Philosophy As Paradox

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Philosophy As Paradox

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:41 pm

All philosopher's are criticized for a lack of coherency at one time or another. Whether this coherency is due to the philosopher, the reader, or both is in itself incoherent unless observed as all three. What is not incoherent however is the observation that people generally do not understand each other regardless of their degree of wit or intelligence or how complex or simple an idea is stated.

We observe this fully in the nature of experts of philosophical texts often disagreeing with each other as to the explanation of the observed philosophers and his/her’s corresponding texts. It is in this regard that most philosophers are centers which produce further centers (philosopher’s) which gain a symmetry through their interaction with each other and in turn produces some further “points”.

However this does not alleviate the general disagreements for the intention of philosophy is the observation of paradox with the increase in complexity leading to the increase in interpretations. This symmetry may be viewed as explanation, however the failure of explanation can be summated through Wittgenstein’s argument that “we must do away with all explanation, and description alone must take its place.” (philo invest)

However this description gets its light, that is to say its purpose, from the philosophical problems [paradoxes], so description alone is itself dependent on the paradox, in that it propagates them. “The problems are solved, not by giving new information, but by arranging what we have always known” into a symmetry whose fullest symmetry is resolve as observation of the “point”.

Because of this “In philosophy we do not draw conclusions. "But it must be like this!" is not a philosophical proposition. Philosophy only states what everyone admits.”(philo invest) However everyone paradoxically admits: “But it must be like this!”.

Heidegger argues for the inevitable unclear/approximate nature of knowledge as “those in the crossing must in the end know what is mistaken by all urging for intelligibility: that every thinking of being, all philosophy, can never be confirmed by "facts," i.e., by beings. Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy. Those who idolize "facts" never notice that their idols only shine in a borrowed light. They are also meant not to notice this; for thereupon they would have to be at a loss and therefore useless. But idolizers and idols are used wherever gods are in flight and so announce their nearness.”[123] (Heidegger)

With further paradox the biggest criticism of philosophy is obscurity and sophistry in its attempts to bring clarity to language. This problem breaks down to one of classification, which in many respects is similar if not equal in degree to the manifestation of dimensions. It is these dimensions, through language, which are either stable or in a state of flux based upon their reflective, relational and synthetic symmetry.

It is this duality of clarity and non-clarity that enables any form of ratios, as rationality, to take place. From this dualism we can observe the conclusion of philosophy as the observation of "the point" and its corresponding symmetry, with both the fullest of the point and its symmetry as being reflective of, related to and synthesize from and synthesizing a sphere. It is through this necessity of symmetry that philosophy must observe a multidimensional, non-linear acceptance of paradox and contradiction [113].

It is in these respects that all philosophy begins and ends with the axiom as the logistic point and what we understand of reality, as a structure, manifests itself fully through the axiom as the logistic point and the point as the axiom.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests