Cartesianism, argumentation, values in the context of Chaïm Perelman’s «New Rhetoric»

Authors

  • I. V. Semenikhin Національний юридичний університет імені Ярослава Мудрого, Ukraine

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990X.155.242031

Keywords:

argumentation, cartesianism, rationality, values, persuasion, new rhetoric

Abstract

The article deals with the process of founding and further development of the new rhetoric, a theory of argumentation developed by the Belgian philosopher Chaïm Perelman (1912-1984) and his co-worker Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca (1899-1987). The intellectual and philosophical backgrounds of the authors and some key characteristics of their theoretical approaches are described. The new rhetoric: (а) is primarily concerned with argument or practical reasoning, (b) suggests that figures of speech may be arguments instead of merely ornaments, (c) with its goal to influence minds, new rhetoric is a dynamic field of study, (d) it is complimentary rather than in opposition to formal reasoning. According to Perelman, the theory of argumentation conceived as a new rhetoric or dialectic, covers the whole range of discourse that aims at persuasion and conviction, whatever the audience addressed and whatever the subject matter. Perelman presents his new rhetoric as a much better form of logic than Cartesian deductive, stringent reasoning, at least where law and other values-based systems are concerned. Perelman challenged the unwholesome assumption that what we cannot know with mathematical certainly is necessarily arbitrary, irrational, and subjective. Perelman recognized "reasoned conviction" as a bridge to knowledge, although he was aware that it was a less perfect source of cognition than verified certainty.

It is explained how the idea of developing the new rhetoric was born out of dissatisfaction with logical positivism or neopositivism (The Vienna Circle’s theories and ideas) and which classical and modern sources inspired the authors in developing a specific logic of value judgments that could deal with argumentation about actions, choices, decisions and without dismissing such argumentation as irrational. The rhetorical framework of the theory is expounded and an overview is provided of the key notions and concepts of Perelman’s ‘new rhetoric’ – the notions of adherence, audience (particular and universal audience), persuasion are explained. According to Perelman, the new rhetoric is based on the idea that since argumentation aims at securing the adherence of those to whom it is addressed, it is, in its entirety, relative to the audience to be influenced. Рerelman's position on the difference between formal logic and argumentation is analyzed.

Author Biography

I. V. Semenikhin, Національний юридичний університет імені Ярослава Мудрого

асистент кафедри теорії  держави і права

References

Rabinovych, P.M., Dudash, T.I. (2016). Pravova arhumentatsiia: termino-poniattievyi instrumentarii doslidzhennia. Visnyk Natsionalnoi akademii pravovykh nauk Ukrainy – Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, 2, 8–20 [in Ukrainian].

Maksimov, S.I. (2013). Koncepcija pravovoj real’nosti. Neklassicheskaja filosofija prava: voprosy i otvety – Nonclassical Philosophy of law: questions and answers: A. V. Stovba (Ed.). Har’kov: Biblioteka mezhdunarodnogo zhurnala «Problemy filosofii prava». 31–61 [in Russian].

Petryshyn, O.V., Luk’ianov, D.V., Maksymov, S.I. et al. (2020). Zahalna teoriia prava / O. V. Petryshyn (Ed.). Kharkiv: Pravo [in Ukrainian].

Tsyvilnyi protsesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy: Zakon Ukrainy vid 18.03.2004 r. № 1618-IV. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1618-15#Text.

Kryminalnyi protsesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy: Zakon Ukrainy vid 13.04.2012 r. № 4651-VI. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4651-17#Text.

Pro Rehlament Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy: Zakon Ukrainy vid 10.02.2010 r. № 1861-VI. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1861-17#Text.

Pound, R. (1908). Mechanical Jurisprudence. Columbia Law Review. Vol 8, 605–523.

Tytov, V. (2000). Rozvytok yurydychnoi lohiky v SShA (persha chvert ХХ st.): R. Paund pro deduktyvno-mekhanichnu yurysprudentsiiu. Visnyk Natsionalnoi akademii pravovykh nauk Ukrainy – Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, 3, 145–158 [in Ukrainian].

Koziubra, M.I. (2015). Zahalna teoriia prava / M. I. Koziubra (Ed.). Kyiv: Vaite [in Ukrainian].

Aarnio, A. (1987). On Legal Reasoning As Practical Reasoning. Theoria. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science. Vol. 3, 7/9, 97–107.

Feteris, E.T. (1999). Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation. Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions. Dordrecht : Springer.

Bodenheimer, E. (1985). Perelman’s Contribution to Legal Methodology. Northern Kentucky Law Review. Vol. 12, 3. 391–417.

Shershenevich, G.F. (1910). Obshhaja teorija prava. Moscow: Izdanie br. Bashmakovyh [in Russian].

Spektorskij, E. (1907). Ocherki po filosofii obshhestvennyh nauk. Varshava: Tipografija varshavskogo uchebnogo okruga [in Russian].

Alekseev, N.N. (1998). Osnovy filosofii prava. St.-Petersburg: Izd-vo S.-Peterburg. jurid. in-ta [in Russian].

Modderman, V. (1888). Recepcija rimskogo prava. St.-Petersburg: Tip.-litogr. A. E. Landau [in Russian].

Antiseri, D., Reale, Dzh. (1996). Zapadnaja filosofija ot istokov do nashih dnej. Novoe vremja. St.-Petersburg: Petropolis [in Russian].

Kelsen, H. (1945). General Theory of Law and State. Сambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Zhaklin, R. (1998). Postup suchasnykh idei: Panorama novitnoi nauky. Kyiv: Osnovy [in Ukrainian].

Einstein, A. (1954). Ideas and Opinions. New York: Bonanza Books

Prokof'ev, A.V. (2006). Moral' individual'nogo sovershenstvovanija i obshhestvennaja moral': issledovanie neodnorodnosti nravstvennyh fenomenov. Velikij Novgorod: NovGU imeni Jaroslava Mudrogo [in Russian].

Perelman, Ch. (1979). The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and Its Applications. Boston: Springer.

Perelman, Ch. (1949). Le Libre Examen, Hier et Aujourd’hui. Revue de l'Université de Bruxelles, 2(1), 39–50.

Kraft, V. (2003). Venskij kruzhok. Vozniknovenie neopozitivizma. Moscow: Ideja-Press [in Russian].

Perelman, Ch. (1933). Le statut social des jugements de vérité. Revue de l'Institut de sociologie, 1, 17–23.

Perelman, Ch. (1963). The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Argument. New York : The Humanities Press

Samohіna, K. (2014). Tradicії juridichnoї argumentacії Brjussel's'koї shkoli fіlosofії prava. Fіlosofіja prava і zagal'na teorіja prava – Philosophy of Law and General Theory of Law, 1–2, 202–208 [in Ukrainian].

Puankare, A. (1906). Nauka i gipoteza. Sankt-Peterburg : Tip. akc. obshh-va «Slovo» [in Russian].

Tytov, V.D. Perelman Chaïm. Velyka ukrainska yurydychna entsyklopediia. (Vols. 1–20); Vol. 2: Filosofiia prava. (2017). S.I. Maksimov, (Ed.) et al. Kharkiv: Pravo, 560–563 [in Ukrainian].

Perelman, Ch. (1950). Sociologie de la Connaissance et Philosophie de la Connaissance. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4, 309–317.

Samohina, E.K. (2013). Genezis argumentativnoj teorii prava: H. Perel'man. Candidate’s thesis. Moscow [in Russian].

Dudash, T. (2020). Rytorychnyi pidkhid do pravovoho arhumentuvannia y pravovoi arhumentatsii. Fіlosofіja prava і zagal'na teorіja prava – Philosophy of Law and General Theory of Law, 1, 110–131 [in Ukrainian].

Perelman, Ch., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.

Gaonkar, D.P. (1993). The Revival of Rhetoric, the New Rhetoric, and the Rhetorical Turn: Some Distinctions. Informal Logic,15, 53–64.

Mootz, Francis J. (2010). Theory of Argumentation and Natural Law. Scholarly Works, 86, 383–402. URL: https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/86.

Published

2021-12-20

How to Cite

Semenikhin, I. V. . (2021). Cartesianism, argumentation, values in the context of Chaïm Perelman’s «New Rhetoric». Problems of Legality, (155), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990X.155.242031

Issue

Section

THEORY AND HISTORY OF STATE AND LAW

Most read articles by the same author(s)