“The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning” by Chaim Perelman
-Philosophers/ ideas presented:
-Perelman background:
published 1958
doctorates in law and philosophy
article focuses on informal argumentation techniques
Philosophy: Humanism
All about man and individualism
Pg 147
“De Principiis” by Mario Nizolio (1553): 5 principles centered around language and what it means
1. must be fluent in greek and latin
2. principles of rhetoric and grammar must be applied to metaphysical thought
“Rhetoric” by Francesco Patrizi (1562)
Rhetoric has no real value.
Philosophy: Logical Empiricism
Pg 151
Movement started in the 1940s and 50s
Main basis for knowledge comes from your sense and experience
Goal to find a natural law for logic and mathematics, and to study philosophy from a scientific viewpoint
Perelman’s original starting view when approaching evaluating justice – failed using this philosophy
Philosophy: Existentialism
Began in Europe in 1940s- 50s
Argument: there are no sufficient categories to describe a human being
Perelman (152)
Parallels in Perelman’s argument – when we try and put analytic and dialectic thought into one category we mis-analyze them
Subjectivism:
Absolutism:
Intuitionism: there is an absolute reality/ truth and the only way we can gain insight into it is through our own intuition
Philosophers: Hume
Scottish, 1700s
Notable empiricist
152 – empiricism can’t be a basis for judgment or morality
Philosopher: Kant
1724-1804
Synthesized modernism and rationalism
All about morality
The categorical imperative – Every decision we make has a moral motivation behind it – moral exigency
Argues that opinions are present in philosophy: appealing to a universal or ideal audience
Main philosophy: because we are moral beings, we are separate from other beings. Morality is the basis of our thought
Pg 157: Universal Audience
Discussion:
What are your ideas on Perelman’s creation of the universal audience:
Any correct argument that you made would be accepted by all people because it would adhere to the categorical imperative
Great idea but falls apart against the messiness of our society – similar to sophists: rhetoric must be adapted to an audience
Identify what is most important to your audience (look at your audience as collective ideas)
Q: What does he mean by demonstration:
Something that’s provable
Disagreed separating dialectic from rhetoric because it has become more of a conversation
Dialectic is searching for an absolute truth, Rhetoric is more arbitrary
Rhetoric was thought of as ornamentation because it was separated from dialectic
Argumentation:
Classical rhetoric: logos
New Rhetoric: ethos and pathos
Rhetoric vs Dialectic
Trace rhetoric as a discipline: where is got off track? Where it got a bad reputation?
Not just about ornamentation
Blames Ramus for almost destroying rhetoric – provided style guides
Cannons of rhetoric: Invention, arrangement, memory, style, delivery
Became mainly about style and delivery: ornamentation
Silva Rhetoricae: the forest of rhetoric
Would it be helpful if we had a vocabulary for our field?
Perelman would argue what are the philosophies, this is just ornamentation
Can make you a more careful reader of texts
Currently: No body of knowledge we need to master, we just talk about stuff
Some people are trying push dialectic together, some trying to pull them apart, they often get mixed up
Rhetoric has pretty much consumed dialectic
New Rhetoric cannot abide by these limitations
Dialectic is the search for truth through discussion until we collectively arrive at an already existing truth
According to past rhetoricians, rhetoric is about presenting an argument, persuading an audience
Perelman says that Aristotle states, Rhetoric is all about character and emotion (logic missing). Dialectic based on logical reasoning.
Perelman is saying that other people are saying that Aristotles rhetoric ignores logos. Perelman says that Aristotle says that rhetoric and dialectic are hand in hand.
Truth
Pascal says Rhetoric can get at truth but only human truth/ contingent truth – not the epistemic/ eternal truth. They are given to us through God.
Does this make persuasion/ argumentation different? Should we ignore notions of the divine and spiritual truth?
So many debates are intractable because they come from