Jump to content

Antinomy: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Pacerier (talk | contribs)
1,866 edits
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(42 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Real or apparent mutual incompatibility of two laws}}
{{merge from|Kant's antinomies|discuss=Talk:Antinomy #Merge Kant's antinomies}}
{{distinguish|antimony|antinomianism}}
{{distinguish|antimony|antinomianism}}
{{lead section|date=December 2022}}
'''Antinomy''' ([[Ancient Greek|Greek]] ἀντί, ''antí'', "against, in opposition to," and νόμος, ''nómos'', "law") literally means the mutual incompatibility, real or apparent, of two laws. It is a term used in [[logic]] and [[epistemology]], particularly in the philosophy of [[Kant]] and [[Roberto Mangabeira Unger|Roberto Unger]].

'''Antinomy''' ([[Ancient Greek]]: {{tlit|grc|antí}} 'against' + {{tlit|grc|nómos}} 'law') refers to a real or apparent mutual incompatibility of two notions.<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]].

⚫
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. 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.


==Kant's use==
==Kant's use==
{{see|Kant's antinomies}}
{{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). [[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.
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>{{cite EB1911|wstitle=Antinomy}}</ref><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:
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 of [[space]] and [[time]],
*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 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 problem of [[free will]] in relation to universal [[causality]]
#the existence of a necessary being
*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.
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 our perceptions 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 we are and are not justified in making, and the antinomies are a particularly illustrative example of his larger project.
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==
⚫
However, there are many other examples of antinomy besides these four. 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. A [[paradox]] such as "[[this sentence is false]]" can also be considered to be an antinomy; for the sentence to be true, it must be false, and vice versa.

In ''[[Das Kapital, Volume I]]'' in the chapter entitled "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> Furner emphasizes 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==
==See also==
{{portal|Logic}}
{{Portal|Philosophy}}
;Mutual incompatibility
⚫
*[[Antinomianism]]
*Law:
⚫
*[[Paradox]]
**[[Alternative pleading]]
*[[Mereological nihilism]] – philosophical theory that may avoid antinomies{{Citation needed|date=November 2009}}
*Logic:
*[[Madhyamaka]] – Indian philosophy which uses antinomies in a comparable way to Kant.{{Citation needed|date=July 2014}}
**[[Mutual exclusivity]]
**[[Kettle logic]]
⚫
**[[Paradox]]
*Religion:
⚫
**[[Antinomianism]] (Christianity)
*Others:
**[[Oxymoron]]
**[[Double bind]]


==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}

<references />
{{No footnotes|article|date=February 2008}}
{{refbegin}}
*John Watson, ''Selections from Kant'' (trans. Glasgow, 1897), pp.&nbsp;155 foll.
*W. Windelband, ''History of Philosophy'' (Eng. trans. 1893)
*H. Sidgwick, ''Philos. of Kant'', lectures x. and xi. (Lond., 1905)
*F. Paulsen, ''I. Kant'' (Eng. trans. 1902), pp.&nbsp;216 foll.
*{{EB1911|wstitle=Antinomy}}
*{{FOLDOC}}
{{refend}}


==External links==
==External links==
Line 47: Line 51:


{{Authority control}}
{{Authority control}}

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

Latest revision as of 20:36, 29 October 2024

Not to be confused with antimony or antinomianism.

Antinomy (Ancient Greek: antí 'against' + nómos 'law') refers to a real or apparent mutual incompatibility of two notions.[1] It is a term used in logic and epistemology, particularly in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.

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. 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.

Kant's use

[edit]
Further information: 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).[2] 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 transcends it.

For Kant there are four antinomies,[3][4][5] connected with:[6]

  • the limitation of the universe in respect to space and time
  • the theory that the whole consists of indivisible atoms (whereas, in fact, none such exist)
  • the problem of free will in relation to universal causality
  • the existence of a universal being[2]

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

[edit]

In Das Kapital, Volume I in the chapter entitled "The Working Day",[7][8] 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".[9] Furner emphasizes 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".[10]

See also

[edit]
Mutual incompatibility

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Antinomy, Encyclopædia Britannica Online, accessed 8/27/2016
  2. ^ a b  One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Antinomy". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 2 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 130.
  3. ^ S. Al-Azm, The Origins of Kant's Argument in the Antinomies, Oxford University Press 1972.
  4. ^ M. Grier, Kant's Doctrine of Transcendental Illusion, Cambridge University Press 2001.
  5. ^ M. Grier, "The Logic of Illusion and the Antinomies," in Bird (ed.), Blackwell, Oxford 2006, pp. 192-207.
  6. ^ "antinomy | philosophy". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2017-09-04.
  7. ^ [1], K. Marx. Das Kapital
  8. ^ Marx, Karl (1976). Capital. Vol. 1. Translated by Ben Fowkes. Harmondsworth: Penguin. p. 344.
  9. ^ J. Furner, Marx on Capitalism: The Interaction-Recognition-Antinomy Thesis, Brill Press 2018, p. 405.
  10. ^ J. Furner, Marx on Capitalism: The Interaction-Recognition-Antinomy Thesis, Brill Press 2018, p. 125.
[edit]
Look up antinomy in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Antinomy&oldid=1254188873"