Can "specific" and "comprehensive" be considered near-antonyms? And what are formal antonyms of the latter?

I'm a philosophy major--and hence I think a lot, write a lot, think about writing, write about thinking, and of course, like to do those things listed above.



I was thinking that something maybe be able to be quite specific yet also comprehensive...but that seems oxymoronic. And the reverse which is nearly the same: comprehensive yet specific, though I find this one to be even more oxymoronic because of the word order, of course.



What so you guys think?Can "specific" and "comprehensive" be considered near-antonyms? And what are formal antonyms of the latter?
I think something can be both simultaneously, specific in it's exclusiveness yet comprehensive in all of it's characters. If you want to dwell on semantics, then you will never accomplish anything!Can "specific" and "comprehensive" be considered near-antonyms? And what are formal antonyms of the latter?
A better antonym for "specific" would be "generic" or "general".Can "specific" and "comprehensive" be considered near-antonyms? And what are formal antonyms of the latter?
I don't think it's "oxymoronic" at all. I think specific means one particular thing and comprehensive means all encompassing. However specific yet comprehensive sounds logical.