If one looks to Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel for illumination of the problems addressed by other philosophers - such as the nature of things, the freedom of the will, and the existence of God - one may experience at least initial frustration. They seem to write as though the completion of “the system” were philosophy's principal problem, under which all others are subsumed. Not only do they appear mostly to take this view for granted, they also assume a particular view of systematicity, requiring the whole of philosophy to articulate a single principle. Why interpret systematicity in this monistic fashion, and why ascribe it such importance? Why must it be all or nothing?