PLURALISM AND ARGUMENTATION IN THE «NEW RHETORIC»
Abstract
The article examines the modern theory of argumentation, which was called the «new rhetoric» project. An interdisciplinary approach with a methodological toolkit of philosophical epistemology, social philosophy, logic, axiology, etc. is used for the analysis. Special attention is paid to logical issues of argument strength, structures and methods of reasoning, counter-argumentation, and truth value related to the pluralistic nature of modern argumentation practice. It was found that the modern theory of argumentation develops in the direction of non-classical informal logic, with the involvement of the theory of critical thinking. Its communicative characteristics, the importance of the audience, the dialogicity and polylogic nature of communicative structures, and its affinity with pluralism as a philosophical «doctrine of plurality» are highlighted. A pluralistic approach is considered as an alternative to a monistic one. It is proved that in the social concept, argumentation appears as a special form of the mind, which is used to solve issues that arise on the basis of conflicting values. This involves rethinking the concepts of reason and truth. A conclusion is made regarding the difference between demonstrative proof and rhetorical argumentation. The mind appears as a philosophical construction of the ideal audience, which replaces the universal mind and appears as the communicative mind of rhetorical genesis. Monistic argumentation is a form of rational reasoning, while pluralistic argumentation of the rhetorical type requires a form of reasonableness. Communicative intelligence manifests itself in contrasting forms of criticism or apology. The social concept of argumentation as a reasonable form, as opposed to rational demonstration, is guided by the principle of justice, which is carried out by means of the method of analogy with respect to value conditions through precedents. The difference between strong and weak arguments is based on this. A strong argument is such an argumentative form that arises in communication in a pluralistic situation and is inertially fixed by social practice as a precedent of justice, which testifies to its reasonableness. A strong argument is formed on the basis of social values. In contrast, a weak argument is not based on stable values, the principle of justice, which means it lacks reasonableness and causes distrust in the audience. Thus, the project of «new rhetoric» is a pluralistic construction of social types of intelligence formed by the audience in communicative situations in the process of rhetorical argumentation.
Downloads
References
Aristotle. On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (2007). 2nd ed., trans. George A. Kennedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blair, J. (2004). Argument and Its Uses. Informal Logic. 24, 2, 137–151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v24i2.2140.
Bolduc, M., Frank, D. A. (2023). The intellectual and cultural origins of Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca’s new rhetoric project: Commentaries on and translations of seven foundational articles, 1933‒1958. Leiden: Brill. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004537439.
Eemeren, F. H. van. (2018). Argumentation Theory: A Pragma Dialectical Perspective. Argumentation Library series. Springer Nature Switzerland AG Cham. 33, 102‒199.
Geraets, Th. F. (1979.) Rationality to-day / La rationalité aujourd’hui. Ottawa: The University of Ottawa Press.
Hample, D. (2021). Local Theories of Argument. New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003149026.
Khomenko, I., Shramko, Ya. (2021). Logic and philosophy: facets of interaction. Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Philosophy. 1(4), 14–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/2523-4064.2021/4-2/12 (In Ukrainian).
Kock, Ch., Lantz, M. (2023). Rhetorical Argumentation: The Copengagen School. The University of Windsor’s Digital Press. Windsor Studies in Argumentation. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/wsia.13.2023.
Lewiński, M., Aakhus, M. (2023). Argumentation in complex communication: managing disagreement in a polylogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009274364.
Mamalui, O. O. (1996). Ends without an end, or the situation of «post(not enough)modernity». Post Methodology. 1(11), 2‒3. (In Ukrainian).
Perelman, Ch. (1979a). Reflections on practical reason. The new rhetoric and the humanities: Essays on rhetoric and its applications. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. 124‒133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9482-9_12.
Perelman, Ch. (1979b). The philosophy of pluralism and the new rhetoric. The new rhetoric and the humanities: Essays on rhetoric and its applications. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. 62‒72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9482-9_4.
Perelman, Ch., Olbrechts-Tyteca L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Trans. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Scott, B. D. (2024). What makes an argument strong? Contastivism in the new rhetoric. Informal logic. 44, 1, 19‒43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v44i1.8222.
Shcherbyna, O. (2013). Philosophy of logic, philosophical logic, argumentation. Philosophical thought. 5, 103–112. 2024.21.02. http://jnas.nbuv.gov.ua/article/UJRN-0000633296 (In Ukrainian).
Tindale, Ch. W. (2021). The anthropology of argument: Cultural foundations of rhetoric and reason. New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003107637.
Yurkevych, O. M. (2021). Rationality of argumentation: logical rules and meanings. Bulletin of the Yaroslav Mudry National Law University. Series: Philosophy, philosophy of law, sociology, political science. 1(48), 70–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21564/2075-7190.48.224759 (In Ukrainian).
Yurkevych, O. M., Pavlenko Zh. O., Trofymenko V. A. (2021). History of the development of hermeneutic logic. Revista Notas Históricas y Geográficas. 26, 1–28.
Copyright (c) 2024 Олена Юркевич
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication of this work under the terms of a license Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
3.gif){kind=logo}
