Talk:Antinomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Edit war[edit]

Page protected on account of edit war. -- Viajero 21:09, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It seems there's a long-running edit war over where the pointer to antimony should live. I cannot see any reason to prefer one version over another, so I'd urge those involved to let it drop and find something more deserving of their attention. This is a very trivial issue. --Camembert
Thanks - wasn't there a page with a list of the lamest edit wars ever or something? This seems to take the biscuit. Mark Richards 16:48, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bold and spelling[edit]

What's going on with the bizzarre bold effects and misspelling comments? Mark Richards 22:11, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Meaning?[edit]

I'm having trouble understanding this article. It has needlessly complex sentences (which is especially bad in natural spoken languages). For example, "The term acquired a special significance in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, 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 proper to the universe of sensible perception or experience (phenomena)." This needs to be separated into multiple sentences, or at the very least, put more commas in it. The following sentence reads like a run-on and I have no clue what it's trying to convey: "Kant claimed to solve these contradictions by saying, that in no case is the contradiction real, however really it has been intended by the opposing partisans, or must appear to the mind without critical enlightenment." --Maian 10:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is overly complicated and confusing; the explanation needs to be made much clearer. Just because one is writing about Kant does not mean that one must also borrow Kant's obliviously protracted prose. It is a little worrisome, however, that over a year after the original comment, most of the article remains unchanged. If someone with greater knowledge of the subject could clean the article up, I'd be appreciative. W.S. Vicente (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Priority/favoring examples[edit]

I am not clear why the antinomies from the first Critique are listed here without doing the same for the second or third. Kant struggled with antinomies throughout his works, and largely resolved them in the same manner. Quine 12:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Word mongering[edit]

If this page is going to be rewritten, we need to cut down the word mongering a bit. Sentences like "This is because the conclusion that there is a limitation is (supposedly) derived from the antinomy by logical reasoning;therefore any limitation in the validity of logical reasoning imposes a limitation on the conclusion that there is a limitation on logical reasoning." aren't exactly what I would call a sound logical expression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProductofSociety (talkcontribs) 08:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Split into two parts, Antinomy (mathematics) and Antinomy (philosophy)?[edit]

The appearance of antinomies (often synonymous with "paradox" or "contradictions" or "vicious-circle fallacies") in mathematics -- e.g. the Russell paradox, the Burali-Forti paradox, the Richard paradox, the Epimenides paradox, etc -- in the late 1800's and early 1900's appeared following Cantor's and especially Frege's attempts to axiomatize mathematics. The consequences were profound. In particular, avoiding them was fundamental to the development of set theory and the Logicists' and Formalists' attempts to do the same. This word "antinomy" either directly or in synonym appears over and over in the primary literature e.g. Russell 1903, Hilbert 1904, in Zermelo 1908, Russell 1908 Whitehead and Russell 1913 (Principia Mathematica), in von Neumann 1925, in Goedel 1931 etc etc (ref: all these papers except Russell 1903, plus original papers that presented the Burali-Forti and Richard paradoxes, can be found van Heijenoort, Jean (1967 3rd printing 1976), From Frege to Goedel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic 1879-1931, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, ISBN 0-674-32449-8 (pbk.)). I suppose it (the mathematical or logical antinomies could link into Paradox. Any thoughts out there? Bill Wvbailey (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Antinomies are different from paradoxes. Antinomies actually have full, legitimate proofs for two diametrically opposed theses. This is a different species than, say, the Liar's Paradox.

Cleaning Up[edit]

I forgot to add an edit summary and was asked to explain deletions/editing: the page as it was did not provide an example of how Kant goes about arguing the Antinomies. I added an example of how he proves the finitude and then the infinitude of time. I also erased a very simplistic and non-neutral criticism that asserted that Kant's use of logic to place limits on logic was self-refuting. This criticism is based on a misunderstanding of logic -- that is, how actual logicians do logic -- and of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason as a whole. I also erased a reference to the principle of explosion that didn't fit and was accompanied by a dismissal of Kant's views as "carefree." I replaced these inadequacies with a brief explanation of how the Antinomies figure into Kant's wider project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.14.75 (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Err, please don't argue from content, especially where a simple "unsourced" suffices. I still think I read that somewhere, but couldn't find a source, so that matter is settled. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Developments in Modern Science[edit]

I find it disturbing that there are few citations and also that terms like "proven" are thrown so haphazardly. The indivisibility limit of matter has been cemented in Atomic theory since Rutherford and Bohr about a century ago and has received broad-to-unanimous support for decades. The modern semiconductor technology that allows your computer to work depends on it. Time having a definite beginning is a crucial component of modern Big Bang studies, which has also received broad-to-unanimous support for decades. All astronomical entities have red-shift, which we do our best to measure. All of the billions of measurements so far point to time's definite beginning. Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 13:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hawking no longer holds fast to time having a beginning - he says that IF there was anything *before* the Big Bang, it is not accessible. There are arguments on both sides - which is what makes for a paradox. We can understand what "BEFORE the Big Bang" means - though we cannot refer to anything by it. Article DOES need work, tho--JimWae (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)