system is changing the system, and questioning the symbol is changing the symbol's function. So any other concept involves a new idea.

No comments: