Paradox and Antithesis
Includes questions related to contradictory statements or when opposing words are used to create a balance.
What is the fertilization process for chicken eggs?
The male mounts the hen from behind and stands on her back. The rooster's cloaca transfers semen into the cloaca of the hen. The cloaca is a common receptacle for the intestinal tract, the reproductive system and the urinary system. A spermatozoa sac makes its way up the oviduct and is stored in accessory sex organ in the female. There, the sperm is nourished and released over several days. So the rooster does not have to mate with the hen each time she lays an egg to produce a fertile egg. Fertility only remains high for about 10 days before another mating is needed to increase fertility of the eggs laid. Egg yolks that have a germ cell on the surface are ovulated about every 24 to 26 hours. The spermatozoa fertilize the germ cell, then the albumen, or white of the egg is secreted around the yolk by the reproductive tract. Then the shell membranes and the shell are secreted and deposited as the egg travels down the reproductive tract. The egg is laid back through the cloaca, as mentioned above. This is the way fertile eggs are laid by the hen. The hen would still lay eggs if a rooster were not around, but the eggs would not be fertile.
What came first the chicken or the egg?
There is an extensive amount of debate on the subject of "What came first? The Chicken or the Egg?" Here are a few alternating views and personal opinions from various Answer.com users: The Chicken The answer is the chicken because God created all the animals not all the eggs. It's easy because for those that believe in Him God made animals not eggs. The chicken... it had to be because creatures in the sea evolved and they didn't evolve into eggs now did they? The chicken. The chicken has to be around to lay the egg. Depends on what you believe. I believe the chicken came first. Since DNA can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken egg. The chicken came first. How would the egg survive without the chicken? I also believe there is a protein that the egg is made of that the egg can only get from the chicken. Using literature, the chicken comes first. Using grammar, "the chicken" comes first in the sentence (They come before the words, "the egg.") In a dictionary, the word "chicken" comes before "egg." Recent studies now show that the chicken came first, because of the methodology of evolution. An egg cannot occur unless a bird, or in this case a chicken, is able to lay that egg. The answer is the chicken: God created all the animals and not all the eggs. It's easy because for those that believe in Him God made animals not eggs. The chicken because God wouldn't just put a egg on the earth and even if he did nothing would warm the egg for it to hatch. The chicken...it had to be. Creatures in the sea evolved and they didn't evolve into eggs now, did they? The chicken. It has to be around to lay the egg. In the seven days that God created the earth, it makes no mention of animals' eggs. Thus, the chicken came first. I say that the chicken came first because the chicken was made before the egg because God made all the animals first and birds and etc..... so the chicken came first before the egg, the eggs came when a male (rooster) and a female chicken repopulate with each other. The chicken came first because, if the chicken didn't come first, there would be no egg or care for it. So, God had to make the chicken first. If you are an evolutionist, you probably think that the chicken evolved from a dinosaur or something. But the chicken came first; if you think about it, how was the chicken alive before the egg. The Egg The Answer to this is the egg! the reason for this is that for an animal to change, its genetics would have to change also and this is impossible. Therefore the change would have to take place as an embryo or egg. so the first chicken was most likely spawned in prehistoric times as an embryo/egg. Concluding that the first living organism had to come from the form of an egg or embryo. The egg would have come first laid from another animal when it was hatched it was that animal but had to move its habitat so it had to adjust and became the chicken. Theoretically, the egg must come first. A chicken is conceived and born in an egg; therefore, without the egg the chicken could not have been either conceived or born, it may be that the egg was the product of two different species accidentally mating to conceive the egg that contained the first, "chicken" as we know it. the egg came first, think about it logically, instead of trying to question it, there is no other logical/practical conclusion. The egg came first. Two animals who really liked each other and were not the same breed, mated and the female laid an egg and it came out a chicken. They didn't know what to call it so they just named it chicken. Therefore the chicken is a crossbreed. I don't know what between though. The egg came first. Dinosaurs laid eggs for millions of years before chickens were present on Earth. The egg came first because other animals i.e dinosaurs or prehistoric birds (chickens) would've laid the egg that hatched to become classed as the first chicken. What came first, the prehistoric bird or its egg? The egg came first. Definitely. The 'chicken or the egg' dilemma has been frequently asked as "What came first, the chicken or the egg?". This question baffles many people so it proves that the askers: 1. Have never been taught the theory of evolution. 2. Don't believe the theory of evolution. With these parameters, the answer becomes obvious. Birds evolved from reptiles, and reptiles evolved from the dinosaurs, so a dinosaur lays an egg - dinosaurs become extinct - the egg remains - and hatches into a new reptile. The older reptiles lay an egg - they evolve into birds - and a bird comes out. Well if you use common sense the egg came first. It doesn't necessarily have to be a chickens egg. The egg came first. Dinosaurs were laying them before the chicken appeared on Earth. The egg, dinosaurs were laying them far before the chicken's existence. The answer is the egg! For an animal to change, its genetics would have to change also and this is impossible. Therefore the change would have to take place as an embryo or egg. So the first chicken was most likely spawned in prehistoric times as an embryo/egg. Concluding that the first living organism had to come from the form of an egg or embryo. The egg would have come first laid from another animal when it was hatched it was that animal but had to move its habitat so it had to adjust and became the chicken. Theoretically, the egg must come first. A chicken is conceived and born in an egg; therefore, without the egg the chicken could not have been either conceived or born, it may be that the egg was the product of two different species accidentally mating to conceive the egg that contained the first, "chicken" as we know it. the egg came first, think about it logically, instead of trying to question it, there is no other logical/practical conclusion. The egg came first. Two animals who really liked each other and were not the same breed, mated and the female laid an egg and it came out a chicken. They didn't know what to call it so they just named it chicken. Therefore the chicken is a crossbreed. I don't know what between though. The egg came first. Dinosaurs laid eggs for millions of years before chickens were present on Earth. The egg came first because other animals came before the chicken that had eggs of some kind. One kind are the fish in the seas; fish lay eggs. Another are snakes; snakes also lay eggs. A chicken could not have its genetic material altered during life, so the egg must have evolved and been first. If you take into account the doctrine of evolution, the egg's coming first becomes plausible on the cellular level under perfect circumstances (abundant food and resources). There will be an asexual reproduction once the environment becomes unfavorable. The species would then evolve, and a lot of animals have no parental instincts but through evolution some have started to look after their young. An asexual reproduction is reproduction in which there is no fusion of male and female sex cells gametes. The egg came first because the chicken descended from a dinosaur, and it laid an egg that was changed from Darwin's theory. The egg came first because a chicken comes from an egg. At whatever point you decide to call the chicken a true chicken, it must have come from an egg. Because the different species before it must have evolved to make a chicken, the egg came first The egg comes first because a bird a long long time ago evolving into a chicken lays an egg which hatches into a chicken. An egg comes first, because dinosaurs laid eggs, and chickens didnt exist at that time. Simple. The Egg. Egg. I am not trained in philosophy, but my reasoning is simple and seems solid to me. If it was not born from an egg, it would not meet the definition of chicken so it must have come from an egg. A bird that is not a chicken can still lay an egg with a chicken in it if there is a genetic abnormality in the egg being laid. Because chickens were not the first life form on earth, it conforms to our current scientific understanding that the first ever chicken to be born was a genetic abnormality. Because genetic abnormalities that survive are not substantially different from the original, it is very likely that the parent of the chicken was genetically very similar to a chicken and was an egg layer. The first chicken was a genetic abnormality born from an egg that was laid by a similar parent that was not genetically similar enough to meet the definition of 'Chicken'. The egg came first. Darwin's Theory of Evolution infers genetic adaptation. This adaptation occurs when parents' DNA is copied inaccurately throughout a species and the strongest of the adaptations survive. The male and female chickens DNA is copied during the mitosis/meiosis process and form the gametes that go on to form the blastocyte/morula/foetus in the egg - so the egg came first. Neither Isn't it both? Because the chicken would have to teach the chick how to do stuff and the egg to reproduce the chickens. The chickens most recent ancestor laid the egg. Think of it this way: along the slow and steady evolution from single celled organisms to full fledged modern chickens, at some point, if you could observe every animal in that evolutionary line, you would have to say, "well, this one's not a chicken, but the next one is." The line simply must be drawn somewhere. So whatever egg that the first chicken hatched from would have come first! There is no final answer but the most reasonable conclusion is that a certain breed of dinosaur laid an egg, then a period of extremely cold weather preserved the egg. Whilst that occurred the egg genetic form was rearranged into a creature similar to the chicken. At first the animal could have been very different from the chicken we know today but over time it changed into the chicken form we are so familiar with today. The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl. There is some disagreement about the pseudo-philosophical question "Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg?" Those of us who believe that the account of creation found in the Book of Genesis is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth believe that, like everything else, chickens were created fully formed, by magic, and therefore tend to claim that the chicken must have come before the egg. Of course the Bible does not spell it out one way or the other, and for all they know, God created the chicken by causing a fertilized chicken egg to manifest first. Those of us who rely on Biblical poetry for our spiritual truth and on science for our understanding of the material world dismiss the question as childish nonsense, but if pressed will more likely claim that the egg must have "come first," having been laid by a bird that was almost, but not exactly, a chicken itself. It depends on how you see the question. The chicken might come first if "it was the result of years of genetic engineering by mother nature". The egg might have come first if "it was the result of an unexpected mutation inside another animal's (bird) egg". None of them, if "the specie was developed in centuries of slow natural selection process". Let us begin our discussion with the question properly posed: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Now, this is a brain-teaser, a rhetorical form called a paradox, intended to be finally unanswerable. It is not a question about natural history for which a "correct" answer may -or may not- be discovered. Trying to answer it in real-world terms is like trying to design a runcible spoon, or to find meaning in superfragilisticexpialidocious: missing the point and not getting the joke. Still, the complacency of some of the Wikifriendus on the subject cannot be allowed to pass without comment, in my opinion. It is incorrect to claim that the chicken came first on Biblical grounds. God created the chicken, along with everything else, as it says in the Bible. But of course, the Bible does not spell out any of the mechanics of God's creation - that's the job of science, after all - and so for all we know from the Biblical account, God created all oviparous creatures egg-first. Clever ol' God, that's just how He would do it. Isn't it both? Because the chicken would have to teach the chick how to do stuff and the egg to reproduce the chickens. The chickens most recent ancestor laid the egg. Think of it this way: along the slow and steady evolution from single celled organisms to full fledged modern chickens, at some point, if you could observe every animal in that evolutionary line, you would have to say, "well, this one's not a chicken, but the next one is." The line simply must be drawn somewhere. So whatever egg that the first chicken hatched from would have come first! There is no final answer but the most reasonable conclusion is that a certain breed of dinosaur laid an egg, then a period of extremely cold weather preserved the egg. Whilst that occurred the egg genetic form was rearranged into a creature similar to the chicken. At first the animal could have been very different from the chicken we know today but over time it changed into the chicken form we are so familiar with today. Neither the chicken, nor the egg came first. It was the rooster that came first. The egg and the chicken came at the same time. The chicken and the egg are just two different names for the same process or being. It's like water on its way to becoming ice is still water, and vice versa. Darwin's theory; the chicken egg came from a different species. There is no answer. Since the question is a paradox, there is no answer. If the chicken came first, it came from the egg. If the egg came first, then it came from a chicken, and so forth. Evolution suggests that both chickens and eggs evolved from creatures and "egg-things" you would not recognize to be part of the lineage. (Similar to how, in the very distant past, some molecule[s] that was [were] not what we would call "life" became "life".) That was the beginning. There is no correct answer that can be proven. It's all theory. This question has been debated about so many times but no-one really knows. It is undecided. I think its both because the chicken wouldn't have been born without a female parent and the female parent would most likely came first in an egg also given birth by the mother. Additional information: Without some very serious scientific intervention an egg cannot be produced independently of its parent's body, whether that parent is a chicken, a lizard, or a spider. So the chicken had to be there first, for the egg to form. Scientific researchers at the University of Sheffield in England published a report - see link below - in July 2010 confirming this, although their research is more concerned with shells in general: eggs were produced by the earliest egg-producing creatures millennia before chickens evolved. The scientists involved in this research weren't interested in solving unsolvable riddles, but in discovering more about how shells are formed. The question of whether the chicken or the egg came first can never be answered: it is unanswerable. One can work out which came first, the wheel or the wheeled vehicle, because one caused the invention of the other, but when we look at life-forms we cannot say with any degree of authority whether the grass seed came before the blade of grass, or whether the bird came before the egg, because life simply doesn't work in terms of traceable inventions. Today we can taste a delicious new strain of tomato and know the seed that produced that improved tomato was developed from tomato plants considered to be less delicious: this new seed came first, before this new tomato. But it came after the other, less delicious, tomato, and that tomato's seeds came before it, and so on... The egg came first; natural selection tells us that species appear because of gradual changes from generation to generation. So the first chicken egg would have been laid by a bird that genetically wasn't quite a chicken - presumably a genetic error caused the slightly different eggs to be laid and the birds that hatched would be chickens. The egg as dinosaurs laid eggs long before chickens came along :) The egg! Apparently, according to scientist's, two (unknown at the moment) species bred together to create what we now know as the chicken. And science it was not two chickens that bred together, it must mean that the egg came before the chicken, and not the chicken before the egg. The chicken came first. When making this world animals were made first. Therefore the life of chickens started with a chicken not an egg. First the dinosauras came then they layed eggs than the hen camed then the dinosauras were finshed than the hen started to laying the eggs written by:- Shaikh Zahid hussain
Is it normal for a narcissist to lie about things to the point where if the truth came out he'd lose everything and then live and act as if he is invincible and untouchable?
Yes. Most likely he will just act as if nothing is wrong. Sometimes they seem to just BELIEVE their own lies to a point where they truly feel justified. Yes, they are very convincing liars. I have found the N in my life is only this way to people he CAN lie to. New people. He lies to them and about them. Some people that have known him for years have no idea he is this way, most likely because they know if he's lying about work and such, but he can lie to them about OTHER things while being his false self and they believe him because they have no idea of the monster inside of him. I watched him destroy a friend of his and when I tried to call him on his lies in front of who he had lied to it was me who looked the fool. He lied to them in front of my face and they believed him. I have seen him have entire sections of his life that he made up to impresss people. He would not tell a single truth at times. He will hurt someone and discard them while living as if he never knew them! It's always their fault! If he does something he has an excuse and he blames others, while never taking any blame himself! He is incapable of it. If he is confronted he will avoid it in any way he can. I constantly watch him lie with this Smug arrogance and i think there is NO way someone is believing this crap, but they DO! They are very convincing but they may believe what they are saying and convinced themselves of it. They will NEVER tell the truth. They will NEVER admit to being wrong. While most of us would admit our mistakes, they will only continue the lies until the day they die. Don't forget they believe they are smarter than anyone they know and normally they are very wrong but it all depends on who they have lied to and about what but it's normal for them to lie and act as if they had never. They are smarter and better in their minds and I wouldn't hesitate to say they act invincible. Nikki Absolutely! My N lies about everything and then walks around like he's totally not at fault! If you call him on his lies he will make excuses and he actually believes he's right. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, what he says is how it is, and that's all there is to it. He has no fear because he's so arrogant and sure he's right and more important. It's really sad. They are such delusional people. My N lied and lied and lied and lied.... then lied a bit more after his life was in flames and heading toward the sh*tter.... so sure was he that lying would restore his equilibrium. He's still lying to everyone around him. He tells his parents that I'm mad over multiple affairs. At first he just told them that I was mad over ONE affair (that I'd made up and that I was lying about his choking me and his emotional terrorism and threats of leaving me destitute with two little children.) They believed him, btw. He tells his business associates I'm divorcing him bc his work schedule was so bad... then sends half naked pics of himself and boasts about how attractive he still is for a 40 year old man.... would they like to see the other half of the picture? BUSINESS ASSOCIATES! And after I knew about the affair! When I told him the only way to try saving the marriage was to come COMPLETELY clean... he lied then lied again. Over and over. I filed for divorce. That got his attentiobn but he still lied and lied. I got furiouse! Finally.... some of the truth began trickling out and it's still trickeling, though I'm done even caring to hear about it. I don't think he can tell the truth.... bc there's no truth in him. It's not personal ::shrug:: He doesn't know what lies he's told and he's forgotten what truth is. Tremusan
Why is the Monty Hall paradox true?
The Monty Hall paradox is true because it is actually not a paradox, it is a case of misdirection and/or misunderstanding that probabilities do not change just because you open a door. Restating the problem: You are in a game show with Monty Hall. You have three doors to choose from. Behind one door, there is a car. Behind the other two doors, there are goats. You choose a door. Just then, Monty spices things up by opening one of the other doors, to reveal a goat. He then give you an opportunity to change your mind and pick the third door. Is it in your best interest to stay with your original choice, or to change to the third door? The answer is that you should change your mind. The odds of getting a car will double if you do that. The misunderstanding is in not realizing that the probability distribution did not change just because Monty opened that door. One could, erroneously, think that "now, we have a 50-50 chance, and it does not matter if you change your mind". Wrong. Look at the original problem. There is a 1 in 3 chance that the car is behind any of the three doors, and there is a 2 in 3 chance that the goat is behind any of the three doors. Expand your thinking a bit... There are three sets of two doors; door AB, door AC, and door BC. The probability that the car is behind one of those three sets of two doors is 2 in 3. If you do not understand that, stop, and think again. Don't go forward until you agree. Now. You picked a door. The probability that you picked the car is 1 in 3, and the probability that you picked a goat is 2 in 3. More importantly, if the probability that the car is behind your door is 1 in 3, then the probability that it is behind one of the other two doors must be 2 in 3. Again, make sure you understand this before proceeding. Now. Monty opened one of the other two doors, revealing a goat. Quick; what is the probability that the car is behind your original door? It is 1 in 3. That did not change. Since the sum of the probabilities must be 1, then there is still a probability of 2 in 3 that the car is behind one of the other two doors. But you know that one of the other two doors has a goat. Right? Your door is still 1 in 3. Therefore, the probability that the car is behind the third door is 2 in 3. Your odds of getting the car doubled from 1 in 3 to 2 in 3 by changing your mind. Comment: Those probabilities only apply when Monty deliberately reveals a goat. So, he has to know what's behind the doors. If he just opened a doorat random,then the 2 remaining doors would indeed leave you with a 50-50 choice.
What came first turkey or chicken or egg?
Asked in Dinosaurs, Paradox and Antithesis, Ice Ages
What came first the dinosaurs or creation?
The word 'creation' means 'to bring in to existence' or 'to come in to being'. Life cannot exist without a medium, and the earth has not always existed. Therefore, regardless of your religious views, the creation of the earth must have occured before dinosaurs evolved or were created, excepting those (rather strange) faiths that believe that the earth always has been and always will be, as well as those which believe that all change is illusory. Dinosaurs existed well over 60,000,000 years ago and the myth of Creation first started a few thousand years ago. So dinosaurs.
Asked in Paradox and Antithesis
What is a paradoxical injunction?
A paradoxical injunction is a method used to prevent or curb particular unwanted behaviours. It involves inviting the person concerned to perform the behaviour concerned. For example, a child who is prone to temper tantrums (and whose behaviour is rewarded and reinforced by the attention given when he or she has a 'tantrum') is far less likely to have a tantrum if urged to have one. It can be a very effective approach but it has its risks and should be used only in the appropriate, carefully chosen circumstances. It is not recommended for beginners.
Who existed first dinosaurs or humans?
Is there a list of rhetorical devices?
List of rhetorical devices: Tripling Use of personal pronoun 'i' Imagery Guilt Statistics/facts Repetition Rhetorical question Emotive language Simile Metaphor Onomatopoeia Short sentences Audience involvement Modal verbs Listing Antithesis Parallelism Comparison Declarative Imperative Exclamative Interrogative Alliteration Direct address Own opinion Description Chronological order
What is Paradoxical excitation?
Asked in Paradox and Antithesis
What can a paradox be defined as?
A paradox can be simply defined as a true statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or situation which defies intuition. Here is a list of paradoxes: Barbershop paradox: The supposition that if one of two simultaneous assumptions leads to a contradiction, the other assumption is also disproved leads to paradoxical consequences. What the Tortoise Said to Achilles "Whatever Logic is good enough to tell me is worth writing down...", also known as Carroll's paradox, not to be confused with the physical paradox of the same name. Crocodile Dilemma: If a crocodile steals a child and promises its return if the father can correctly guess what the crocodile will do, how should the crocodile respond in the case that the father guesses that the child will not be returned? Catch-22 (logic): In need of something which can only be had by not being in need of it. Drinker paradox: In any pub there is a customer such that, if he or she drinks, everybody in the pub drinks. Paradox of entailment: Inconsistent premises always make an argument valid. Horse paradox: All horses are the same color. Lottery paradox: There is one winning ticket in a large lottery. It is reasonable to believe of a particular lottery ticket that it is not the winning ticket, since the probability that it is the winner is so very small. But it is obviously not reasonable to believe that no lottery ticket will win. Raven paradox (or Hempel's Ravens): Observing a green apple increases the likelihood of all ravens being black. Unexpected hanging paradox: The day of the hanging will be a surprise, so it cannot happen at all, so it will be a surprise. The surprise examination and Bottle Imp paradox use similar logic.
How do chickens lay eggs how do the eggs get out of the chicken?
Chickens lay eggs like this: Female Chicken meets male chicken. The two chickens express their love and an egg is "planted"in the female chickens bum. Later, she tries to poo, but instead comes out an egg. But seriously, folks: Female chickens (hens) lay eggs, regardless of the presence of a male chicken (rooster). If the avian love making is successful, the egg is fertilized and a chick can develop. Fertilized or not, all eggs are laid the same, through the oviduct. A hen will try to incubate all her eggs--not just the fertilized ones.
What are the three types of irony?
There is dramatic, situational, and verbal irony. Dramatic Irony- the contrast between what the character knows and what his audience knows. Situational Irony- the contrast between what was expected to happen and what actually ended up happening. Verbal Irony- the contrast between what is said and what is meant. These types of irony have to do with the conflict, theme, and setting.
Asked in Artemis Fowl, Paradox and Antithesis
What is a time paradox?
A time paradox generally refers to a paradox of time travel. The most well-known time paradox is the grandfather paradox. Follow the logic here: If you went back in time and killed your grandfather, then your own father would never have been born and thus you would never have been born. However, if you were never born, then you could never have have gone back in time and killed your grandfather. Therein lies the paradox. What would happen then? Well, since no one's ever traveled through time, it's impossible to know for sure. There are some theories: According to the Back to the Future films, the universe would explode. After killing your grandfather, you would return to the present only to find yourself in a world where you don't exist. Basically, you would be like James Stewart in It's A Wonderful Life. According to the Novikov self-consistency principle, if you went back in time and tried to kill your grandfather, you would find yourself unable to. Another time paradox is the predestination paradox, also known as a "casual loop". This was demonstrated in an episode of The Twilight Zone where a man traveled back in time to determine the cause of a famous fire. While in the past, he accidentally knocked over a kerosene lantern and started the very fire he was trying to determine the cause of. Unlike the grandfather paradox, this does not create a contradiction. In fact, strictly speaking, this is perfectly consistent. However, it's a paradox because it seems to indict that free will doesn't exist or that it's an illusion. An ontological paradox is kind of a version of the predestination paradox. Now, let's say that one day your future self shows up and gives you blueprints to build a time machine. You then build a time machine and travel back in time to give the blueprints to yourself, closing the loop. All this begs the question, where did the blueprints come from in the first place? Well, nowhere, apparently. Perhaps from an earlier timeline. A quick expanation of a time paradox is imagine if you had a time machine, and you went back and killed your grandfather, as a consequence of this your father or mother would never have been conceived, and thus neither will you have been. The paradox comes into play as this, if you were not conceived because you had killed your grandfather, and your parent wasnt born, and you werent born, this means you didnt exist, and If you didnt exist, you werent around to kill your grandfather in the first place, so your parent will have been born, thusly you would have been too. Its all very confusing. Also, imagine someone you love dies,and you go back in time to save them, and you do, the reason you travelled back in time is to save that person, if that person is saved and alive and well, there was no reason to go back in time anyway, so the loop begins again. Also in the new show into the universes with Stephen Hawking a crazy scientis builds a time machine, sets it to be a minute earlier then the present, assembles a gun, goes to the other side of the time machine sees himself assembling the gun and shoots himself through the machine.
What is the meaning of the paradox parting is such sweet sorrow that you must say goodbye until tomorrow?
A line from the play Romeo and Juliet, by William Shakespeare; Juliet is saying good night to Romeo. Their sorrowful parting is also "sweet" because it makes them think about the next time they will see each other. There are dozens of friendus like this on the internet - "parting is sorrow because this but sweet because that". All true but it goes deeper: Juliet is not saying "parting is sorrowful but also sweet", the sorrow itself is sweet. It is Love that delights in the beloved and it is Love that hurts to be apart; the joy and the pain are a single emotion, the pain is the joy: they cannot be separated.
What is a good example of a paradox?
"This sentence is a lie" The time-traveling grandma-killer. Suppose you build a time machine, go back in time to find your grandmother when she was three years old, and then drown her in the bathtub. So she never grows up, and never has any kids. Therefore, one of your parents was never born. Therefore, YOU were never born. Therefore, you never traveled back in time and killed your infant grandma. So she DID grow up and have kids. Therefore, your parent WAS born. Therefore, YOU were born! Therefore, you traveled back in time and killed your infant grandma. Ad infinitum. - Paradox - "A statement that seems contradictory or absurd but, is actually valid or true." For example: "I know that I know nothing." Knowing "know nothing" is knowing something thus cannot be "know nothing". This logic is self-contradictory, but one can know that they know nothing.