The Structure and Forms of Uniqueness

Idealistic Studies 16 (1):13-25 (1986)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Is not trying to define uniqueness somehow an aberration? Any definition implies a determination and an expression ; how is it possible to determine that which resembles no other thing and to express something that has no other expression but its own? A definition is a general form of thinking, a form that includes a generality; the larger this generality, the more valuable the definition. Thus, how could we hope it to include the unique, which is so unlike everything else that it cannot be contained in any generalization, and which, coinciding with the universal, breaks the particular/general relation? Since these two terms are not able to account for the unique, this one is not to be treated as a concept, but as an idea. Further, it is not too great an effort to recognize that the idea of the unique stems from the idea of the One. But who can define the One except by a tautology?

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,616

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-01-09

Downloads
16 (#774,858)

6 months
2 (#670,035)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references