Antinomie are well known in philosophy mostly because of Kant – but, so far as I can tell, Kant’s antinomies are simply a philosophical idea that have arguments for and against it (it may be appropriate to call an antinomy a paradox). Why does he consider this so devastating? There’s antinomies in all of philosophy – though well-known because of Kant they certainly aren’t unique to him, they go all the way back to the Greeks and carry through the medievals to the present. Perhaps why he’s so dazzled by them is that he wasn’t willing to engage in the kind of methodological philosophical investigation that, say, the medievals were willing to engage in to solve them. Kant would have no doubt included the medieval project in his critique of all metaphysics, but the fact remains that his antinomies have been solved by a very rigorous method. Perhaps the more significant fact, however, is that antinomies of much greater power are also found throughout the history of philosophy.