“The food class, for example, is not other food, but the classes of things that are not food are some of the things that are not food.” Antinomy is just the difference between two concepts that exclude one another, phenomena, each of which is separately proved by logic.
Contradiction
The contradiction between the two concepts, each of which is separate in itself, within the framework of a certain scientific theory has the right to exist. But still, the antinomy is different from the contradiction. The contradiction arises as a result of truth and error in different reasonings. The contradiction can be overcome with the help of logic, different theories. But in order to overcome the antinomy, it is necessary to change the very logic or theory, or both together. Antinomy is, in fact, an incentive for the development of science. There are different strategies for solving logical contradictions such as antinomies. Consider these strategies.
Antinomy
One, for example, says that in fact, if you do not question the theoretical foundations of the result, but use a kind of logical theory of the result in the form of an antinomic formula such as “p and not p” as executable, then the law of the logic of the prohibition of contradiction is not violated. Such a strategy hides the meaning of the word antinomy.
An example of such a strategy is Rogowski’s logic, which formalizes explanations about the mechanical action of the body so that since ancient times, the well-known formula “a body that moves, is simultaneously located and doesn’t settle in any place” is among those formulas that are provable with saving the coherence of some given logical system. The antinomy of movement is not understood as a nominal logical contradiction, which, in turn, uses the logical theory of result in the analysis of statements about movement. Currently, a direction has developed in logic that is related to the development of logical systems where the use of formulas such as antinomy is permissible.
Mismatches
Another strategy is that antinomy is an indicator of the mismatch of the logical hypotheses that are used immediately to explain some of the phenomena. Antinomies, when two things are simultaneously confirmed by experience, have a right to exist. The selection of one such thing for research has the right to exist for reasons of compatibility with other things. For patency of antinomy, it is necessary to shift the balance between experimental things. This is achieved by increasing the number and quality of checks, analysis using the logic of the causes of the antinomy. But this is far from absolute, because if you refute one thing, it will not automatically mean the correctness of another. After all, the whole system of things can be refuted, and it is impossible to say which of the things it will be possible to refute. When the harmful consequences of reasoning about antinomy arise, then logicians try to develop a system that blocks these very harmful consequences.
Abstraction and speculation
The third strategy is that the system of abstractions and conjectures is limited in scope, based on the theory in which antinomies arose.
Antinomy is a system that is formulated in the form of postulates and axioms, revealed in the form of non-trivial methodological work. It is the identified antinomies in theories with unexplained assumptions and abstractions that exist as incentives for formalizing theories. Research aims to find out what initial abstractions and assumptions lead to antinomies, to fix them or replace them with those in which there are no antinomies. Just antinomy is a set theory in which antinomies or paradoxes are discovered through restrictions. In the end, the antinomy (examples of some concepts make this clear) is not contradictory. Sometimes antinomies are those concepts that appeared in social theories, and they are perceived as prerequisites for approaching the end of development. According to the theory of radiation, the spectral density increases with increasing frequency. This means that the entire radiation density of the body at different temperatures is infinite. This is not possible according to common sense and accurate measurement.
Reason and Psychology
Any presence of pure reason is consistent with dialectical conclusions according to the logic scheme. Quite another thing comes out when applying reason to the objective synthesis of phenomena. Then the mind, proving its unity, but entangled in contradictions, is forced to abandon cosmology.
Antitetics places and catches the mind in its networks. At the same time, this did not allow the mind to calm down from confidence, but at the same time made it indulge in skepticism and defend some statements. Both of them can be considered the death of normal philosophy, although the first, rather, is the antinomies of reason. Let's look at the thoughts that clarify and justify the method by which we examine our subject. Ideas that relate to the integrity of the synthesis of phenomena can be called cosmological concepts - precisely because of their integrity and because they relate to the synthesis of phenomena. The paralogisms of pure reason serve as the basis of dialectical psychology. And the antinomy of pure reason shows the foundations of rational cosmology. Not in order for us to perceive them as wealthy, but in order to see them as an idea in our false greatness.
Science and philosophy
The antinomies of language - both science and philosophy - are a joint, generic element of life. But nevertheless they are at the same time opposite in their aspirations. Science and philosophy are an antinomy. But they are just two directions of action, and not the actions themselves. Both in philosophy and in science, thoughts tend to move away from the truth, from the core. The philosopher, for example, has something conditionally dead, and the scientist has a living heart. In other words, often the concepts of one have the quality of the other. No one is engaged in science for themselves, no one can understand the essence only in the family circle. The antithesis of science and philosophy is explained by different ways in which they have to go. And at the same time, the reality of one and the other can be far from the tasks that they set for themselves. Science, for example, has rigidity on the one hand, and fluid and soft on the other hand. And philosophy, although mobile and flexible, is at the same time rigid in its essence. This is all an explanation of antinomy by its nature.