Talk:Antinomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was originally based on material from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, which is licensed under the GFDL.

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Logic

Contents 1 Edit war 2 Bold and spelling 3 Meaning? 4 Priority/favoring examples 5 Word mongering

[edit] Edit war

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)

[edit] Bold and spelling

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

[edit] Meaning?

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)

[edit] Priority/favoring examples

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)

[edit] Word mongering

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 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)