Introduction Throughout the history of thought - which is the very development of thought - various links have been constructed, which I will try to undo here, misconceptions that have led to misunderstandings, but which in the end have never been equivocal, but propositions of universal thought in continuous dialogue With the individualizations that manipulate it. For this reason, the doxa, which is directly linked to the tradition of common sense, imposes itself as a north that articulates to the antagonistic interest, to the generating conflict.
This disconcerting misconceptions is a new construct, without criticism, but with assimilation of the innumerable worldviews, philosophies, scientific and religious theories, etc. It is the definitive convergence of thought with individualization through language. Perhaps my effort here is only an initial step towards this goal, namely that, once we understand the saturation of language, we can finally consider the conflicts of individualizations (movement of the opinions of each rational individual) as a possibility of a consolidation of the mutual And multiple understanding in a concordant dialogical field despite the differences. Humanity must finally agree and this is only possible if we understand the movement of a dialectic without a given final synthesis, but that its result is already present in the same conflict, in the dialectical movement itself, which has never been and will never be formally logical .
Understanding the illogicality of language and its ambiguity seems to me to be an initial path. For this, a brief survey of the analytical philosophy will help us to understand this problem so that we can, from this, seek its solution, even if there is no need of it. Thus, the first step is to extinguish from our consciousness the expression "it is logical that this or that is so or that way", that is, is to put in the museum of our memories that "is logical", since we have no idea Of what "is" and what is "logical". It was the ambiguity of language built the world we know and how we know and today this ambiguity shows itself in its most clear, evident and undoubted state although hiding also great obscurity. Such obscurity is what keeps its creative aspect and makes us imagine that tomorrow everything that is being said here can be deconstructed. But let us bear in mind that even this predicted and prophesied deconstruction perpetually maintains this writing as proof of all construction from the conflicts, that is, the thesis of this writing is that it must be contested and overcome, and that is what makes it Unsurpassed.Thus, many philosophers thought, perhaps, that the whole depth of thought would end in them. But it is only when there is the recognition of this coming overcoming, as is the case here, that we can claim the supremacy and the final apex of thought, that is, I can be proud to develop a final project for philosophy by admitting in this Philosophy, its overcoming, but an overcoming within its depth. Thus, to be contested is what will prove in all future time the thesis that arises here, namely, that there is no pattern in the language that leads to a definite logic, but that this is already its logic and its contestation is its eternal movement , So it is the movement of contraries that remains as a revealing of finite things in the mold of Heraclitus, but with a universal garb and a seal of all philosophical tradition, although the thinkers did not realize that they were always part of a process and always We will be part of this process.What moves me to write about these concepts is any question that still surrounds them, even in the empirical sciences, since physics, for example, is born of philosophical propositions and remains steeped in theories that within its methodologies are unproven Expressive. Thus, this gap in the field of knowledge remains in every history of human thought, a fact that allows us to enter these investigations without fear and only by mere theoretical effort, that is, philosophizing, making the thought to dwell on itself to account for Their concepts. I could, of course, begin this study by making a historical-philosophical survey of each concept in an analogy with scholars of physics. However, I will leave for a second moment this survey for understanding the urgency we have to think these concepts now and thus contribute, right now, with philosophy and, why not also, science.