The axiom states that: as philosophy seeks a rigorous underpinning of our existence it attempts to rigorously sort out the concepts thereused so the matter can be properly clarified. However few concept (if any)can be perfectly clarified/disambiguated and this picture seems to presupposes a correspondence view of truth and no concept corresponds to a supposed exterior object -rather the relation is of the way the word is used in a certain activity (even if that activity is philosophy). Thus the attempt to refine philosophy is flawed or rather the result is illusory for the narrowing which is supposed to take place does not occur. Rather due to the irreducible ambiguity a irremovable bickering results which goes nowhere. Did Kant mean this? Did Kant mean that? Does it matter? Rather what matters is how a the monad feels in relation to its encounter with Kant. Awe at the cognitive architectonic φantasy in place, reflective experimental wonder.
On of the causes of this kind of problem is the reified (psychic) accretive core; but the accretive core does not possess the necessity demanded of it for philosophical rigour -since they are themselves contingent. The accretion of rigour (a φantasy itself) generates the further φantasy of a pure understanding. Philosophy instead must learn this and pursue what is indicated in Deleuze and Heidegger: that philosophising should be creative and poetic, for in such language is power to reform the accretions and invoke apophenia.