A New Review of the Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit (2013, 2014, 2015)

This review is currently posted for one of the kindle editions... Objectively speaking, it seems to be a good review, since, narcissism aside, the reviewer believes that I'm offering something for philosophy.

4.0 out of 5 stars Coppedge seems to be an extreme narcissist that believes that he is the best of best in modern philosophy, February 28, 2015 By  Robert Heckner (wisconsin,usa) - See all my reviews This review is from: The Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit (The Dimensional Encyclopedia Book 1) (Kindle Edition) Nathan Coppedge has written what may be seen as one of the most interesting works of modern philosophy. Coppedge has proven Wittenstein wrong, Wittenstein did not end philosophy forever. The book supplies the basis for using the categorical deduction, which Coppedge contends he created. It appears to operate under fewer assumptions than pure Aristotelian deduction. However, Mr. Coppedge seems to be an extreme narcissist that believes that he is the best of best in modern philosophy. He certainly is in the avant-garde of modern philosophy and may very well be one of the best. The book may be found on Amazon HERE.

A Note to My Academic Readers...

I have changed the misleading title of one of my papers.

It is now called 'The Dithered Theories of Dimensionism'.

'Grey Theories' no more!

Here is that paper, for those people who were led astray:

https://www.academia.edu/9865955/Dithered_Theories_of_Dimensionism

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.