This text explores the nature of philosophical arguments and the concept of novelty in thought. It begins by contrasting Anselm’s quest for a single, self-sufficient proof of God's existence with Hegel’s conviction that truth manifests only within a system rather than in isolated arguments. Furthermore, it reflects on Whitehead’s assertion that philosophy should aim for discoveries beyond explicit assumptions. The author analyzes the ambiguity of the term discovery, questioning whether it refers to uncovering pre-existing entities or creating something fundamentally new. The paper argues that any philosophical novelty must prove its validity through practical application and theoretical integration into existing contexts. Consequently, an isolated idea or argument cannot be considered a self-sufficient or absolute proof; its validity is contingent upon its systemic connection to broader frameworks. Ultimately, the text challenges the possibility of a definitive argument that stands independently of a wider intellectual system.