"The class of food, for example, is not other food, but classes of things that are not food are one of the things that are not food." Antinomy is just the differences between two mutually exclusive concepts, phenomena, each of which is separately provable by logic.
Contradiction
The contradiction between two concepts, while each of them separately in itself, within the framework of a certain scientific theory, has the right to exist. Yet antinomy is different from contradiction. Contradiction arises as a result of truth and error in different reasoning. 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. Antinomy is, in fact, a stimulus for the development of science. There are different strategies for solving logical contradictions such as antinomy. Consider these strategies.
Antinomia
One, for example, says that in fact, if you do not question the theoretical foundations of the result, but use a version of the logical theory of the result in the form of an antinomic formula like "p and not p" as executable, then it is not violatedthe law of logic of the prohibition of contradiction. This 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 in such a way that since ancient times the well-known formula "a body that moves, is simultaneously located and not located in some place" is one of these formulas that are provable while preserving the consistency 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 the result in the examination of statements about movement. At present, a direction has developed in logic that is related to the development of logical systems, where the use of antinomy-type formulas is allowed.
Mismatches
Another strategy is that antinomy is an indicator of the discrepancy between the logic of theoretical hypotheses that are used immediately in explaining some phenomena. Antinomies, when two things are simultaneously confirmed by experience, have the right to exist. The choice of one such thing for research has the right to exist for reasons of compatibility with other things. For the antinomy to pass, it is necessary to carry out a shift in the balance between experimental things. This is achieved by increasing the number and quality of checks, by analyzing the reasons for the emergence of antinomy with the help of logic. But this is far from absolute, because if you refute one thing, it iswill not automatically mean the correctness of the other. After all, the whole system of things can be refuted, and it is impossible to say which of the things can be refuted. When the harmful consequences of reasoning about antinomy arise, then logicians try to develop a system that blocks these most harmful consequences.
Abstractions and conjectures
The third strategy is that the system of abstractions and conjectures is limited in scope, based on the theory in which the antinomies arose.
Antinomia is a system that is formulated in the form of postulates and axioms and is 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 the formalization of theories. Research sets the task of finding out what initial abstractions and assumptions lead to antinomies, fixing them or replacing them with those in which there are no antinomies. Just antinomy is a theory of sets, in which antinomies or paradoxes are revealed through restrictions. After all, antinomy (examples of some concepts make this clear) is not contradictory. Sometimes antinomies are those concepts that have 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 impossible according to common sense and accurate measurement.
Mind and Psychology
Any presence of pure reason is consistent with dialectical conclusions according to the scheme of logic. Quite another thing comes out when reason is applied to an objective synthesis of phenomena. Then the mind, proving its unity, but getting entangled in contradictions, is forced to abandon cosmology.
Antithetica arranges and catches the mind in its nets. At the same time, this did not allow the mind to calm down from certainty, but at the same time forced it to indulge in skepticism and defend certain assertions. Both can be considered the death of normal philosophy, although the first is rather 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 the 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 so that we perceive them as we althy, but in order to see them as an idea in its false grandeur.
Science and Philosophy
The antinomy of language - both science and philosophy - is a common, generic element of life. Yet they are at the same time opposite in their aspirations. Science and philosophy are antinomy. But they are just two directions of action, and not the actions themselves. In both philosophy and science, thoughts tend to stray away from the truth, away from the core. The philosopher has, for example, something conditionallydead, but the scientist has a living heart. In other words, often the concepts of one have the quality of the other. No one does science for himself, no one can understand the essence only in the family circle. The opposite of science and philosophy is explained by the different paths they have to take. And at the same time, the reality of one and the other may be far from the tasks that they set themselves. Science, for example, on the one hand, having rigidity, on the other hand, is fluid and soft. And philosophy, although mobile and flexible, is at the same time rigid in its essence. This is all an explanation of the antinomy in its nature.
