Antinomy

In philosophy, an antinomy (Ancient Greek: antí 'against' + nómos 'law') is a real or apparent contradiction between two conclusions, both of which seem justified.^[1] 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".^[2]

The antinomic procedure was further developed by Fichte, Schelling and Hegel.^[2] Hegel said that Kant was in error when he limited the antinomies to cosmological ideas, claiming that the world itself contains contradiction. Schopenhauer said that the antitheses in Kant's antinomies were justified, but claimed the theses (cosmological propositions) to be sophisms.^[3]

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]} 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]}