Paradox

300 A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PARADOXreal object existing, in the same character, outside the thinkingsubject.” Under this solution, all of the arguments composingthe antinomies are sound. Each antinomical issue isanalogous to the riddle “What happens if an irresistible forcemeets an immovable object?” The two answers to this “antinomy”appear to be contradictory:Thesis: If an irresistible force meets an immovableobject, then the immovable object moves.Antithesis: If an irresistible force meets an immovableobject, then the immovable object does notmove.Yet each side can be soundly argued. Proof of the Thesis: Anirresistible force can move anything. So if there is an immovableobject, it is an object and so it must move. Proof of theAntithesis: An immovable object cannot be moved by anything.So if there is an irresistible force, even that cannotmove it. The conclusions of the proofs are compatible becausethey are conditionals with impossible antecedents. It is possiblefor there to be an irresistible force and it is possible forthere to be an immovable object. But they are not co-possible.The riddle tricks you into assuming that the confrontationcould take place. Anything follows from an impossibility.Even contradictory consequences. Garbage in, garbage out! Ifyou do not realize what is going on, you will try to defend oneof the consequences. You will slant the evidence so that itseems to confirm your answer and disconfirm the “contrary”answer. But both thesis and antithesis are true.Although Immanuel Kant never retracts this solution, hebecomes nervous. If the necessary being is a limit-object andlimit-objects are delusions, then Kant is heading toward