Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In rhetoric, antithesis is a figure of speech involving the bringing out of a contrast in the ideas by an obvious contrast in the words, clauses, or sentences, within a parallel grammatical structure. [7] The term "antithesis" in rhetoric goes back to the 4th century BC, for example Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1410a, in which he gives a series of ...
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.
Paradox – an apparently absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition. Paralipsis – a form of apophasis when a rhetor introduces a subject by denying it should be discussed. To speak of someone or something by claiming not to. Parallelism – the correspondence, in sense or construction, of successive clauses or passages.
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 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 literature, the paradox is an anomalous juxtaposition of incongruous ideas for the sake of striking exposition or unexpected insight. It functions as a method of literary composition and analysis that involves examining apparently contradictory statements and drawing conclusions either to reconcile them or to explain their presence.
In each antinomy, a thesis is contradicted by an antithesis. For example: in the first antinomy, Kant proves the thesis that time must have a beginning by showing that if time had no beginning, then an infinity would have elapsed up until the present moment.
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 ...