When Reason Falls Into "Contradiction":

When Reason Falls Into "Contradiction": Understanding Kant's "Antinomy" and Seeing the Boundaries of Cognition

 

Have you ever pondered such questions late at night: Does the universe have a beginning? If it does, what existed before that beginning? If it doesn't, how can we even conceive of infinite time? When you try to deduce answers through logic, you'll find that two completely opposite conclusions can both be justified—this is not muddled thinking, but what Kant termed "antinomy" in his Critique of Pure Reason, a "thought experiment" where reason confronts the boundaries of its own capabilities.

 

The core of "antinomy" lies in the logical dilemma that arises when humans use reason— which is only applicable to the "empirical world"—to explore "things-in-themselves" that transcend experience, such as the "entirety of the universe" or the "nature of the soul." It is not a debate of "right versus wrong" in the black-and-white sense, but a contradiction where "both sides seem correct"—two sets of propositions can each be proven through rigorous logic, yet they mutually negate one another, leaving reason caught in a bind. Kant summarized these into four classic sets of propositions, but similar "dilemmas" are actually ubiquitous in the depths of our lives and thinking.

 

I. The Classic Four Antinomies: Reason "Tangled Up" Before Ultimate Questions

 

The four antinomies proposed by Kant directly address humanity's ultimate inquiries into the "universe" and "existence," with each set acting like a ruler that measures the boundaries of reason.

 

The first set concerns "the spatio-temporal boundaries of the universe":

The thesis holds that the universe has a beginning in time and a limit in space. If the universe had no beginning, an infinite amount of time would have passed before "this very moment"—but an "infinite span of time" cannot "be completed," so the universe must have a beginning; similarly, if space were infinite, we could not conceive of how "infinite space" could be "contained," so space must have a limit.

The antithesis, by contrast, argues that the universe has no beginning in time and no limit in space. If the universe had a beginning, "before that beginning" would necessarily be "nothingness," and "nothingness" cannot give rise to "existence," so the universe has no beginning; if space had a limit, "beyond that limit" would still be "space," so space has no limit.

 

The second set revolves around "the divisibility of matter":

The thesis proposes that matter is composed of "simple parts" that cannot be divided further. If matter could be infinitely divided, it would eventually dissolve into "pure relations without substance"—without a smallest "substrate," matter would lose its basis for existence, so there must be indivisible parts.

The antithesis, however, maintains that matter can be infinitely divided, and there are no "simple parts" that cannot be split further. Any matter that exists in space must occupy "a part of space," and "space itself is infinitely divisible," so matter can also be infinitely divided, with no "simple parts" existing.

 

The third set deals with "freedom and necessity":

The thesis points out that "free will" exists in the world, and not everything follows the law of causality. If everything were governed by the law of causality, every "cause" would have an earlier "cause," leading to an "infinite regress"—to break this regress, there must be an "uncaused cause," which is free will.

The antithesis counters that there is no free will in the world, and everything adheres to the law of causality. If free will existed, it would be an "uncaused cause," disrupting the continuity of the causal law—but in the empirical world, every phenomenon has a cause, and free will cannot be verified through experience, so it does not exist.

 

The fourth set focuses on "the necessity of the universe":

The thesis argues that there exists an "absolutely necessary being" in the world (such as "God" or "the universe itself"). If all existence were "contingent," the "sum of all contingent existences" would also require an "necessary existence" as its foundation; otherwise, the entire world would lose its basis for being.

The antithesis, on the other hand, asserts that there is no "absolutely necessary being" in the world. If such a being existed, it would either be within the universe—but everything in the universe is governed by the law of causality, leaving no room for "absolute necessity"; or it would be outside the universe—in which case it would have no connection to the empirical world and could not be verified, so it does not exist.

 

These four sets of propositions may seem abstract, but they reveal a crucial issue: when reason attempts to step beyond "perceivable experience" to touch "ultimate truth," it will inevitably split into two mutually contradictory "correct answers"—because our tool of reason is inherently designed for the "empirical world."

 

II. Antinomies in Life: Not Just Philosophy, But Everyday Dilemmas

 

"Antinomy" does not exist solely in philosophical classics; it has long permeated our life choices and value judgments, becoming a "cognitive dilemma" that everyone may encounter.

 

Take, for example, the issue of "individual choice versus collective rules":

The thesis emphasizes that individuals should prioritize "free choice," as this is the core of individual value. If everyone were constrained by collective rules and unable to freely choose their occupation or lifestyle, the uniqueness of individuals would be eroded, and society would lose its innovative vitality.

The antithesis, however, holds that individuals should prioritize abiding by "collective rules," as this is the foundation of social order. If everyone pursued absolute freedom and disregarded laws, ethics, or public order, society would descend into chaos, and ultimately, the freedom of individuals would be stripped away (consider traffic rules: if everyone ran red lights, no one could travel safely).

 

Another example concerns "idealism and realism":

The thesis advocates that people should uphold "idealism" and not compromise for reality. If everyone bowed to reality and abandoned the pursuit of "something better," society would never progress—it is precisely those who cling to "impractical" ideals (such as advocates for equality or pioneers in scientific exploration) who drive the world forward.

The antithesis, by contrast, suggests that people should embrace "realism" and learn to compromise. If one stubbornly clings to ideals while ignoring the constraints of reality, they will not only face repeated setbacks and suffering but may also harm others due to "idealistic stubbornness" (for instance, forcing others to sacrifice their practical interests for the sake of a "perfect goal").

 

Even in "intimate relationships," antinomy arises:

The thesis argues that people should "maintain independence" in intimate relationships, as this is the key to a lasting bond. If one becomes overly dependent on their partner, they will lose their sense of self, and the relationship will eventually become a burden—only independent individuals can foster a healthy mutual attraction.

The antithesis, however, believes that "deep dependence" is essential in intimate relationships, as it forms the core of emotional connection. If both parties remain too independent, unwilling to share their vulnerabilities or support each other, the relationship will grow cold and distant, losing the essence of "intimacy"—dependence is not the loss of self, but a testament to trust.

 

These everyday antinomies are essentially consistent with Kant's philosophical propositions: we try to use "either/or" reason to judge "black-and-white" choices, but in reality, values, relationships, and rules inherently exist in a state of "mutual contradiction yet coexistence."

 

III. Understanding "Antinomy": Not to Fall Into Confusion, But to Embrace Clarity

 

When many people first encounter the concept of "antinomy," they may fall into the confusion of thinking, "If both sides make sense, then what's the point?"—but Kant proposed this concept not to negate reason, but to help us see the "scope of application" of reason.

 

Reason is not a "master key"; it can only address problems "within the realm of experience" (such as "how to build a computer" or "how to treat a disease"). When we inquire about "the nature of the universe," "the ultimate meaning of life," or "absolute freedom," reason will inevitably "fall short." This "inability" is not a flaw, but a "protection" for human cognition—it reminds us not to use limited reason to arbitrarily define the infinite unknown, and not to use "either/or" logic to dissect the "complex and diverse" reality.

 

Just as when facing the antinomy of "freedom and rules," we do not have to choose between "absolute freedom or absolute obedience"; instead, we can find a balance between the two: pursuing freedom within the framework of the law, and respecting rules in the exercise of freedom. When confronting "idealism and realism," we do not have to opt for "complete compromise or stubborn persistence"; instead, we can take ideals as our guide and reality as our stepping stone—this is not "fudging the issue," but a clear recognition of the "boundaries of reason."

 

In the end, "antinomy" is not a "paradox game" that traps reason, but a mirror: it reflects humanity's longing for truth, as well as the limitations of our cognition. And true wisdom may lie in this "clear awareness"—not fixating on "absolute correctness," but seeking balance amid contradictions and embracing the infinite within the finite.