8/12/2019 10.11648.j.ijp.20130103.12

1/4

International Journal of Philosophy2013; 1(3): 47-50Published online October 30, 2013 (http://!sciencepublishin""roup!co#/$/i$p)doi: 10!11%4&/$!i$p!20130103!12

The Hegelian critique of Kantian antinomies:an analysis

based on the Wissenchaft der LogikMarcos Fbio Alexandre Nicolau, Jos Edmar Lima Filho

'tte ni*ersit+ o le do .cr, 'obrl, ril

Email address:#rcos#c$+hoo!co#!br (! ! .! icolu), se#ed#r+hoo!co#!br (6! ! 8! ilho)

To cite this article:rcos 9bio .lendre icolu, 6os d#r 8i# ilho!

8/12/2019 10.11648.j.ijp.20130103.12

2/4

4& rcos 9bio .lendre icolu et al.: onsiderin" it

is esier to reute thn to $usti+, =e"el resoned tht the

eort should be tht o estblishin" $ustiied be"innin",

principle tht #ust be the union o #ethod nd content,

principle tht #ust lso be united to or#! =e"el tAes on

the tsA o buildin" pri#e oundtion!

8/12/2019 10.11648.j.ijp.20130103.12

3/4

Fnterntionl 6ournl o Philosoph+ 2013; 1(3): 47-50 4L

occurs on the identit+ o #etph+sics ith lo"ic, the second

de*elop#ent reltes to the ele#ent o contrdiction itsel!

ot coincidentll+ =e"el introduces his discussions o the

conlict throu"h considertion o the #entioned @ntin

ntino#ies, ell ee#pliied in ht ollos: G@nt rised

the dilectic #uch #ore K nd this is one o his "retest

#erits K or rep+in" the hole ppernce o rbitrr+ ct

hich it hd due to its ordinr+ representtion, nd shoed

it s necessary operation of the reason. =oe*er the

dilectic s understood onl+ s n rt o cretin" #ir"es

nd risin" illusions! Ft hd been thou"ht it si#pl+ pl+ed

lse "#e nd tht ll its stren"th s bsed onl+ in hidin"

the rud, tht its results ere surreptitious nd o

sub$ecti*e ppernce! *identl+, the ehibitions o @ntBs

dilectics, on the ntino#ies o pure reson, do not deser*e

#uch prise hen e#ined creull+, s e shll eplore

ith #ore bredth in the continution o this orA!

onetheless, the "enerl ide set b+ hi# s oundtion is

the o%'ecti&ity of appearance! and the necessity ofcontradiction! tht belon"s to the nature o the

deter#intions o thou"ht!H (WdL5/51)

*en so, =e"el does not le*e to consider @ntIs

relection s one o the deeper pro"resses o odern

Philosoph+! or hi#, it s rell+ i#portnt to point out the

essentil nd necessr+ chrcter o contrdiction, lthou"h

the Critiue of Pure )easonrepresents this contrdiction s

so#ethin" etrinsic to the concepts! Cith this, @nt did not

reco"nie positi*e spects o ntino#ies! =e st+ed in the

ne"ti*e result o thin"s in-itsel tht cnnot be Anon nd

he did not penetrte in the Anoled"e o rel nd positi*e

si"niiction o ntino#ies!or ech o the our @ntin ntino#ies, to opposin"

propositions re sserted ith respect to the s#e ob$ect,

nd it is shon tht ech o the opposin" propositions #ust

be sserted ith e?ul need2!

8/12/2019 10.11648.j.ijp.20130103.12

4/4

50 rcos 9bio .lendre icolu et al.: E-TO)!

M2N Cissenscht der 8o"iA! Fn: =e"el CerAe - =erus"eber=e"el-Fnstitut erlin! Op! cit!

M3N