A Greek word (antinomy) resulted in a Latin one (antinomy) and this one came to our language as antinomy . The term refers to the contradiction that exists between two concepts or ideas .
For example: "There is an antinomy between the projects proposed by the two political parties", “The antinomy between offensive football and defensive football has been left behind: today we know that the best teams are those that are committed to balance”, "It is incredible that, in the 21st century, there are countries that are bleeding from a religious antinomy".
The antinomy reveals the existence of a contradiction that cannot be solved: the two antinomic principles are confronted with each other. It is important to note that, in the field of philosophy , the antinomies are not necessarily linked to reason, since two principles can be rational and, in turn, be contradictory.
In everyday language, the notion of antinomy is usually used with reference to a confrontation which seems impossible to solve due to the absence of common points or to the proposal of discordant proposals. It is common for antinomies to arise in the field of politics , when the proposals of different parties are very different. If one party proposes a free market economy and another wants a strong state presence to control economic variables, there is an antinomy between the two projects.
It is called antinomism finally to a religious movement that developed in the century XVI . Although he was part of Christianity, he was qualified as heretical because he claimed that faith was all that was needed, regardless of sins They were committed.
The antinomy in the law
In the field of right , the antinomy has several nuances, which we must analyze to find the most appropriate solution to a given conflict. Many theorists have dedicated their efforts to the elaboration of valuable documents that allow us to classify and study the different types of antinomy. In this case, we will focus on Norberto Bobbio's theory , who relies on the scope of validity of the norms that star in the conflict, to establish a distinction between various classes of antinomy.
If the two standards share the scope of validity, Bobbio points out that we are facing a total-total antinomy . This is a case in which neither can be applied without causing a conflict ; for example, if one of them prohibits parking in a certain area from nine in the morning until twelve in the morning and the other, from ten in the morning until two in the afternoon. The fulfillment of one of them inevitably implies the breach of the other.
On the other hand we have the cases in which the scope of validity of the norms is not identical, and Bobbio groups them under the concept of partial-partial antinomy . This controversy It only occurs at the intersection portion between the two standards, as would happen if the two prohibited parking during the same hours, but one focused on trucks and cars, and the other, on cars and bicycles.
The partial-partial antinomy set forth in this example occurs only when the desire to park a bicycle or truck in the prohibition zone is raised, since both rules match with respect to cars.
The third type of antinomy recognized by Norberto Bobbio is called Subtotal , and takes place when the two conflicting rules have the same scope of validity, but one of them presents a greater restriction . Taking the example of the previous paragraphs, we could warn of this controversy if one rule absolutely prohibited the parking of any vehicle, while the other one only addressed trucks.