In the world of thought and logic, there has always been a call for absolute truth—a form of knowledge devoid of any contradictions.

The Quest for Uncompromising Knowledge

In the world of thought and logic, there has always been a call for absolute truth—a form of knowledge devoid of any contradictions. On one hand, the concept of knowledge as a system of strict, fixed propositions governed by classical laws of logic appears to be an impeccable ideal. This approach requires that every element be clearly defined, self-determining, and free from internal conflict, as if existing in a state of pure and indisputable unity.

However, when we approach the reality of human experience, the picture becomes much more complex. The limitations of our perception and reasoning inevitably lead to contradictions within any system of knowledge. The idea of an absolute, unquestionable truth drifts into the realm of philosophical reflection, where even the deepest structures of thought contain their own paradoxes and antinomies. Moreover, the temptation to associate contradiction-free knowledge with a sublime, divine simplicity underscores once again the gap between the ideal and practice.

Thus, while the pursuit of knowledge free from contradictions remains a majestic and inspiring goal, it is more of a direction than an achievable reality. This idea drives us toward continuous exploration, reminding us that every truth is the result of a complex and dynamic process of understanding the world, where contradictions are inevitable and truth always remains slightly out of reach.

Can knowledge in which contradictions are absent be truly called such, and what is that knowledge?

The answer is quite complex, as the concept of knowledge free from contradictions is discussed from two perspectives. On one hand, knowledge can formally be described as a collection of clearly defined, logically fixed contents governed by classical logical principles—the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. For example, one source explains: “The form of abstract content A means: 1) that A is exactly itself; 2) that it is not something else—that it is distinguished from all that is other (‘A is not non-A’—the law of non-contradiction); and 3) that by this distinction from all that is other, it is unequivocally defined...” (source: link txt). Here, knowledge is viewed as a system whose composition is determined by strict logical laws, a form in which no internal contradiction is allowed.

On the other hand, there is the view that absolute, ultimate truth is altogether unattainable due to the limitations of the human mind, and that all our cognition tends to include irresolvable contradictions or antinomies. Furthermore, some arguments suggest that knowledge devoid of contradictions is characteristic not of finite human experience, but of what might be called Divine unity. For example, one source notes:

“He understands Divine unity as the absence of contradictions: ‘Names do not conflict with one another, as is typical among opposites, since when one exists it is not possible to contemplate another alongside it. It is precisely this essential difference that is incompatible with simplicity: “Since Divine nature is simple and immutable and rejects any essential difference, it does not incorporate, while remaining one, the significations of plurality”’” (source: link txt).

Thus, if we view knowledge as a system in which contradictions are absent, it must be absolutely self-determined, strict, and unique—much like the description of Divine unity, which is indivisible and simple by its very nature. However, in practical cognition, constrained by the limits of the human mind and experience, contradictions are often inevitable. In short, the ideal of contradiction-free knowledge remains beyond the reach of human rationality and represents more an ideal of perfect, absolute knowledge than a practical reality.

Supporting citation(s):
“The form of abstract content A means: 1) that A is exactly itself, something internally identical (‘A is A’ … ‘A is not non-A’—the law of non-contradiction …)” (source: link txt)

“He understands Divine unity as the absence of contradictions: ‘Names do not conflict with one another… Since Divine nature is simple and immutable…’” (source: link txt)