On Systematizing

We like systems, they're convenient easy standards to which we can compare the world. Then, when we find points at which they do not work, we use those points as reasons to disregard to discard those systems. The problem is that no system can universally stand at all points of argument, so no system can withstand our onslaught if we wish to cast it off upon the slightest inconsistency. Yet, this is what is done in Western Philosophy, and I'm guilty of doing it myself (see my complain of Augustine's contradiction between his comments on Time and his comments on Free Will). I say this has been a problem within Western Philosophy but there have been some steps taken to move beyond this need for universalized/systematized understanding.

I'll point to a few, but first let me explain why this is a problem (beyond what was stated earlier). Let's start with Plato, in our insistance in taking the entirety of the Platonic Corpus as one system, we fail to take into account the natural growth of ideas. Philosophers, in some way, are concerned with being right (yes yes, I know there are plenty of points to disagree with here, but let's not get bogged down in the minutiae and miss the point). Let me personalize this and start using me as an example (and yeah, I guess I imply that I think I'm a philosopher, on whatever level). I think I'm right in a lot of things, but understand that I am not always right. If I come across a point that requires refinement of my thought, or perhaps complete negation and contradiction, then I will (usually) accept those given that the counterpoint comes with sufficient evidence.

I change. I can look back at the things I've said over the years and note the differences, and I'm ok with both the fact that I have changed and that I once thought such things. It's natural progression.

So why is it that I look at Plato and say "Dammit man, you can't throw a concept like the Good in because it causes issues with what you've established previously"? I think somewhere along the lines it was said "You didn't say that you were changing your system, so it's not an acceptable change," but, it's kind of difficult to simply state that you're changing your system when you're expressing philosophy via a dialogue. So we can point out the flaw of regress within the system, and sit in our haughty comfort without doing Plato justice.

So, is it fair to take the Socratic statements of Rationalism in the early dialogues and interpret the latter dialogues in the same context of the same rationalism? Or should the latter dialogues be taken for what they are, a change in thought (not just subject). We accept the change of thought in Wittgenstein as such (and he even went so far as to call Philosophy a disease!), we accept Schelling for what he is, why must we systematize anyone that doesn't either directly state they are changing, or make change so apparent that we understand a new train of thought has begun?

Mostly, because we (again) want our systems. But, apologies to Ockham, having one system to explain it all may be more elegant than having multiples, the single system doesn't work. It breaks down. So, perhaps we need to accept a bit of contradiction, I accept X in Y situation and A in B situation, even though X and A may contradict each other. Or am I becoming to Eastern?