The following list sums up the basic paradoxes at the heart of Kantian philosophy:
- unity vs. plurality,
- structure vs. change,
- law vs. freedom,
- science vs. personality,
- deduction vs. induction,
- theory vs. brute factuality,
- definition vs. application.
We are all Kant’s heirs; David Foster Wallace is not excluded. His stories in Oblivion (2004) represent “double-binds” that make these antinomies into prisons from which his characters cannot emerge.
For example, the first Kantian antinomy involves how characters and Wallace’s readers handle information. How do we reconcile particular facts with generalizations? Are Wallace’s characters capable of making any generalization about reality, or do they live through a series of disconnected experiences? What about his readers? What generalizations can we draw from the stories? Do the stories cohere, or must they be addressed separately?
The second paradox involves the form of Wallace’s fiction. He crafts intricate prisons (i.e., structures) for his characters. However, almost none of the stories have anything resembling character change or even a character arc. Most of Wallace’s words describe an external tableau or the internal arc that led to the moment the tableau captures. At most, we get a backstory of how a character arrived in a particular prison. As for a way out? Wallace only offers death and
Fundamentally, these antinomies are about hierarchy and representation. The paradoxes appear to force us to choose one over the other. Wallace’s stories point to, but cannot seem to countenance, the solution to these dilemmas: the triune God, the concrete universal.