-What if every philosophy given so far was incomplete?
“Then we would have to complete them.”
-What if every philosophy given so far was necessarily incomplete?
“Then we would find one that could be completed.”
-What if everything, including philosophy, can only exist so long as it is incomplete?
“…such a tragedian”
-To you, that would be a tragedy, wouldn’t it. But I bet you can’t imagine what a truly complete thing, let alone a conscious being, could possibly look like completed. It’s impossible. Because “to exist” means to be incomplete. Aristotle was right to say that tragedians are those who think humanity has greater potential than we actually have.
“But if you are right, and we are incomplete, then we have nothing to strive for. Are we not then complete on behalf of a negation of a negation?”
-If your striving could cease upon thinking such a thought, sure. But it doesn’t. You keep striving. You move on from this conversation and seek more. So what you call completion in that sense is merely abstract completion. It does nothing to address the underlying condition of incompleteness. You have just given it a different name.
“But names are everything. What is there, but names? Can you speak of a thing that has no name? You are naming one aspect of existence, its incompleteness, and I name another aspect of existence, its completeness. As far as I can tell, we are both correct. Existence is both incomplete and complete.”