Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The yin yang symbol which illustrates opposites together.. Enantiosis, synoeciosis or discordia concors is a rhetorical device in which opposites are juxtaposed so that the contrast between them is striking. [1]
In rhetoric, chiasmus (/ k aɪ ˈ æ z m ə s / ky-AZ-məs) or, less commonly, chiasm (Latin term from Greek χίασμα chiásma, "crossing", from the Greek χιάζω, chiázō, "to shape like the letter Χ"), is a "reversal of grammatical structures in successive phrases or clauses – but no repetition of words".
Proebsting's paradox apparently shows that the Kelly criterion can lead to ruin. Sleeping Beauty problem: A probability problem that can be correctly answered as one half or one third depending on how the question is approached. Three Prisoners problem, also known as the Three Prisoners paradox: [3] A variation of the Monty Hall problem.
The term "antithesis" in rhetoric goes back to the 4th century BC, for example Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1410a, in which he gives a series of examples. An antithesis can be a simple statement contrasting two things, using a parallel structure: I defended the Republic as a young man; I shall not desert her now that I am old. (Cicero, 2nd Philippic, 2 ...
An oxymoron (plurals: oxymorons and oxymora) is a figure of speech that juxtaposes concepts with opposite meanings within a word or in a phrase that is a self-contradiction. As a rhetorical device, an oxymoron illustrates a point to communicate and reveal a paradox.
The post 26 of the Funniest Oxymoron Examples appeared first on Reader's Digest. A closer look at these contradictory phrases and quotes will make you laugh. 26 of the Funniest Oxymoron Examples
Oxymoron: using two terms together, that normally contradict each other. Parable: extended metaphor told as an anecdote to illustrate or teach a moral lesson. Paradiastole: extenuating a vice in order to flatter or soothe. Paradox: use of apparently contradictory ideas to point out some underlying truth.
The paradox of analysis (or Langford–Moore paradox) [1] is a paradox that concerns how an analysis can be both correct and informative. The problem was formulated by philosopher G. E. Moore in his book Principia Ethica, and first named by C. H. Langford in his article "The Notion of Analysis in Moore's Philosophy" (in The Philosophy of G. E. Moore, edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp, Northwestern ...