Editing Antinomy

{{short description|Real or apparent mutual incompatibility of two laws}}
{{distinguish|antimony|antinomianism}}In [[philosophy]], an '''antinomy''' ([[Ancient Greek]]: {{tlit|grc|antí}} 'against' + {{tlit|grc|nómos}} 'law') is a real or apparent contradiction between two conclusions, both of which seem justified.<ref>[https://www.britannica.com/topic/antinomy Antinomy], Encyclopædia Britannica Online, accessed 8/27/2016</ref> It is a term used in [[logic]] and [[epistemology]], particularly in the philosophy of [[Immanuel Kant]].

Antinomy is a common form of argument in the dialogues of [[Plato]]. Kant credited [[Zeno of Elea]] (see [[Zeno's paradoxes]]) as the inventor of the antinomic mode of argumentation, which he described as a "skeptical method" of "watching, or rather provoking, a conflict of assertions, not for the purpose of deciding in favor of one or the other side, but of investigating whether the object of the controversy is not perhaps a deceptive appearance which each vainly tries to grasp, and in regard to which, even if there were no opposition to overcome, neither can arrive at any result".<ref name=":0" />

The antinomic procedure was further developed by [[Johann Gottlieb Fichte|Fichte]], [[Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling|Schelling]] and [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|Hegel]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Beck |first=Lewis White |url=https://xtf.lib.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=DicHist/uvaBook/tei/DicHist1.xml;chunk.id=dv1-15;toc.depth=1;toc.id=dv1-15;brand=default;query=antinomy#1 |title=Dictionary of the history of ideas: studies of selected pivotal ideas |publisher=Scribner |year=1973 |isbn=978-0-684-16418-2 |editor-last=Wiener |editor-first=Philip P. |location=New York, NY |chapter=Antinomy of Pure Reason}}</ref> Hegel said that Kant was in error when he limited the antinomies to [[Philosophical cosmology|cosmological]] ideas, claiming that the world itself contains contradiction. [[Arthur Schopenhauer|Schopenhauer]] said that the antitheses in [[Kant's antinomies]] were justified, but claimed the theses (cosmological propositions) to be [[wikt:sophism|sophisms]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Eisler |first=Rudolf |url=https://www.textlog.de/1393.html |title=Wörterbuch der philosophischen Begriffe |year=1904 |chapter=Antinomie}}</ref>

There are many examples of antinomy. A self-contradictory phrase such as "There is no absolute truth" can be considered an antinomy because this statement is suggesting in itself to be an absolute truth, and therefore denies itself any truth in its statement.{{Citation needed|date=March 2025}} It is not necessarily also a [[paradox]]. A paradox, such as "[[this sentence is false]]," can also be considered to be an antinomy; in this case, for the sentence to be true, it must be false.{{Citation needed|date=March 2025}}

== Terminology ==
Antinomies can be found in [[Plato]], in substance though not by this name (cf. Phaedo 102; Rep. 523 ff., Parm. 135 E). Modern usage dates back to a 17th-century legal term, which acquired philosophical significance in Immanuel Kant's ''[[Critique of Pure Reason]]'' (CPR). In the ''[[Transcendental dialectic|Transcendental Dialectic]],'' Kant defines an antinomy as a "conflict of laws" (CPR A407/B434).

Kant's use of the term was derived from [[jurisprudence]], where it refers to a conflict between laws, and from biblical [[exegesis]], where it refers to conflict between passages of scripture.<ref name=":0" />

In modern logic, the term "antinomy" is not used consistently and is sometimes not clearly distinguished from the term [[paradox]]. In the German language, however, it is customary to reserve the term "antinomy" for contradictions that can be rigorously proven within the framework of a formal system and which thus indicate an error in the conception of the rules of inference or the axioms of that system (e.g. the antinomies of [[naive set theory]], the best known being [[Russell's paradox]]). In contrast, a paradox (Ancient Greek παρά ''para'' "beside, apart" and δόξα ''doxa'' "expectation, opinion", παράδοξον ''paradoxon'' "contrary to expectation, contrary to common opinion") is usually used to describe a well-founded statement that contradicts conventional wisdom, but which does not cause any real logical difficulties. Many scientific insights can appear paradoxical in this harmless sense (e.g., the [[twin paradox]] in Einstein's [[theory of relativity]] or the so-called paradoxes of [[Material implication (rule of inference)|material implication]] in formal logic; see [[relevance logic]]). In English, the term ''antinomy'' is not particularly widespread and its application is mostly limited to Kantian antinomies.

In modern logic, a "contradiction" is simply understood as the conjunction of a statement and its negation, i.e. a statement of the form <math>A \land \lnot A</math> (read: "A and not-A"). This broad term is neutral with regard to the question of provability or justifiability, and includes, for example, contradictions that are derived within a [[proof by contradiction]] specifically for the purpose of negating one of the assumptions involved in the derivation. Therefore, not all contradiction is philosophically problematic.

Separately from this usage, the word "contradiction" is also used in [[Hegelian dialectics]], where it includes [[social conflict]], antagonisms and such.

==Kant's use==
{{see|Kant's antinomies}}
The term acquired a special significance in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), who used it to describe the equally rational but contradictory results of applying to the universe of pure thought the categories or criteria of reason that are proper to the universe of sensible perception or [[experience]] (phenomena).<ref name="EB1911">{{EB1911|inline=y|wstitle=Antinomy|volume=2|page=130}}</ref> [[Empirical]] reason cannot here play the role of establishing rational truths because it goes beyond possible experience and is applied to the sphere of that which [[transcendence (philosophy)|transcends]] it.

For Kant there are [[Kant's antinomies|four antinomies]],<ref>S. Al-Azm, The Origins of Kant's Argument in the Antinomies, Oxford University Press 1972.</ref><ref>M. Grier, ''Kant's Doctrine of Transcendental Illusion'', Cambridge University Press 2001.</ref><ref>M. Grier, "The Logic of Illusion and the Antinomies," in Bird (ed.), Blackwell, Oxford 2006, pp. 192-207.</ref> connected with:<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/antinomy|title=antinomy {{!}} philosophy|work=Encyclopedia Britannica|access-date=2017-09-04|language=en}}</ref>
*the limitation of the universe in respect to [[space]] and [[time]]
*the theory that the whole consists of indivisible [[atom]]s (whereas, in fact, none such exist)
*the problem of [[free will]] in relation to universal [[causality]]
*the existence of a universal being<ref name="EB1911"/>

In each antinomy, a thesis is contradicted by an antithesis. For example: in the first antinomy, Kant proves the thesis that time must have a beginning by showing that if time had no beginning, then an infinity would have elapsed up until the present moment. This is a manifest contradiction because infinity cannot, by definition, be completed by "successive synthesis"—yet just such a finalizing synthesis would be required by the view that time is infinite; so the thesis is proven. Then he proves the antithesis, that time has no beginning, by showing that if time had a beginning, then there must have been "empty time" out of which time arose. This is incoherent (for Kant) for the following reason: Since, necessarily, no time elapses in this pretemporal void, then there could be no alteration, and therefore nothing (including time) would ever come to be: so the antithesis is proven. Reason makes equal claim to each proof, since they are both correct, so the question of the limits of time must be regarded as meaningless.

This was part of Kant's critical program of determining limits to [[science]] and philosophical inquiry. These contradictions are inherent in reason when it is applied to the world as it is in itself, independently of any perception of it (this has to do with the distinction between [[phenomena]] and [[noumena]]). Kant's goal in his critical philosophy was to identify what claims are and are not justified, and the antinomies are a particularly illustrative example of his larger project.

==Marx's use==

In the book ''[[Das Kapital, Volume I]]'' in the chapter "The Working Day",<ref>[http://www.mlwerke.de/me/me23/me23_245.htm], K. Marx. ''Das Kapital''</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Marx|first=Karl|title=Capital|translator=Ben Fowkes|location=Harmondsworth|publisher=Penguin|date=1976|volume=1|page=344}}</ref> [[Karl Marx]] claims that capitalist production sustains "the assertion of a right to an unlimited working day, and the assertion of a right to a limited working day, both with equal justification".<ref>J. Furner, ''Marx on Capitalism: The Interaction-Recognition-Antinomy Thesis'', Brill Press 2018, p. 405.</ref> Author James Furner claims that the thesis and antithesis of this antinomy are not contradictory opposites, but rather "consist in the assertion of rights to states of affairs that are contradictory opposites".<ref>J. Furner, ''Marx on Capitalism: The Interaction-Recognition-Antinomy Thesis'', Brill Press 2018, p. 125.</ref>

==See also==
{{Portal|Philosophy}}
;Mutual incompatibility
* Law:
** [[Alternative pleading]]
* Logic:
** [[Mutual exclusivity]]
** [[Kettle logic]]
** [[Paradox]]
** [[Self-refuting idea]]
* Religion:
** [[Antinomianism]] ([[Christianity]])
* Other:
** [[Oxymoron]]
** [[Double bind]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
{{wiktionary}}
* {{springer|title=Antinomy|id=p/a012710}}
*{{PhilPapers|search|Antinomy}}
*[https://xtf.lib.virginia.edu:443/xtf/view?docId=DicHist/uvaBook/tei/DicHist1.xml;chunk.id=dv1-15 Antinomy of Pure Reason] by [[Lewis White Beck]] in the Dictionary of the History of Ideas
*[https://www.textlog.de/1393.html Entry in the Dictionary of Philosophical Terms] by [[Rudolf Eisler]] (1904, German)

{{Logic}}

{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Kantianism]]
[[Category:Concepts in logic]]