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 ...
The first antithesis (verses 21–22) attacks anger as the root of murder. The two loosely connected illustrations (23–24, 25–26) point out the value of reconciling with one's enemy. [13] 21 You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, "Do not murder, [14] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment."
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.
Oxymoron–A combination of two words that appear to contradict each other. Paradox–A statement in which a contradiction may reveal an unexpected truth. Personification–Attribution of a personal nature or human characteristics to something non-human, or the representation of an abstract quality in human form.
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.
Antithetic parallelism is a form of parallelism where the meaning of two or more excerpts of text are observed, although directly linked by providing the same meaning from differing perspectives.
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 ...