Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Wikipedia.


Philosophy contradiction existing between two apparently indubitable propositions; paradox



a contradiction between two positions, each of which is equally demonstrable by logic.

The term “antinomy” was introduced in 1613 by the German philosopher R. Goclenius, although the contradictory character of thinking had already been discovered in ancient philosophy. I. Kant, the founder of German classical philosophy, was the first to demonstrate that antinomies necessarily arose from the characteristics of the cognition process, especially from the continual attempts of reason to go beyond the bounds of experience, to arrive at the knowledge of the “thing in itself.” And insofar as this is impossible, according to Kant, every such departure leads to an antinomy. In the Kantian doctrine concerning antinomies, a profound thought was expressed about the contradictory nature of the cognitive process, the dependence of the results of cognition on the existing forms of cognitive activity, and, at the same time, the limitless quality of cognition itself. This thought, however, was undermined by the agnosticism which was characteristic of Kant and by his denial of the contradictory nature of reality itself.

Dialectical materialism makes a distinction between antinomies which are the logical reflection of contradictions in reality itself (for example, the contradiction between the wave and the particle characteristics of the electron) and antinomic opinions—paradoxes brought forth by the specific level in the development of knowledge, especially by contradictions in the system of assumptions. Solving paradoxes is one of the principal sources in the development of cognition. For example, the theory of relativity arose as a result of the solution of certain antinomical points of departure in classical physics. But on the whole the concept of antinomy has no independent meaning in dialectical materialism, since it is subordinate to the category of contradiction.


Asmus, V. F. Filosofiia I. Kanta. Moscow, 1957.


References in periodicals archive ?
And, as in the case of the first antinomy, Ross maintains that legal thinking will keep moving from one endpoint of the continuum to the other, and back again.
Where I examine the formulae on the basis of their deviation from the rules of the Predicate Calculus, to discover an an antinomy in the formula (-[there exists]x)(-[PHI]x), Copjec's is more concerned with interpreting the formulae as symbolic expressions of Kant's antinomies.
What he did was to show that the two statements constituting the antinomy are equally provable philosophically.
Golder and Fitzpartrick hint, it is true, at some of law's actual qualities, such as force and order, but these are surely just a start, and its characteristic core for them, its differentiating characteristic, is its constitutive antinomy.
Antinomy began re-selling Version One's electronic form design and delivery systems to customers in Southern Africa in 2002.
Antinomy revolves around two characters without names: the Other, who experiences difference, rejection, and learning through suffering; and the One, who experiences understanding, bliss, and cultivates a firm and holistic character.
But since these are assumed to be equivalent, this odd inner play presents yet another antinomy that again can be clearly disclosed once we ask, "Precisely what happened thirty minutes before the inner play ended?
In chapter 2, Flikschuh offers a detailed interpretation of Kant's famously difficult attempt to reconcile causality and freedom in the third antinomy of the Critique of Pure Reason.
The complexity of this antinomy is not even superficially considered and as Brooke's writing is incapable of tearing itself away from an epistemology more naive than that of Austen herself, so it is unable to make any critical headway.
What if the contradiction between unifying sympathy and divisive criticism was not a fruitful tension but an unresolvable antinomy of the public sphere, one that reflects problems with how the theory and the institution wishes to erase the contestation that constitutes it?
What is being opened up here is an antinomy in the original programme itself.