Hubbry Logo
AntithesisAntithesisMain
Open search
Antithesis
Community hub
Antithesis
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Antithesis
Antithesis
Antithesis
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Antithesis (pl.: antitheses; Greek for "setting opposite", from ἀντι- "against" and θέσις "placing") is used in writing or speech either as a proposition that contrasts with or reverses some previously mentioned proposition, or when two opposites are introduced together for contrasting effect.[1][2]

Antithesis can be defined as "a figure of speech involving a seeming contradiction of ideas, words, clauses, or sentences within a balanced grammatical structure. Parallelism of expression serves to emphasize opposition of ideas".[3]

An antithesis must always contain two ideas within one statement. The ideas may not be structurally opposite, but they serve to be functionally opposite when comparing two ideas for emphasis.[4]

According to Aristotle, the use of an antithesis makes the audience better understand the point the speaker is trying to make. Further explained, the comparison of two situations or ideas makes choosing the correct one simpler. Aristotle states that antithesis in rhetoric is similar to syllogism due to the presentation of two conclusions within a statement.[5]

Antitheses are used to strengthen an argument by using either exact opposites or simply contrasting ideas, but can also include both. They typically make a sentence more memorable for the reader or listener through balance and emphasis of the words.[6]

Rhetorical antithesis

[edit]

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 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, 2.118)

Often there is a double antithesis, as in the following proverb, where "man" is opposed to "God", and "proposes" is contrasted with "disposes":

  • Man proposes, God disposes. (anonymous)

Another type is of the form "not A, but B" (negative-positive), in which the point made is emphasised by first being contrasted with its negative:

Another type involves an antimetabole (AB, BA word order), in which the contrasted words switch places:

  • In peace you long for war, and in war you long for peace.
  • Two things show feebleness of mind: holding your breath at the time for speaking, and speaking when you should be silent. (Saadi)

The negative-positive antithesis and the antimetabole-antithesis can be combined, as in the following sentence:

An antithesis can also be combined with synonymous parallelism. In the following example, the first (A, A') and second couplet (B, B') are parallel synonymously with the same adverb and verb combination distinguishing the couplets: "still do"/"still be"//"still do"/"still be." An antithesis is formed with line A contrasting "evil" with "right" in line B. Line A' contrasts the "filthy" with the "holy" in line B'.[8]

• A Let the evildoer still do evil,
• A' and the filthy still be filthy,
• B and the righteous still do right.
• B' and the holy still be holy (Revelation 22:11).

Twentieth-century rhetorician Kenneth Burke discusses the rhetorical aesthetic and stylistic effects of antithesis in one of the most referenced passages of A Rhetoric of Motives, one of his most famous works. In that book, Burke describes how antithesis can invite people to hold an "attitude of collaborative expectancy"[9] through the rhetorical aesthetic principle of form.[10]

Some literary examples

[edit]

Some other examples of antithesis are:

  • Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice. (William Shakespeare, Hamlet)
  • For many are called, but few are chosen. (Matthew 22:14)
  • Never give in — never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. (by Winston Churchill)
  • It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way... (Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities)
  • We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools. (Martin Luther King Jr., speech at St. Louis, 1964.)
  • The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. (Abraham Lincoln, The Gettysburg Address, 1863.)
  • He who desires peace, should prepare for war. (Vegetius, Epitoma Rei Militaris, book 3, introduction.)
  • For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. (St Paul, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians 13:12, Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition)
  • My men have become women, and my women, men. (King Xerxes at the Battle of Salamis (480 BC), according to Herodotus 8.88.3)
  • Senator, in everything I said about Iraq I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong. (George Galloway at a US Senate hearing, May 2005.)[11]
  • I'm not saying that this or that statue was stolen from there; I'm saying this, that you, Verres, left not one single statue in Aspendus. (Cicero, In Verrem, 2.1.53.)
  • I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. (Martin Luther King Jr., 1963.)
  • For contemplation he and valour formed, For softness she and sweet attractive grace; He for God only, she for God in him. (John Milton, Paradise Lost)

The "Antitheses" in St Matthew's Gospel

[edit]
Main article: Matthew 5 § Antitheses

Matthew's Antitheses is the traditional name given to a section of the Sermon on the Mount[12] where Jesus takes six well known prescriptions of the Mosaic Law and calls his followers to do more than the Law requires. Protestant scholars since the Reformation have generally believed that Jesus was setting his teaching over against false interpretations of the Law current at the time. "Antithesis" was the name given by Marcion of Sinope to a manifesto in which he contrasted the Old Testament with the New Testament and defined what came to be known as Marcionism.

In philosophical discussion

[edit]
See also: Thesis, antithesis, synthesis and Dialectic

In dialectics (any formal system of reasoning that arrives at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments) antithesis is the juxtaposition of contrasting ideas, usually in a balanced way. The logical arguments are said to be stated in the order thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

Although this style of philosophical discussion (stating a point of view, then its opposite, and finally drawing a conclusion) was commonly used by ancient philosophers,[13] the use of the trio "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" itself to describe it goes back only to the 18th century, to a work published in 1794 by the German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte.[14]

The phrase is sometimes incorrectly stated to originate from the German philosopher Hegel. However, Hegel never actually used the trio of terms except once in a lecture, in which he reproached Immanuel Kant for having "everywhere posited thesis, antithesis, synthesis".[15]

See also

[edit]
Look up antithesis in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Antithesis

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Antithesis is a rhetorical and literary device that involves the of contrasting ideas, words, or phrases, often arranged in a balanced or parallel grammatical structure to emphasize opposition and heighten persuasive or artistic effect. The term originates from the Greek antitithenai, meaning "to place against," reflecting its core function of setting elements in direct contrast. In , antithesis emerged as a key stylistic figure, with describing it in his Rhetoric (circa 4th century BCE) as a method to clarify arguments through opposition, linking it to dialectical reasoning where a meets its . This device evolved through Hellenistic and Roman traditions, integrating philosophical elements from , and persisted into Byzantine as a tool for both invention and elaboration in oratory. By the classical period, it was taught as part of the five canons of , particularly under elocutio (style), where it served to balance clauses and amplify emotional impact. Antithesis remains a staple in modern discourse, literature, and speeches for its ability to create memorable contrasts that reinforce themes or arguments. Notable examples include Barry Goldwater's 1964 Republican National Convention address: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue," which parallels vice and virtue to underscore ideological commitment. In literature, William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar features Brutus's line: "Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved more," contrasting loyalty to Caesar with devotion to to justify the . Biblical usage, such as in 2 Corinthians 3:6—"for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life"—demonstrates antithesis in religious texts to contrast legalism with spiritual vitality. These applications highlight its versatility in enhancing clarity, , and across genres.

Etymology and Definition

Etymology

The word antithesis derives from the noun antíthesis (ἀντίθεσις), meaning "opposition" or "a setting against," formed from the antitíthēmi (ἀντιτίθημι), which combines antí (ἀντί, "against" or "in opposition to") and títhēmi (τίθημι, "to place," "to set," or "to put"). This etymological structure underscores the rhetorical device's emphasis on juxtaposing contrasting elements to heighten emphasis or clarity. In classical Greek rhetoric, the term was employed as early as the 4th century BCE, notably in Aristotle's , where it describes a that arranges phrases or clauses in opposition to amplify persuasive effect. The concept entered Latin as antithesis through rhetorical treatises, influencing its adoption into European languages. The English term antithesis first appears in the period, with the recording its earliest use around in translations of theological and rhetorical texts, initially denoting philosophical opposition before broadening to literary contrast. By the , it was firmly established in English rhetorical theory, as seen in works like Henry Peacham's The Garden of Eloquence (1577), which defines it as "the ioyning together of contrarie or repugnant wordes or phrases."

Core Definition

Antithesis is a and literary device characterized by the of contrasting ideas, words, phrases, or clauses within a balanced or parallel grammatical structure to highlight opposition and create emphasis. This , often referred to as contentio in Latin or antitheton in some classical contexts, derives its effect from the deliberate placement of opposites to sharpen clarity, , or emotional in . The core function of antithesis lies in its ability to exploit semantic or conceptual contrasts—such as antonyms, contraries, or opposing viewpoints—while maintaining structural , which makes the expression more memorable and rhetorically powerful. For example, it draws on the topic of known as "contraries," where proving one idea often involves negating its opposite through parallel phrasing. This parallelism not only reinforces the contrast but also aids in argumentation by making abstract differences concrete and vivid. In practice, antithesis serves to elevate ordinary statements into persuasive or poetic forms, as seen in Abraham Lincoln's observation: "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues," where the balanced opposition between vices and virtues underscores a philosophical insight . Unlike mere contradiction, antithesis requires this harmonious opposition to achieve its stylistic and intellectual impact, distinguishing it from related devices like or .

Rhetorical Usage

Characteristics

In rhetoric, antithesis is fundamentally a that juxtaposes two contrasting or opposing ideas, often within parallel grammatical structures, to create balance and highlight their differences. This opposition is not merely oppositional but structurally balanced, typically involving clauses, phrases, or words of similar length and form to produce a rhythmic effect that aids memorability and . The device derives from the Greek term antitithenai, meaning "to place against," and serves to sharpen arguments by placing ideas in direct confrontation, making abstract concepts more concrete and impactful. Aristotle, in Book III of his Rhetoric, emphasizes the antithetical form's appeal due to its ability to facilitate quick comprehension, as the contrast throws one idea into relief against another, allowing the audience to seize the point promptly without excess elaboration. He illustrates this with examples such as "the common to all the rest was a war against the interests of ," demonstrating how antithesis generates vividness by partially shading one idea to spotlight the other. This characteristic makes antithesis particularly effective in deliberative and forensic oratory, where it heightens emotional engagement and logical precision. Cicero further refined antithesis in Roman rhetoric, integrating it into the canons of style (elocutio) to achieve grandeur (grandiloquentia) and emotional resonance, often employing it to present stark choices or convey the magnitude of contrasts in speeches like those against . For instance, his use of balanced oppositions, such as "not only... but also" constructions, underscores moral dilemmas and reinforces persuasive force without overwhelming the listener. Overall, antithesis's rhetorical power lies in its economy: it distills complex oppositions into concise, harmonious expressions that enhance rhythm, underscore irony or , and foster audience reflection, distinguishing it from mere parallelism by its inherent tension.

Literary and Oratorical Examples

Antithesis has been a staple in since ancient times, employed to heighten dramatic tension, underscore thematic contrasts, and illuminate character motivations through the of opposing ideas. In and , authors often structure antithetical phrases with to amplify their impact, creating memorable lines that encapsulate broader philosophical or social tensions. For instance, in ' A Tale of Two Cities (1859), the opening passage famously declares: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity." This series of antitheses mirrors the novel's exploration of revolutionary upheaval in and , contrasting prosperity with chaos to set a tone of profound duality. William Shakespeare masterfully wielded antithesis to delve into human psychology and moral ambiguity. In Hamlet (c. 1600), the titular character's soliloquy begins with the iconic line: "To be, or not to be: that is the question," pitting existence against oblivion in a meditation on suicide and endurance. This antithesis not only propels the play's central dilemma but also employs cognitive contrast to engage audiences with the soliloquy's philosophical depth. Similarly, in Macbeth (c. 1606), the witches' chant "Fair is foul, and foul is fair" inverts moral categories to foreshadow the tragedy's theme of deceptive appearances and ethical inversion. In Othello (c. 1603), Emilia's defense of Desdemona heightens moral contrast through: "O! the more angel she, / And you the blacker devil," juxtaposing purity and malevolence to challenge Othello's tragic error. These examples illustrate Shakespeare's use of antithesis to drive plot and reveal inner conflict. Poetry offers concise yet potent antitheses that encapsulate universal truths. Alexander Pope's (1711) states: "To err is human; to forgive, divine," balancing human frailty against transcendent mercy in a couplet that underscores the poem's for compassionate judgment. Likewise, in William Blake's "" (from Songs of Experience, 1794), love is antithetically portrayed as selfless in the clod's view—"builds a in Hell's despair"—versus selfish in the pebble's—"builds a in Heaven's despite"—to critique romantic idealism. Oscar Wilde, in his epigrammatic style, quipped in (1890): "Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go," using antithesis to satirize social . In oratory, antithesis serves to persuade and inspire by crystallizing choices or ideals in stark opposition, often within parallel structures for rhythmic emphasis. Patrick Henry's 1775 speech to the Convention culminates in: "Give me liberty or give me death," framing colonial independence as an existential binary to rally support for revolution. This device, rooted in classical , amplifies urgency and moral clarity. John F. Kennedy's 1961 Inaugural Address employs it memorably: "Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country," inverting civic duty to foster national unity amid tensions. Abraham Lincoln's (1863) uses antithesis to honor sacrifice and affirm democratic resilience: "The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here," contrasting ephemeral words with enduring deeds to elevate the Union's purpose. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "" speech (1963) draws on biblical echoes for: "We must together as brothers or perish together as fools," opposing and destruction to civil rights. Neil Armstrong's 1969 transmission—"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind"—antithetically scales personal achievement against collective progress, marking a historic milestone. These oratorical instances demonstrate antithesis's power to mobilize audiences through concise, oppositional framing.

Biblical Context

Antitheses in the Gospel of Matthew

The Antitheses form a central section of the in the Gospel of Matthew, specifically :21–48, where presents a series of contrasts between traditional interpretations of the Mosaic Law and his own authoritative teachings. These passages are structured around the recurring formula "You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times" (referring to scriptural commandments or common Jewish interpretations) followed by "But I say to you," which introduces ' escalation or reinterpretation of the law's intent. Scholars identify six distinct antitheses, each addressing ethical and relational dimensions of , emphasizing internal attitudes over mere external compliance. This structure underscores ' role as the fulfillment of the (:17), not its abrogation, while asserting his eschatological authority to clarify its deeper meaning. The first antithesis, on murder and anger (Matthew 5:21–26), contrasts the prohibition against killing (Exodus 20:13) with Jesus' extension to include unrighteous , insults, and unresolved conflicts, equating them to in their potential for . He urges immediate , even prioritizing it over temple offerings, to highlight relational harmony as essential to . The second, concerning and (Matthew 5:27–30), builds on the commandment against (Exodus 20:14) by prohibiting lustful gazes, describing them as in the heart; Jesus employs hyperbolic imagery, such as cutting off a hand or plucking out an eye, to stress radical avoidance of sin's root causes. This is followed by a brief note on (Matthew 5:31–32), which limits permissible grounds to sexual immorality (porneia), viewing remarriage otherwise as adulterous, thus tightening Mosaic allowances (Deuteronomy 24:1–4). The remaining antitheses shift toward broader social ethics. On oaths (Matthew 5:33–37), Jesus counters prohibitions against false swearing (e.g., ) by advocating simple yes-or-no speech, deeming all oaths unnecessary and potentially evasive, to foster unswerving integrity. The fifth addresses retaliation (), rejecting the lex talionis principle of "eye for eye" (Exodus 21:24) in favor of —turning the other cheek, giving cloaks, and going the extra mile—modeling generosity amid injustice. Finally, the sixth antithesis on love for enemies () expands the command to love one's neighbor () by including love for enemies and for persecutors, imitating God's impartial provision for the just and unjust, culminating in the call to "be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Interpretations of these antitheses vary among scholars. Some view them as intensifications of the law's demands, targeting superficial Pharisaic or Qumranic applications to promote a "higher " (Matthew 5:20), while others see elements of revision or even revocation, particularly in the later sections, as establishes a new ethical framework aligned with the kingdom of heaven. For instance, the use of composite scriptural citations and expansions from external acts to internal dispositions reflects halakhic argumentation techniques common in first-century , positioning as a authoritative interpreter who transcends traditional without nullifying the . This enigmatic tension—affirming the law's permanence (:18) while correcting its application—highlights the antitheses' role in portraying as the new , delivering a renewed covenant from .

Interpretations and Significance

The antitheses in Matthew 5:21–48 represent a pivotal section of the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus articulates a series of contrasts between traditional interpretations of the Mosaic law and his own authoritative teachings, emphasizing a deeper, internalized righteousness. Scholars interpret these six statements—addressing anger and murder (5:21–26), lust and adultery (5:27–30), divorce (5:31–32), oaths (5:33–37), retaliation (5:38–42), and love for enemies (5:43–48)—as illustrations of Jesus' fulfillment of the Torah rather than its abolition, as stated in the preceding foundational declaration (Matthew 5:17–20). This fulfillment involves intensifying the law's ethical demands to target the heart's intentions, transforming external prohibitions into calls for spiritual transformation; for instance, equating anger with murder and lust with adultery underscores that true obedience begins inwardly, surpassing the superficial righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. Theologically, the antitheses employ halakhic argumentation, a Jewish interpretive method, to reveal the Torah's true intention as divine perfection and holistic love, positioning Jesus as the ultimate interpreter akin to a new Moses. Eric D. Huntsman notes that the first three antitheses expand prohibitions from the Ten Commandments, while the latter three reform permissions, collectively guiding disciples toward maturity (teleios, Matthew 5:48) through heart-level adherence rather than legalistic compliance. Francois P. Viljoen highlights how this structure counters contemporary Jewish understandings, demanding a righteousness that internalizes the law (e.g., limiting divorce to cases of porneia and rejecting oaths to foster unswerving truthfulness), thereby distinguishing Jesus' followers in a persecuted context. Andries G. van Aarde emphasizes the antitheses' role in affirming the law's enduring validity until the eschaton, encouraging the Matthean community to embody this heightened ethic amid opposition. The significance of these antitheses extends to their foundational impact on and , serving as a template for discipleship that prioritizes , purity, and non-retaliatory love, even toward adversaries. By linking old covenant precepts to imperatives, they underscore Jesus' divine authority to reinterpret scripture, fostering a ethic of radical obedience that anticipates kingdom perfection. This framework has influenced patristic and modern , reinforcing themes of and grace, as the unattainable ideal of the antitheses reveals human inadequacy and the need for divine empowerment.

Philosophical Applications

Dialectical Framework

In the dialectical framework of , antithesis represents the second stage of the dialectical process, where an initial concept or encounters its inherent contradictions and transitions into its opposite, revealing the limitations of the original position. This is not arbitrary but arises necessarily from the internal instability or one-sidedness of the , as the concept develops through self-contradiction. In Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's system, this phase is termed the "dialectical" or "negatively rational" moment, emphasizing the role of opposition in advancing thought toward a higher unity. Hegel's dialectic operates as a triadic movement: an affirmative gives way to a negating , which is then resolved in a synthesizing third moment known as Aufhebung (sublation), where the opposition is both preserved and transcended. The antithesis functions as the "setting over against" (entgegensetzen) of the , exposing its abstractness or incompleteness by embodying what the thesis excludes or denies. For instance, in Hegel's , pure Being as the initial —empty of all determination—immediately passes over into as its antithesis, since Being without content is indistinguishable from non-being; this contradiction then resolves into Becoming, the dynamic synthesis. This framework underscores the immanent logic of concepts, where antithesis drives progress by dialectically negating the prior stage without external imposition. Hegel describes this as the concept's "self-sublation," wherein the antithesis cancels the while retaining its essential content in a more form. A common misconception attributes to Hegel the rigid formula of "thesis-antithesis-synthesis," but as philosopher Gustav E. Mueller clarified, Hegel avoided these exact terms, using instead a fluid process of determination, dialectical reversal, and speculative unity to avoid implying mechanical opposition. Beyond Hegel, the dialectical framework influenced subsequent thinkers, such as , who adapted it into . Here, antithesis manifests in class struggles, where the thesis of bourgeois negates itself through proletarian opposition, leading toward a synthesized communist order—though Marx emphasized material conditions over pure ideality. This extension highlights antithesis as a motor of historical change, rooted in concrete antagonisms rather than abstract logic.

Key Philosophers and Concepts

In philosophical applications, antithesis functions primarily as a mechanism of opposition within dialectical reasoning, highlighting contradictions that propel conceptual development toward higher synthesis. This usage traces back to Immanuel Kant's (1781/1787), where he introduces the antinomies of pure reason as paired arguments of thesis and antithesis that expose the limits of speculative metaphysics. In the first antinomy, for instance, the thesis posits the world as finite in space and time, while the antithesis asserts its , demonstrating reason's inevitable conflict when applied beyond sensory experience. Kant resolves these oppositions through , arguing that both sides hold in the realms of appearances and things-in-themselves, respectively, thus preventing dogmatic assertions about the noumenal world. Building on Kant, formalized the triadic structure of thesis-antithesis-synthesis in his Wissenschaftslehre (1794/95), marking a pivotal advancement in post-Kantian . Fichte's begins with the absolute I positing itself as , encountering an external check (Anstoß) as antithesis in the form of the non-I, which limits and introduces finitude. This opposition resolves in a synthesis where the I recognizes its through reciprocal limitation, establishing ethical and intersubjective relations—such as the summons from another I—as foundational to selfhood. Fichte's method emphasized practical reason over Kant's theoretical antinomies, influencing subsequent German Idealists by framing antithesis not as mere contradiction but as a productive force for moral autonomy. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel refined these ideas in his dialectical logic, as outlined in the Encyclopedia Logic (1817) and Science of Logic (1812–1816), where antithesis emerges as the "negatively rational" moment that negates the one-sidedness of an initial concept (thesis). Unlike Fichte's explicit terminology, Hegel's process involves three moments—abstract understanding (fixing a concept), dialectical negation (antithesis revealing its instability), and speculative unity (synthesis via Aufhebung, or sublation, which preserves and elevates the opposites). A classic example is the transition from Being (thesis) to Nothing (antithesis), resolving in Becoming, illustrating how antithesis drives historical and logical progress toward absolute spirit. Hegel's approach critiqued Kant's resolution as overly subjective, applying dialectics to reality itself and influencing later thinkers like Karl Marx, who adapted it into materialist terms for social analysis. Central concepts in these philosophical uses include (as determinate opposition rather than mere cancellation) and sublation (Aufhebung), which encapsulate antithesis's role in conserving contradictions while transcending them. In Fichtean terms, the check (Anstoß) represents antithesis as an empirical spur to idealism's infinite striving, while underscore dialectical illusion—reason's tendency to generate irresolvable antitheses from transcendental principles. These elements collectively establish antithesis as a cornerstone of dialectical , enabling the reconciliation of opposites in ethics, logic, and history.

References

  1. https://mcl.as.uky.edu/cla-glossary-rhetorical-terms
  2. https://dcc.dickinson.edu/cicero-verres/rhetorical-terms
  3. https://shs.cairn.info/journal-revue-de-philologie-litterature-et-histoire-anciennes-2016-1-page-7?lang=en
  4. https://linguistics.byu.edu/classes/Ling230ch/rhet.html
  5. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/antithesis_n?tl=true
  6. https://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/A/antithesis.htm
  7. https://dcc.dickinson.edu/cicero-de-imperio/rhetorical-terms
  8. https://www.thoughtco.com/antithesis-grammar-and-rhetoric-1689108
  9. https://www.litcharts.com/literary-devices-and-terms/antithesis
  10. https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.3.iii.html
  11. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0059
  12. https://www.idpublications.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Full-Paper-PECULIARITIES-OF-THE-ANTITHESIS-IN-THE-LITERARY-TEXT.pdf
  13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326156291_The_cognitive_potential_of_antithesis_%27To_be_or_not_to_be%27_in_Hamlet%27s_signature_soliloquy
  14. https://www.semantix.com/resources/blog/literary-devices-list/what-is-antithesis-and-antithesis-examples
  15. https://www.folger.edu/explore/shakespeares-works/othello/read/5/2/
  16. https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-use-antithesis-in-your-writing
  17. https://fictionary.co/journal/antithesis-examples/
  18. https://buckleyschool.com/magazine/articles/rhetorical-device-of-the-month-antithesis/
  19. https://www.bemidjistate.edu/academics/honors/wp-content/uploads/sites/73/2022/11/Inaugural-Address.-The-Use-of-Rhetoric-to-Speak-to-Our-Needs-Christiansen-Jessica.pdf
  20. https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=68009
  21. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/enigma-of-the-antitheses/C87E72FD04B2B6476D825BF0A1A61F69
  22. https://verbumetecclesia.org.za/index.php/ve/article/view/682/1228
  23. https://www.pas.rochester.edu/~tim/study/SOTM%20Questions%20part%204%20Antitheses%20v2.pdf
  24. https://brill.com/display/book/9789047420958/Bej.9789004158924.i-258_003.pdf
  25. https://rsc.byu.edu/sermon-mount-latter-day-scripture/six-antitheses
  26. https://scielo.org.za/pdf/ids/v45n2-3/09.pdf
  27. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/
  28. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/
  29. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/johann-fichte/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.