Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Ironic process theory (IPT), also known as the Pink elephant paradox [1] or White bear phenomenon, suggests that when an individual intentionally tries to avoid thinking a certain thought or feeling a certain emotion, a paradoxical effect is produced: the attempted avoidance not only fails in its object but in fact causes the thought or emotion to occur more frequently and more intensely. [2]
'Irony' comes from the Greek eironeia (εἰρωνεία) and dates back to the 5th century BCE.This term itself was coined in reference to a stock-character from Old Comedy (such as that of Aristophanes) known as the eiron, who dissimulates and affects less intelligence than he has—and so ultimately triumphs over his opposite, the alazon, a vain-glorious braggart.
This list includes well known paradoxes, grouped thematically. The grouping is approximate, as paradoxes may fit into more than one category. This list collects only scenarios that have been called a paradox by at least one source and have their own article in this encyclopedia.
A paradox is a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation. [1] [2] It is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true or apparently true premises, leads to a seemingly self-contradictory or a logically unacceptable conclusion.
William Stanley Jevons, after whom the effect is named. The Jevons paradox was first described by the English economist William Stanley Jevons in his 1865 book The Coal Question.
Ironically, what was once a form of rebellion has become mainstream. In some social circles, being straight or traditionally gendered is now the “boring” option — the new conformity.
A central element of post-irony is the obfuscation, ambiguity, watering-down, degradation, or simple lack of meaning and intent in statements and artwork, and whether the creator or disseminator intends this to be celebrated, decried, or met apathetically can itself be part of this uncertainty.
In other words, the 'limit' on what omnipotence 'can' do is not a limit on its actual agency, but an epistemological boundary without which omnipotence could not be identified (paradoxically or otherwise) in the first place.