Chaim Perelman

Recent scholarship in the field of argumentation theory has shown an increasing interest in rethinking the relation between dialectic (philosophy) and rhetoric. In the debate concerning this issue, some scholars take the position of ‘isolationists’. They think that fundamental differences exist between the two disciplines and that it is impossible to translate insights developed within the one discipline in terms of the other. Other scholars can be characterized as ‘combinationalists’. They take the position that insights from dialectic and rhetoric can be combined for the purpose of analyzing or evaluating argumentative discourse. Finally, there are ‘integrationalists’, who are of the opinion that the differences between dialectic and rhetoric can be overcome by reconceptualizing the two disciplines and integrating them into an encompassing theory of argumentation. According to these scholars, dialectic and rhetoric study one and the same phenomenon—argumentation understood as the ju ...

Resumo expandido de trabalho apresentado na V Jornada Brasileira de Filosofia do Direito, UFMG,  Belo Horizonte, 24 a 26 de novembro de 2011. In: GALUPPO, M.; AMARAL, V. (orgs.).  Anais da V Jornada Brasileira de Filosofia do Direito. Belo Horizonte: ABRAFI, 2012.

Dissertação apresentada ao Curso de Mestrado em Filosofia da Faculdade de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas da UFMG. Linha de Pesquisa: Lógica e Filosofia da Ciência. Orientador: Paulo Roberto Margutti Pinto. 2005.

The present thesis aims to investigate Perelman`s proposal of a New Rhetoric and, by doing so, it intends to achieve a better understanding of philosophical discourse. The most important objectives of this work are: defining the fundamental concepts and distinctions of a new theory of argumentation; investigating the specificity of philosophical argumentation – through the clarification of the concept of universal audience -; and finally analyzing the relationship between persuading and convincing and between contextualism and universalism – establishing, therefore, the Perelman’s place in the contemporary debate concerning argumentation. It is pointed out the closeness between Perelman`s and Habermas`s thoughts, as well as the distance between Perelman`s thinking and Rorty`s and Apel`s. It is shown how, depending of the point of view – if it is internal or external to the audience -, philosophy can be regarded as a discourse bounded by a given context or, on the other hand, as an open argumentation aiming at the universal.

Texto apresentado no X Encontro Nacional de Filosofia da ANPOF, 2002, São Paulo. Resumo publicado in: ANPOF: Atas do X Encontro Nacional de Filosofia da ANPOF. São Paulo: Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação em Filosofia, 2002. v.Compl.. p.42 - 42.

La présente contribution entend décrire le travail d’enquête
mené par le Groupe de recherche en rhétorique et en argumentation linguistique (GRAL) autour des archives scientifiques de Chaïm Perelman déposées à l’Université libre de Bruxelles. Plus précisément, le but est de montrer dans quelle mesure ce fonds documentaire constitue une occasion exceptionnelle de mieux comprendre l’oeuvre et la pensée de l’auteur du _Traité de l’argumentation_. Ainsi cet article propose une nouvelle lecture de la redécouverte perelmanienne de la rhétorique conduite durant les années 1940-1950. Il aborde deux problématiques cruciales : le libre examen et l’enseignement.

Nella prima parte di questo articolo cercheremo di ricostruire,
senza esporre in dettaglio i contributi di ciascuna tradizione, i punti di contatto e le differenze più rilevanti tra le ricerche sul discorso argomentativo e la logica formale, richiamandoci prevalentemente ai lavori di Perelman, Toulmin, Hamblin, Lorenzen, Barth e alle ricerche di Informal Logic. Quindi porremo a confronto due recenti filoni di ricerca – la Pragma-Dialectics di van Eemeren e Grootendorst e la New Dialectic (nuova dialettica) e l’Interpersonal Reasoning (ragionamento
interpersonale) di Walton e Krabbe – per analizzare il ruolo svolto dal dialogo e dalla logica dialogica nella ricerca di una fondazione della teoria dell’argomentazione.

This book deals with the implicit epistemological, ontological and methodological commitments underlying the legal philosophy of H.L.A. Hart (1907-1992). The author seeks to answer the view, voiced in recent years, that Hart might not have been influenced in the long run by ordinary language philosophy – in particular that of the “later” Wittgenstein and J.L. Austin.
This issue is addressed by bringing to light a corpus of (vastly overlooked) "early work" in general philosophy which Hart published over the course of the seven year period before he in was elected to the chair of jurisprudence. These articles reveal that Hart fully participated at this stage in the ordinary language philosophy movement, and that was active in the epistemological debate opposing the Oxford philosophers and the British representatives of logical atomism and logical empiricism. This book claims that this early work in general philosophy is crucial to understand some of the positions which underly, but remain implicit, in his legal philosophy. Not only are his early philosophical positions carried over into his first jurisprudential writings, they remain an important part of his mature jurisprudence as set forth in The Concept of Law (1961).
Shedding light on the philosophical foundations of Hart’s legal theory paves the way for a fuller understanding of the contrast between his own “analytical positivism” and Continental forms of positivism, such as Hans Kelsen’s normativism or Scandinavian legal realism. It will also allows us to draw unsuspected parallels between Hartian theory and the logical jurisprudence of the francophone philosopher Chaïm Perelman.

This paper tracks down the socio-legal and realistic movement back to its roots within
the philosophy of pragmatism at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Far from the skepticism and
sometimes cynicism that have been too systematically associated with realism, it shows how the pragmatic
approach to law as a means to and end aimed at social and legal reforms through legal engineering.
Pragmatism constructs the law as a dynamic and evolutive process, a collectively built practical knowledge
that is continually adjusting to an ever moving political, social and economic environment. In a pluralistic
democracy, this process is not the implementation of the project of one but the uncertain result of multiple
debates and struggles opposing, within the rule of law, competing groups and individuals who commit
themselves to promote their values, their interests and their principles.

This essay deals with two notions that lie at the heart of the Perelmanian rhetorical system and show how it is linked to Aristotelian thinking: the nature of support and above all, it, correlate, audience. i As such, we must not forget that for Perelman, in non-formal argumentation, there is always an essential "contact of minds." ii By this, he means a prior and reciprocal representation that an agreement is possible with a fantasized other, an agreement grounded on a cognitive and intellectual structure known to be shared by both parties. Thus, arguing is a singularly purposeful activity guided by the common aim of finding a rationally acceptable solution, capable of overcoming a conflict of meaning, in order to perpetuate the community. Therefore, the initial disagreement fulfils the function of a kairos: it becomes the opportunity, as Emmanuelle Danblon puts it, "to discuss norms, principles and conventions that structure social reality" (Danblon, 100). By saying this, she actually extends the Perelmanian analysis. This disagreement requires multiple viewpoints about good and justice and demonstrates that "the nature of public good cannot be settled neither by science nor by dogma" . It justifies the use of language to bring about a common sense. Beyond "evidence and irrationality" (Perelman, Rhétoriques, 255), it can rightfully be regarded as the expression of community. From there, the issue of discrimination is raised or, more precisely, that of "acknowledging" understood as the ability to determine the conditions under which a potential option may become a decision that each and everyone will make. For this reason, the argumentative process takes the form of a negotiation, depending on the discursive proofs which condition how the speech will be received and eventually justify and legitimize taking action. As Perelman puts it: "Speech affects its audience in such a way that, as it continues, the way the audience reacts, the way it digests information changes. Hence the chosen order of elements in an argumentation is of the utmost importance. This is a true conditioning of the audience" (Perelman, Rhétoriques, 451). For all that, this is not a one-sided influence, but on the contrary an interdependent relationship in which the speaker adjusts to its audience thanks to the external constraint that the organization of the speech represents. This guarantees the rationality of the argumentative approach and the sphere of its application.

Abstract: The analysis explores the main arguments of Noam Chomsky’s short book, Media Control that also reprints the monograph “The Journalist from Mars: How the ‘War on Terror’ Should Be Reported.” The problematic is Aristotelian rhetoric and Enlightenment rationality (justice) in civic discourse (Lógos) as compared to the thematic of dialogic reasonableness (Eulógos). Chomsky’s assumption of, and critique of, “old rhetoric” [Aristotle’s rhētorikḗ] is followed by a discussion of Chiam Perelman’s “new rhetoric” [presocratic poiētikḗ / epideiktikos / gērys] and his “incarnate adherence” (giving voice to) concept of the Universal Audience as a function of Epideictic argumentation. This is also a critique of Stephen Toulman’s neo- Aristotelian model of rhetorical “warrant” and its connection to Charles S. Peirce’s normative semiotic of the “argument cycle.” Heidegger’s and Lakoff’s concept of discourse framing is associated with Michel Foucault’s rhetoric concept of an ethic of social discourse for the common good (parrhe- sia) in the age of Umberto Eco’s hyperreality media that displays Baudrillard’s simulacra, such as Donald Trump.

This thesis discusses about the relationship between contemporary music and rhetoric, essential device for understanding ancient music, but that has been underrated in the analysis of more recent objects. To update the rhetoric to the current thought this study it is referenced by the Treatise on Argumentation, written by Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, since it has rehabilitated studies of rhetoric in the twentieth century. From this framework it is explored the dimensions in which rhetoric integrates the current musical discourse, specifically trough the analysis of pieces written by Luciano Berio and Giacinto Scelsi.

Secondo uno dei principi basilari della Retorica di Aristotele, i parlanti/ascoltatori non sono utenti esterni al linguaggio, bensì elementi costitutivi del discorso. Grazie a questa intuizione è possibile ripensare il ruolo della soggettività nell’argomentazione, mettendo in discussione la tradizionale distinzione tra argomentazione ad rem e argomentazione ad hominem. La dimensione personale del discorso (espressione che include le tre nozioni che in differenti tradizioni sono state utilizzate per designarla: ethos, argomento ad hominem e persona) non è un fattore di disturbo da neutralizzare ma, al contrario, un elemento vitale dell’argomentazione.
Privilegiando il punto di vista della retorica, lungo un asse di pensiero che da Aristotele e Vico arriva fino a Perelman e alla teoria dell’argomentazione contemporanea, il tema è affrontato dapprima dal punto di vista del parlante, discutendo, dunque, principalmente le problematiche relative alla costruzione di una certa immagine di sé e degli altri. Nella seconda parte, a prevalere è il punto di vista dell’ascoltatore. La questione primaria diviene quella relativa ai diversi modi in cui l’ascoltatore accorda fiducia al suo interlocutore; in breve, il tema generale del consenso.
La posta in gioco è, in ultima analisi, il ruolo della razionalità nella prassi umana, caratterizzata da una costitutiva e ineliminabile incertezza, e il modo in cui tale razionalità va pensata.

ALVES, Marco Antônio Sousa. Perelman e a argumentação filosófica: convencimento e universalismo. 1. ed. Belo Horizonte: Editora D´Plácido, 2015. 430p .

Arquivo PDF com capa, sumário, prefácio e introdução do livro. Link para aquisição do livro na íntegra: http://www.livrariadplacido.com.br/perelman-e-a-argumentacao-filosofica-convencimento-e-universalismo-pr-5047-322570.htm

Hoje, no Fios do Tempo, trazemos a transcrição da primeira aula do curso A Nova Retórica de Chaïm Perelman que lecionei no dia 28 de junho de 2016 (e que já havia sido ensinado em 2013). A aula foi transcrita naquele ano por um brilhante ex-aluno e querido amigo (de quem estou com saudades), Raphael Condessa. Publico-a aqui sem ter feito alterações de conteúdo, mantendo-a tal como estava, com um registro mais informal próprio da oralidade. A única alteração feita por mim são poucos ajustes formais e a introdução de seções que facilitam a apreensão da estrutura da exposição.

Essa aula não foi transformada em publicação na época porque eu estava esmagado entre o dispêndio inútil de energia em concursos públicos enviesados patrimonialmente e a busca de sobrevivência num emprego precário em faculdade privada. A partir de 2018, com a criação do Ateliê de Humanidades, um nó cego se desfez e entrei num processo criativo constante, mas sem ter dado continuidade àquele projeto.

Ao relembrar o conteúdo singular dessa aulas, tomo uma consciência ainda mais aguda de alguns aspectos trágicos de nossas instituições de ensino superior. Fico feliz em estar agora retomando o fio da agenda de pesquisa sobre retórica enquanto preparo um curso inédito sobre Retórica Moderna e Contemporânea no contexto de nosso Ciclo de Retórica no Ateliê de Humanidades. Creio que o tema aqui tratado é ainda mais fundamental neste ano de 2021. Para perceber isso, basta seguirmos a exposição tomando conhecimento do percurso magnífico de Chaïm Perelman: suas experiências de vida, a problemática que o motivou a pesquisar os fundamentos da racionalidade humana e sua descoberta e reconstrução da retórica no século XX.

Fonds Ricœur/ CRAL-EHESS, Institute Protestante de Théologie, FR

In their ongoing debate, Alain Badiou and Barbara Cassin have raised equally substantial, yet opposing objections to philosophy’s rapprochement with rhetoric in the 20th century. Where Badiou sees this development as a philosophical concession to sophistry, Cassin sees it as philosophy’s latest attempt to eclipse the true power of sophistic discourse. Taking this debate as my point of departure, I challenge both Badiou and Cassin’s criticisms of rhetoric through a reading of Paul Ricœur, whose work, I argue, complicates the pictures they paint of philosophy’s relation to rhetoric. First, I summarize Badiou and Cassin’s objections to rhetorical philosophy. Second, I justify how, and in what way, I propose to read Ricœur “rhetorically”. Finally, based on this reading, I show how three prominent themes in Ricœur’s work – action, selfhood, and otherness – undermine Badiou and Cassin’s vision of a philosophy (or, in Cassin’s case, a sophistics) that could break entirely with rhetoric.

Le droit, la liberté et la morale  (trad. G. Bligh, p. 13-85) ;  La moralité du droit pénal  (trad. G. Bligh & B. Gnassounou, p. 87-137) ;  Commentaire critique :  Un libéralisme sans les droits naturels. La philosophie politique de H.L.A. Hart (G. Bligh, p.141-274)

(I) Les conférences Le droit, la liberté et la morale (p. 13-85, trad. G. Bligh), prononcées à Stanford en 1963, posent la question de savoir s’il est moralement justifié de faire usage du droit pénal pour promouvoir la morale socialement acceptée. Hart prend pour cible le « moralisme juridique » du juge conservateur Lord Devlin qui soutient que toute société a le droit de défendre sa morale positive comme élément constitutif de son existence. S’appuyant sur le principe de non-nuisance de John Stuart Mill, Hart plaide pour la dépénalisation des relations homosexuelles entre adultes consentants, et préconise de limiter l’action du droit pénal à la répression des actes qui nuisent à autrui. Ces conférences furent reçues au début des années 1960 comme un véritable manifeste, non seulement en faveur de la dépénalisation de l’homosexualité, mais,, plus généralement, de la libération des mœurs.  /  (II) La moralité du droit pénal (p. 87-137, trad. G. Bligh & B. Gnassounou) se compose de deux conférences prononcées à l’Université hébraïque de Jérusalem en 1964. La première est une critique de la médicalisation progressive du traitement de la délinquance promue par des auteurs comme B. Wootton. Hart met en garde contre le recul de l’importance accordée à la responsabilité de l’individu. Nous touchons ici à la nature du libéralisme hartien tel qu’il implique le traitement de l’individu en droit pénal. La seconde conférence prolonge les conférences de Stanford en examinant la question de la nuisance à autrui en matière de morale sexuelle à l’aune de données empiriques, chose fort inhabituelle chez Hart. 

(III) Le commentaire critique Un libéralisme sans les droits naturels. La philosophie politique de Hart (p. 141-274, G. Bligh) cherche à résoudre trois difficultés soulevées par le corpus hartien. Premièrement, il s’agit de comprendre comment le juriste d'Oxford peut, sans incohérence, consacrer une partie de son œuvre à la critique morale du droit sans que cela ne remette en question les fondements de son « positivisme juridique ». La résolution de cette question permet de commencer à saisir le cœur du libéralisme de Hart : la liberté ne peut résulter que d’un rapport de force que les gouvernés, par une attitude critique permanente, imposent à leurs gouvernants. La distinction conceptuelle du droit et de la morale, et sa réactualisation de la distinction entre « morale positive » et « morale critique », élaborée par ses prédécesseurs utilitaristes, vont de pair dans cet effort.  Cela permet alors de comprendre, c'est notre deuxième question, pourquoi le libéralisme hartien ne s’est jamais appuyé sur une philosophie des droits moraux. Certains commentateurs ont cru trouver dans ce silence un manque (associant trop rapidement libéralisme et jouissance des droits et libertés). Hart se montre pleinement conscient dans ses écrits que l'époque marque la transition vers une conception de la liberté pénétrée par les droits moraux de l'individu. Or, sa conception de la liberté peut faire l’entière économie d’une philosophie des droits moraux qu’il soumet à une critique constante – tantôt ouverte tantôt latente.  Enfin, nous montrons que toutes ces questions s’articulent autour de l’attitude changeante de Hart à l’égard de la figure de John Stuart Mill. S'il n’hésite pas à invoquer le principe de non-nuisance de Mill dans les conférences de Stanford, non sans y apporter d’importantes nuances, il le soumet à une critique cinglante dans ses travaux des années 1970, lorsque Mill est associé, chez des auteurs comme D. Lyons, à l'idée d'un « droit à la liberté » de l’individu que Hart récuse. L’enjeu est alors de clarifier une position ambivalente à l’égard de l’héritage utilitariste invoqué à maints endroits dans le corpus.

Our identities, which are always multiple and moving cut across and guide our work of research and analysis. In turn, this work nourishes, sculpts, enriches, and sometimes upsets our identities. There is something incredibly dynamic and exciting about this process. When, for the purposes of this issue of Rhetor, I began to question the relationship between my (assuredly plural) identities and my work on rhetoric, I immediately thought of the intellectual journey of Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca.

This article examines Celestina’s rhetorical arts in two episodes of the work: the persuasion of Pármeno —in María Rosa Lida’s words, the touchstone of Celestinesque persuasive arts—, and the moments prior to her death —namely, the time when her skills in dominating others’ wills fail. From a rhetorical stand-point that stems from Classical models, but readapts them to explain argumentative maneuvers not codified in ancient treatises (thus, in light of Chaim Perelman’s treatise on argumentation), several stratagems of the old bawd are underscored, and also the main rhetorical mistake that leads to her death.

Winner of the Excellence Award at the 2021 edition of the Fonds Ricœur's Summer Workshop

Abstract: This paper argues that Ricœur’s philosophy operates on the basis of a more expansive conception of rhetoric than it first appears. To show this, I reread The Rule of Metaphor through the “new rhetoric” of Chaïm Perelman. First, I survey Ricœur’s understanding of rhetoric in the 1950s and 60s. Second, I examine Ricœur’s relation to Perelman within the context of the broader “rhetorical turn” of the 1970s. After examining their respective positions, I argue that Ricœur fails to appreciate the full significance of Perelman’s conception of audience. In doing so, I draw attention to the central role that Ricœur himself ascribes to the audience or reader in the “work of meaning.” I conclude by proposing that the rhetorical triad of logos/ethos/pathos may serve as a conceptual matrix with which the rhetorical aspects of Ricœur’s philosophy can be interpreted.


***

Lauréat du Prix d’excellence de l’édition 2021 des Ateliers d’été du Fonds Ricœur.

Résumé: Dans le présent article, nous proposons de montrer que la philosophie de Ricœur repose sur une conception de la rhétorique plus large qu’il n’y paraît à première vue. Pour le démontrer, nous relisons La Métaphore vive à travers la « nouvelle rhétorique » de Chaïm Perelman. D’abord, nous abordons la conception que Ricœur avait de la rhétorique dans les années 1950 et 1960. Ensuite, nous examinons la relation entre Ricœur et Perelman dans le contexte plus large du « tournant rhétorique » des années 1970. Après avoir examiné leurs positions respectives, nous soutenons que Ricœur ne parvient pas à apprécier toute la portée de la conception de l’auditoire chez Perelman. Ce faisant, nous attirons l’attention sur le rôle central que Ricœur lui-même attribue à l’auditoire ou au lecteur dans le « travail du sens ». Nous concluons en proposant que la triade rhétorique logos/ethos/pathos puisse servir de cadre conceptuel pour interpréter les aspects rhétoriques de la philosophie de Ricœur.

Version remaniée d'une communication présentée dans le cadre du colloque « Nihilisme et politique: peut-on penser sans absolu? », organisé par le Centre d'études en pensée politique (CEPP) de l'UQAM les 3 et 4 novembre 2016.

---

En posant l'alternative « Nihilisme ou politique », je veux d'abord insister sur le fait que le régime de vérité que suppose le politique diffère de celui qui a cours en matière de métaphysique. En conséquence, je suggère que de développer une pensée proprement politique permettrait de contourner l'impasse du nihilisme, entendu comme réponse négative à la « question métaphysique » – à la recherche de fondements ultimes à la pensée et à l’agir. C'est par le biais de la discipline rhétorique que j'espère pouvoir saisir le fonctionnement propre de la vérité politique. Je m'intéresse d'abord à l'indétermination qui caractérise la praxis humaine, et au travail de délibération que cela impose à tout être agissant. De là, je reviens sur l'ancrage de toute parole politique dans la doxa, sur l'accord relatif qui constitue l'horizon de cette parole, ainsi que sur la complexité et la conflictualité qui teintent de part en part le processus d'argumentation et de délibération constitutif du politique.

This research participates in several research lines as Didactics of experimental science, Physics teaching, Discourse analysis, and Multimodality. The general objective of this thesis is to characterize the explanation story construction` Physics lecturers by analyzing their performance in the classroom, in order to find from the socio-didactic-communicative, rhetorical-argumentative and multimodal frameworks, significative characteristics of these explanations. This is qualitative research, case-based study. It is analytic, descriptive and interpretive, aiming to capture processes and their development. The study was carried out in Venezuela, at Engineering School - University of Carabobo, using the recording of discourses of three professors in their Electromagnetic Physics classes. This thesis heads towards to find theoretical and analytical frames, materials and didactic tools to materialize relevant teacher training plans, focused on their specific pedagogical knowledge.
Research design favorize to show a) complexity of teaching performance b) the triangulation of dimensions' analysis used, c) the graphic-descriptive techniques of the lecturer performance from different perspectives and granularities, and more, d) characteristic elements of explanation stories, inferred from its specific educational context, useful for the design of specific teacher training activities for the improvement of teaching practices.
The design criteria and research methodology ease, as a result, the production of greater knowledge of what happens in the classroom, the identification of characteristic elements of explanation stories, how speech is generated in diverse situations, differences and similarities among them, relevant aspects that promote discussion of teachings in their context. Furthermore, it offers new resources and didactic tools that together are potential generators to materialize activities in similar contexts.
Multimodal discourse analysis in the classroom contributes with ideas, resources and didactical tools for activity design toward improvement of lecturer´s teaching competencies. Among other: a) a visually stimulating format for this thesis, which can be read easily by a science teacher, and serve as reference material for other researches, b) the explanatory stories or didactical units, c) the categories tables from all of three dimensions: didactic-social-communicative, rhetorical-argumentative and multimodal, the function of which is to order the reflective process towards descriptive writing d) the “Modal Panel”, visual support to characterize the explanatory story from the communicative modes, e) diagrams presented from the theatrical performance point of view, using scenarios and staging to describe didactic-rhetorical-argumentative-multimodal elements of story that have not been used in similar university-level-researches, f) the “Explanatory Story Trajectory Graph”, which represents the generation/resolution of cognitive and communicative tensions over time, g) the “Modal Bar Graph” that describes the communicative modes interaction. To reach these results a new dimension T. was added that contemplates the graphic representation of classroom dynamics during the explanatory story development.
In fact, new contributions are presented for research in scientific teaching at higher education and university level, taking into account that there is little research in this area. Didactic tools and techniques were developed for the application of discursive analysis focused on the lecturer, which combined are potential generators of elements that can be applied for the preparation of educational improvement activities of the physics lecturer for engineering or similar contexts. Furthermore, for the engineering community where the research was carried out, the teaching work of physics lecturers and the relevance of the work they do in the classrooms, and their dedication to their students, are highlighted.
Keywords: Discourse analysis, Didactics of Physics, Engineering teaching, Teacher' explanations, Electromagnetic Physics, Argumentation & Rhetoric, Multimodal discourse, Communicative tensions’ trajectory, Multimodal interactions, Teacher training, modal panel.
CASTELLANO:
Esta Tesis se inscribe en las líneas de investigación: didáctica de las ciencias experimentales, enseñanza de la física, análisis del discurso, y multimodalidad. Tiene como objetivo caracterizar la construcción de la historia explicativa analizando la actuación del profesor de Física en el aula, con la finalidad de conocer aspectos significativos que intervienen desde las perspectivas dimensionales: socio-didáctico-comunicativos, retórico-argumentativos y multimodal. Se añade un segundo nivel de análisis o dimensión T que contempla la representación gráfica de la dinámica en el aula durante el desarrollo de la historia explicativa.
Es una investigación cualitativa del tipo estudio de caso, realizada en la Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Carabobo, Venezuela; donde se analizan las explicaciones en Electrostática vídeo grabadas de tres profesores. Está motivada por la búsqueda de lineamientos teóricos, materiales y herramientas didácticas para realizar planes de formación docente con pertinencia en su área de enseñanza. El diseño de la investigación se elabora para mostrar: a) la complejidad de la actuación docente b) la triangulación de dimensiones de análisis, c) técnicas gráfico-descriptivo del hacer docente desde diferentes perspectivas y diversa granularidad, y d) elementos característicos de las historias explicativas, extraídos en su contexto, útiles para el diseño de actividades de formación didáctica específica para la mejora de la práctica docente.
Los criterios de diseño y la metodología de la investigación, favorecen la obtención de resultados que se relacionan con un mayor conocimiento de lo que sucede en el aula, identificación de elementos característicos de las historias explicativas, características del discurso que se genera en diversas situaciones, diferencias y similitudes entre ellos, aspectos que llaman la atención y provocan la discusión en su contexto de enseñanza. Adicionalmente, ofrecen nuevos recursos y herramientas didácticas que en conjunto son potenciales generadores para la preparación de actividades en contextos similares. Entre otros:  a) el diseño visual del informe final tal que puede ser leído por un profesor de ciencias, y puede servir como material de referencia para otras investigaciones, b) las historias explicativas o unidades didácticas, c) las tablas de categorías desde tres dimensiones: didáctico-social-comunicativo, retórico-argumentativo y multimodal, cuya función es ordenar el proceso reflexivo hacia la escritura descriptiva d) Las categorías de la dimensión multimodal, resultado de un proceso recursivo, y el diseño del tablero-modal, soporte visual para caracterizar la historia explicativa desde los modos comunicativos, e) representaciones visuales (tipo fotogramas o dibujos) desde la actuación teatral, con escenarios y puesta en escena para describir elementos didáctico-retórico-argumentativos-multimodal de la historia que, no han sido usadas hasta ahora a nivel universitario, f) la “gráfica de trayectoria de la historia explicativa”, que representa la generación / resolución de tensiones cognitivas y comunicativas a lo largo del tiempo, g) el esquema de barras modales que describe la interacción de los modos comunicativos.
El análisis del discurso multimodal en el aula aplicado en este estudio, es de gran relevancia académica ya que ofrece recursos y herramientas didácticas que integran teorías de diferentes campos de conocimiento que amplian la didáctica de las ciencias y que son útiles para la caracterización de la actuación del profesor. Se presentan nuevos aportes para la línea de enseñanza de las ciencias a nivel de educación superior y universitaria, ya que no existen muchas investigaciones en esta área. Se desarrollaron herramientas y técnicas didácticas de aplicación de análisis discursivo centrado en el docente, que en conjunto son potenciales generadores de elementos que puedan ser aplicados para la preparación de actividades hacia la mejora educativa del profesor de física para ingeniería o contextos similares. Para la comunidad donde se realiza la investigación, se realza la labor docente del profesor de física y la relevancia a la labor que realizan en las aulas, y su dedicación a los estudiantes de ingeniería.
Palabras Claves: Análisis del Discurso, Didáctica de la Física, Enseñanza en Ingeniería, Explicaciones del profesor, Física Electromagnética, Argumentación y Retórica, Discurso Multimodal, Trayectoria de tensiones comunicativas, gráfica de interacción multimodal, formación del profesorado.

● Steven Barmore: The Silence of Socrates: The One and the Many in Plato’s Parmenides ● Thomas J. Gentry II: Human Dignity, Self-determination, and the Gospel: An Enquiry into St. John Paul II’s Personalism and its Implications for Evangelization ● Mark Herrbach: The Soul of Goethe’s Thought ● Joanna Kiereś-Łach: The Causes of the Crisis of Rhetoric and Its Role in Social Discourse. In Terms of Chaim Perelman ● Jason Nehez: In Pursuit of True Wisdom: How the Re-Emergence of Classical Wonder Should Replace Descartes’s Neo-Averrostic Sophistry ● Brian Welter: Des vérités devenues folles by Rémi Brague ● Brian Welter: Sagesse: Savoir vivre au pied d’un volcan by Michel Onfray

Central to Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's philosophical revival of rhetoric and dialectic is the importance given to the temporal character of argumentation. Unlike demonstration, situated within the "empty time" of a single instant, the authors of The New Rhetoric understand argumentation as an action that unfolds within the "full time" of meaningful human life. By taking a broader view of his work beyond The New Rhetoric, I first outline Perelman's understanding of time and temporality and the challenge that it poses for the study of argumentation. Next, I emphasize the distinction between argumentation's internal and external temporal structures, and then show how Perelman problematizes a static view of a number of basic argumentative concepts by bringing out their essentially temporal character. Finally, in clarifying what is at stake in Perelman's account, I conclude by drawing attention to a number of issues in contemporary argumentation studies that may benefit from a reconsideration of Perelman's analysis of time.

CRRAR, University of Windsor, Canada (4 January 2019)

If, according to Paul Ricoeur, the use of language always involves “somebody saying something to someone about something”, then the question with which Ricoeur is reported to have opened his seminars—“from where do you speak?”—implies a corollary question: “to whom do you speak?” By emphasizing the addressee or audience of language in this way Ricoeur’s question finds itself within what Chaïm Perelman calls the “realm of rhetoric”. Although references to Perelman’s works can be found throughout many of Ricoeur’s writings, little has been done to bring these two contemporaries into dialogue. Moving in this direction I will here show but one of the ways in which Ricoeur’s work is pertinent to argumentation studies. Specifically, I will trace several insights found in Ricoeur’s “hermeneutics of the self” that I argue develop Perelman’s notion of the person, which plays an essential normative role in his philosophy of argument.

University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands (25 March 2022)

Despite Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s well-known influence on argumentation studies, it is striking that the theory of argumentation they present in The New Rhetoric (1958) no longer stands out as a living project in the field. On the one hand, there are those who argue that their theory is inherently relativistic and therefore incapable of offering any normative criteria of argument evaluation. On the other, there are those who argue that, even as a descriptive theory, the new rhetoric fails to sufficiently justify its own systematic ambitions. In this paper, I address these dual concerns by returning to one of the most neglected, yet most innovative aspects of Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s project — its methodology. In the first part of the talk, I outline the two main lines of criticism mentioned above. In a second step, by turning to some of Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s lesser-known writings I offer a novel interpretation of their methodology that sheds light on the often-puzzling structure of The New Rhetoric. Specifically, I focus on the methodological function of the rhetorical audience and explain its role in their theory of argumentation. I conclude by exploring the ongoing viability of their project given that it was designed to deal primarily with written texts.

Desde la antigüedad greco-latina viene planteado un problema que aún persiste en nuestros días ¿cuál es el estatuto que nos permite distinguir claramente la especificidad de un texto escrito? La necesidad de presentar a uno de los filósofos más emblemáticos, Sócrates, a las nuevas generaciones creó un reto difícil de superar. El hecho de que este pensador no dejara obra escrita ni planteara una teoría específica, pero al tiempo fuese un ejemplo de pensador y de vida, hizo a los que le conocieron, se propusieran reconstruir esta difícil faceta de una forma vívida. Tanto Platón, Jenofonte, Antístenes y Esquines, los más conocidos biógrafos de Sócrates, tuvieron que ingeniárselas para hacer pasar a la historia a este genial filósofo. Según noticias de Werner Jeager en la época de estos filósofos se usaba una forma estilística denominada Enkonion o Elkonion, para hacer un retrato escrito de una persona importante, una especie de panegírico que Aristóteles en su Retórica clasifica como perteneciente uno de los géneros de la argumentación: el género epidíctico. En el análisis de este género discursivo se puede observar tal problemática. Por ejemplo los Diálogos de Platón, cuyo personaje central es Sócrates, están a medio camino entre lo que hoy conocemos como filosofía, retórica y literatura, y que en aquella época no se hacía tal distinción tajante como se hace hoy en día. Analizando la estructura de las diferentes presentaciones del filósofo podemos ver claramente que el problema que se les presentó a los biógrafos fue de retórica que es la base que fundamenta los discursos filosóficos y literarios.

■ Aim Pubs are focal stages of sociability. This article investigates the identifications and distinctions between us and them, made by young Finns talking about their own behaviour in pubs, and the pubs they like and dislike. ■ Data & Method The data consists of 117 interviews with 23 to 35-year-old young Finnish adults who work in business or administration. The method applies classification analysis and is influenced by the structuralist, semiotic, and rhetoric traditions. ■ Results The analysis shows that many of the interviewees' classifications involve distancing themselves from those people that go to ‘superficial' pubs. The interviewees distinguish themselves from those frequenting superficial places by classifying the interactions there as false and stiff, and contrary to a genuine and relaxed sociability. With these distinctions the interviewees do not aim to distinguish themselves as above' others. Instead, they define themselves as ordinary people by separati...

The purpose of this paper is to rediscover, inspired by Chaim Perelman, the full rhetorical nature of the epideictic genre and to correct certain superficial and erroneous conceptions of it. Also, I intend to explore the close relationship between social strength and vulnerability in this genre, and to study the dialectic between concord and exercise of disagreement. I will show furthermore that the epidictic discourses can be considered both as thebasis  as well as the center  of the whole rhetorical construct and of the democratic system in general. Finally, I will try to examine how an analysis in terms of disorder  and detour  can be fruitful for a better understanding of the epideictic genre.

O presente artigo tem como objetivo analisar a teoria da argumentação de Chaïm Perelman, a noção dos auditórios e sua relação com a crise da Democracia participativa na Era da informação. Partindo de Aristóteles, é feita uma apresentação da retórica enquanto arte de argumentar. Na sequência, analisa-se a Teoria da Argumentação de Perelman, chamada de Nova Retórica, e as características dos auditórios universal e particular. Por fim, apresenta-se o impacto das novas tecnologias da informação nas democracias participativas pelo processo de manipulação nos fluxos comunicacionais, como as "fake news", decorrente de "bolhas" individualistas fragmentadas em auditórios particulares, que interferem nos processos políticos e sociais democráticos contemporâneos. Palavras-Chave: Retórica; Nova Retórica; auditórios; tecnologia da informação e da comunicação; crise da democracia participativa.

This article is an attempt to answer the question about the causes of the rhetoric crisis and its role in social discourse. The theoretical basis of these considerations and their reference point is the concept of new rhetoric in terms of the contemporary rhetoric and argumentation theorist Chaim Perelman. The first part briefly describes contemporary cultural discourse that takes place in a democratized society in the era of so-called new media. It indicates that inquiry into rhetoric (which started in antiquity) is also inquiry into universal criteria for cultural discourse, as well as the timeless and supra-cultural norms and principles that regulate this discourse (taking into account ongoing social and cultural changes). The second part of the article refers directly to the position of Chaim Perelman on the crisis of rhetoric. Perelman saw the main reason for this crisis in the separation of rhetoric from philosophy. The third part characterizes the new rhetoric in terms of its novelty and timeliness, as well as its reference to classical (Aristotelian) rhetoric. The fourth part points to the application of the concept of new rhetoric in cultural discourse. It discusses Perelman’s concept of universal audience, as well as the problem of concrete and abstract values, the understanding of which by the members of a given audience does or does not enable the communication (consensus) between each other. The end of the article briefly assesses Perelman’s contribution to understanding rhetoric and his role in restoring rhetoric to its rightful place in social discourse.

The paper presents an analysis and criticism of formal justice. Section one introduces the concept of formal justice as it is defined by Chaïm Perelman. According to Perelman, an action is formal just iff it follows from the application of a rule. Formal justice, thus defined, is generally held to be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of (material) justice. In section two, after analysing the concept of a formal just action, it is argued that this thesis is either inconsistent (if applied to legal systems) or implausible or trivial (if applied to moral rules). Applied to legal systems, formal justice can only be either a necessary and sufficient condition of justice or neither necessary nor sufficient. In section three the principle of formal justice, which states that one ought to act according to a rule of (material) justice, is rejected. Section four analyses the supposed role of formal justice in the application of law and concludes that there is, in fact, no role for it to play. In section five it is maintained that there is no connection between formal justice and the requirement of equality in legislation. Sections six to eight show the difference between formal justice and (i) impartiality, (ii) treating like case alike, and (iii) universalisability, respectively. The overall conclusion is that formal justice is an entirely useless (and even dangerous) concept and should be given up. What formal justice was hoped to achieve, but cannot achieve, can precisely be achieved by the principle of treating like cases alike, i. e. the principle of universalisability.

Dans cet essai (initialement publié en 2002), le philosophe suédois Mats Rosengren se donne pour objet l'élaboration d'une « approche rhétoricienne de la connaissance » (p. 85) capable de traiter avec souplesse « du savoir, de la pensée et de la mesure de l'homme » (p. 118). Ce qu'il nomme Doxologie. Plus largement, le propos du volume, dont on déplorera d'emblée la traduction laborieuse et peu homogène, porte sur la signification qu'on peut donner à la connaissance (prise dans un sens large) en tant qu'elle est humaine. Pour ce faire, à partir et autour de la fameuse maxime protagoréenne qui fait de l'homme la mesure de toute chose, l'auteur déploie une argumentation en cinq chapitres précédés d'un « Prologue ». L'ensemble, au demeurant assez confus et redondant, bénéficie d'heureuses synthèses qui aident à suivre la progression de la réflexion. Très concrètement, l'enquête se propose de débarrasser notre épistémologie de « toute illusion de stabilité, de fondement absolu ou de but inévitable » (p. 9) pour nous conduire à accepter l'historicité de nos connaissances -donc leur précarité.

Com a abertura democrática ocorrida a partir da Constituição Federal de 1988, o Brasil assumiu -de forma irreversível -o reconhecimento dos Direitos Humanos, aderindo às Declarações internacionais sobre Direitos Humanos, a exemplo da Declaração de Viena (1993), Declaração e Programa de Ação de Beijing (1995), Declaração e Programa de Ação de Durban (2001) e com a construção de um Programa Nacional dos Direitos Humanos (PNDH), que viabiliza diretrizes gerais para a execução de políticas públicas relativas a tais direitos.

"Troubled Freedom, Rhetorical Personhood, and Democracy's Ongoing Constitution" looks at one of rhetorical theory's central insights about being a person, and at what this tells us about how to write constitutions. The insight is that "freedom" is a constitutively troubled phenomenon, a negotiation of constraint. Some political implications of this insight are traced out with reference to recent Icelandic efforts to re-write a constitution.

This article is an attempt to answer the question about the causes of the rhetoric crisis and its role in social discourse. The theoretical basis of these considerations and their reference point is the concept of new rhetoric in terms of the contemporary rhetoric and argumentation theorist Chaim Perelman. The first part briefly describes contemporary cultural discourse that takes place in a democratized society in the era of so-called new media. It indicates that inquiry into rhetoric (which started in antiquity) is also inquiry into universal criteria for cultural discourse, as well as the timeless and supra-cultural norms and principles that regulate this discourse (taking into account ongoing social and cultural changes). The second part of the article refers directly to the position of Chaim Perelman on the crisis of rhetoric. Perelman saw the main reason for this crisis in the separation of rhetoric from philosophy. The third part characterizes the new rhetoric in terms of its...

Central to Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's philosophical revival of rhetoric and dialectic is the importance given to the temporal character of argumentation. Unlike demonstration, situated within the "empty time" of a single instant, the authors of The New Rhetoric understand argumentation as an action that unfolds within the "full time" of meaningful human life. By taking a broader view of his work beyond The New Rhetoric, I first outline Perelman's understanding of time and temporality and the challenge that it poses for the study of argumentation. Next, I emphasize the distinction between argumentation's internal and external temporal structures, and then show how Perelman problematizes a static view of a number of basic argumentative concepts by bringing out their essentially temporal character. Finally, in clarifying what is at stake in Perelman's account, I conclude by drawing attention to a number of issues in contemporary argumentation studies that may benefit from a reconsideration of Perelman's analysis of time.