ATLAS OF LANGUAGE

AT-RHE-201-001 · ATLAS 260

Antilogy

The development of opposed arguments on the same subject, making a question examinable from at least two contradictory sides.

Part of the subject path Rhetoric and Style

Why is this entry in the Atlas?

F · Figure / procedure R1 · Distinct contribution to understanding

Antilogy adds opposed lines of argument on one subject as a procedure of comparative examination. Arbitrary contrary opinions are insufficient without developed relations of reasoning.

Colours and admission grounds

The rectangular label identifies the entry function: F – linguistic figure or procedure; A – analytical concept; G – foundational concept; E – selected concrete case. The rounded badge indicates the admission ground: R1 – distinctive contribution; R2 – necessary foundation; R3 – justified illustrative case. This editorial rationale explains the current selection rather than claiming an undocumented original selection history.

Explanation

Antilogy unfolds opposing arguments concerning the same subject so that a question can be examined from at least two contradictory sides. It does not immediately reduce opposition to a winning position but exposes the premises, values, and consequences of each. In teaching, disputation, and methodological testing, this can interrupt premature certainty and cultivate mobility of judgement. Antilogy does not guarantee fair symmetry, however: one side may be caricatured, evidence unequally distributed, or false balance created between positions of different strength. The concept moves from contradiction to an ordered change of perspective whose aim is not relativism but better-grounded judgement.

Movement of thought

1. A contested question first appears from a dominant or apparently self-evident perspective. 2. An opposing argument is fully developed with its own reasons, premises, and possible consequences. 3. Both sides are related to the same object and their tensions and blind spots become comparable. 4. A counter-test examines fair reconstruction, evidential weight, and the danger of artificial equivalence. 5. The question returns as a more complex field of judgement requiring decision after contradiction has been traversed.

Scientific use case

Argumentation research and pedagogy can examine strength, symmetry, and perspective change in antilogical exercises. Experiments can test whether the procedure improves calibration or creates false balance.

Example

Anonymous data collection is examined first through benefits for quality control and then through risks to trust, purpose expansion, and exclusion before a rule is selected.

Counterexample

The remark “One could think differently” is not antilogy unless the counterargument is intelligibly developed. The figure likewise does not replace weighing evidence.

Distinction

Distinguish antilogy from antithesis, dissoi logoi, debate, refutation, and mere controversy. It requires elaborated counter-direction of arguments, not only verbal opposition.

Effect on thought and perception

Antilogy opens fixed judgements, exposes assumptions, and trains perspective change, but may misleadingly present asymmetrical evidence as equivalent.

Resonance

Two contradictory movements of thought meet at the same object; their tension creates a field in which judgement can be retuned.

Cite this entry

Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Antilogy“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-RHE-201-001. ATLAS 260, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-RHE-201-001

https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-RHE-201-001

The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.

Historical background

Rhetoric I.1 requires the ability to argue opposing sides of a question for clearer understanding and rebuttal of unfair argument, not to persuade people of what is wrong. Aristotle also denies that the contrary positions have equal factual support. The English translation thus supplies a bounded historical connection to testing a question from competing sides, not evidence for the modern lemma Antilogy or the whole sophistic tradition.

How conceptual history changes the analysis

Two argumentative routes enable testing, not automatically two equally true positions.

References for the historical section

  • B-ARIST-ANTILOGY · Rhetoric I.1, opposing arguments and unequal support, transcription lines239–270
Historical source evidence and Atlas applications remain separate; this import does not assert new first attestations or a fresh exhaustive source verification.