CHAÏM PERELMAN

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.

Based on an examination of news coverage from 2013 to mid-2018, this article analyzes rhetoric in favor of school dress code policies. I illustrate how women’s bodies are problematized in order to manifest
grounds for regulating female attire. By employing pragmatic lines of argument, pro-dress code rhetors foster what I term consequential transference. Because pragmatic arguments rely on identifying consequences, questions of agency are implicit, as presuppositions of who is responsible for the consequences are embedded into the fabric of the discourse. In this case, dress code defenders paint female immodesty as responsible for several harmful potentialities, including negative social judgments, sexual harassment, and the distraction of male students in the classroom. I assert that pragmatic argumentation is a serviceable tool for underwriting misogynistic culture because consequential transference warrants female regulation and punishment by diminishing the accountability of other actors.

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.

Trata-se de escrito acadêmico com fito mais de expor uma resenha do referido livro em evidência do que problematizar o tema. Ou de outra forma: o escopo presente investiga, de modo a tecer algumas ponderações e buscar apontar as ideias principais do livro “Hermenêutica Constitucional: A sociedade aberta dos intérpretes da Constituição” de Peter Häberle. Não obstante, utilizaremos autores da mesma “corrente” de pensamento: Friedrich Muller e Chaim Perelman, mas somente em notas de rodapé.

La philosophie politique se contente habituellement d'élaborer abstraitement des principes généraux qu'elle laisse aux juristes le soin de réaliser dans la forme de normes juridiques particulières. Or, comme l'a bien montré Habermas à la suite de Hegel 1 , il existe un décrochage des théories abstraites de la justice par rapport à la réalité institutionnelle et sociale : il ne suffit pas d'élaborer un contenu rationnel abstrait pour qu'il devienne effectif. Sans la médiation du droit, le rationnel politique reste un idéal pauvre en déterminations. Aussi l'interprétation juridique est-elle indispensable pour donner un contenu effectif aux principes normatifs énoncés par les théories de la justice. Mais cette interprétation ne saurait être comprise comme l'acte de réflexion raisonnée et solitaire du juge, mais comme le produit d'une négociation entre des agents institutionnels très différents : juges aux compétences diverses, législateurs, membres de l'exécutif, et nombre d'experts. A travers le prisme des compromis entre institutions, les principes politiques abstraits révèlent leur complexité et se dispersent. 1 Cf. Jürgen Habermas, Droit et démocratie (1992), trad. R. Rochlitz et C. Bouchindhomme, Paris, Gallimard, 1997, p. 71. politique ». La formule est en partie citée par Buisson, dans l'article « Neutralité scolaire », dans Dictionnaire de pédagogie et d'Instruction primaire, op. cit. Sur l'interprétation de la laïcité comme neutralité, cf. Cécile Laborde, « On Republican Toleration » , op. cit., p. 168-171. 4 Jean Rivero, La notion juridique de laïcité, Paris, Dalloz, chronique XXXIII, 1949, p 137. 5 La distinction entre politique ordinaire et politique constitutionnelle est formulée par Bruce Ackerman dans Au nom du peuple, mais elle déjà opérante chez John Rawls qui l'esquisse dans Théorie de la justice ( § 31) et l'explicite dans Libéralisme politique après avoir pris connaissance des textes d'Ackerman. Cf. Bruce Ackerman, Au nom du peuple (1991), trad. 44 La crédibilité d'une présomption (par exemple que le port du voile est a priori un acte de prosélytisme) dérive de la probabilité que « port du voile » et « acte de prosélytisme » coïncide effectivement. Les présomptions sont liées au vraisemblable. Cf. C. Perelman, L. op. cit., Chaïm Perelman, Logique juridique, Paris, Dalloz, 1979, p. 176.

L’œuvre de Chaïm Perelman a marqué plusieurs disciplines et en particulier la rhétorique et la philosophie du droit. Ces deux matières sont d’ailleurs intimement liées, puisque Perelman s’est en réalité proposé d’appliquer à la matière juridique sa vision de la rhétorique. Cette dernière porte le nom de « Nouvelle rhétorique » – expression qui figure du reste comme sous-titre à la fois de son Traité de l’argumentation  et de la Logique juridique. Nous nous sommes livrés à une étude de l’argumentation juridique dans un ouvrage  ; nous proposons ici de jeter des ponts entre l’argumentation juridique telle que Perelman la pensait et des questions de philosophie du droit plus récentes.

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 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 paper considers the theory of the Universal Audience as a better check on setting fair and interesting debate motions than the checks used in the status quo. Attention is paid to the theory of the Universal Audience both in the rhetorical tradition and how this theory might be applied to those working in contemporary British Parliamentary debating.

Tesis de Licenciatura en Comunicación y Periodismo que hace un análisis de los argumentos del uso del color rosa mexicano en la imagen institucional de la Ciudad de México durante el gobierno de Miguel Ángel Mancera Espinosa, gestión que duró del 2012 al 2018. Además, compara los argumentos con los significados socioculturales del color rosa en la teoría y psicología del color. La investigación toma específicamente comunicados, discursos, manuales y documentos publicados o pronunciados, donde se hable de las razones del uso del color rosa dentro de la imagen institucional. Se persigue comprobar si los argumentos dados por la administración de Mancera son verdaderos. Al obtener los resultados del análisis, se concluye que la verdad en los argumentos de Mancera es parcial, dependiendo de los elementos del discurso examinados y de los teóricos que se emplean para el estudio, los cuales son Chaïm Perelman, John Langshaw Austin y Jürgen Habermas.

Is the ad hominem argument a fallacy or not? In this paper I will try to demonstrate that an ad hominem is not intrinsically fallacious and that the speaker's personal convictions, commitments and actions are deeply involved in every argument. This paper starts with a comparison between dialectical and rhetorical approaches to the argumentation, and, in particular, to the agreement. Briefly: from a dialectical standpoint, the argumentation is aimed at resolving a difference of opinion or a disagreement. On the other hand, from the rhetorical perspective argumentation also often deals with dialogues of the deaf, with incommensurable points of view. The agreement is a key concept of Perelman's and Olbrechts-Tyteca's new rhetoric. Agreement is not only what is ensured by the argumentative process. It is also the starting point of argumentation (prior argument): all argumentation must proceed from points of agreement (e. g. common values and hierarchies). These are aspects that would be agreed upon by the audience as conceived by the orator. Therefore, the audience is part of the arguments and we cannot divide the speaker, the subject on which he speaks and the hearer. In the last part of the paper, I focus on Perelman's and Olbrects-Tyteca's snowball interrelation between act and personwhich mutually affect each other in the same directionshowing the role of ethos of both orator and audience in argument. Ad hominem argument represents an important testing ground because it expressly relates with personal conduct, character, motives, etc.

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.

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.

تسعى هذه المساهمة إلى تحقيق هدف تمهيدي: فهي تقترح تشجيع اكتشاف النظريات المعاصرة للحجاج وتملكها من قبل جمهور طلاب درجة الماجستير في علوم اللغة والاتصال. والهدف من ذلك هو تحسين فهم كيفية تنظيم المجادلات حول تعريف مفهوم الحجاج. والفرضية المدافع عنها هي أنه من الممكن، لغايات تدريسية، هيكلة هذه المجادلات باستخدام عدد محدود من المعايير، والتي تسمح لنا أن نلاحظ فيما تتشابه هذه التعاريف المختلفة للحجاج، أو على العكس من ذلك، فيما تتعارض. ونسعى أيضا إلى تنظيم المجادلات النظرية وجعلها مفهومة للطالب. وينبغي أن نضيف في الحال أن مثل هذا النهج لا يستبعد، بل على العكس يشجع الطالب على اتخاذ موقف شخصي. والفكرة هي عدم وضعه في موقف المتفرج الأبدي للمناقشات النظرية التي تحرك مجتمع الباحثين المهتمين بالحجاج: والمقصد في نهاية المطاف هو أن ينتقي التعريف الملائم، مع معرفة تامة بالحقائق. إن هدفنا هو تسهيل استيعاب الطالب لهذا النموذج النظري أو ذاك وفقا لنوع العمل الذي يقوم به على الحجاج، وأهدافه البحثية، فضلا عن طبيعة المعطيات التي يرغب في تحليلها حجاجيا.

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.

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.

È nota la tradizionale necessità filosofica di opporre la realtà alla multiforme apparenza, la verità alla finzione, la rigida obbiettività alle fuggevoli impressioni, l’episteme alle “sabbie mobili” dell’opinione. Gli argini, tuttavia, sono sempre pronti a straripare, tanto che, alle volte, anche la ricerca del vero non può compiersi senza incorrere in qualche finzione. Accade così, a causa degli inganni sottili della musa Clio, che personaggi storici come Lucrezia Borgia, irrompano prepotentemente nel regno della menzogna, rendendo labili e poco definiti i confini tra la narrazione storica e il mito.  La riflessione che ha dato avvio a questo studio nasce in archivio, a stretto contatto con le lettere della Duchessa di Ferrara, esperienza che rende immediatamente perspicuo il divario tra la traccia documentaria e il dirompente mito romantico con il quale la Lucrezia letteraria penetra l’immaginario comune. Lo studio è volto a ricostruire le ragioni storiche del mito tentando un approccio “retorico” basato sulla logica argomentativa di Perelman e, in particolare, sul ruolo del legame di coesistenza.

In: Maria Cecília Pedreira de Almeida; Douglas Ferreira Barros; Marco Antônio Sousa Alves. (Org.). Pensar o direito: política, decisão e resistência. 1ed.Curitiba: CRV, 2020, p. 181-196. Uma primeira versão deste trabalho foi apresentada na V Jornada Brasileira de Filosofia do Direito, organizada pela ABRAFI em 2011 na Faculdade de Direito da UFMG

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.

Il paper contiene alcune brevi riflessioni sulla funzione (politica) dei giudici e dei legislatori negli ordinamenti costituzionali nella produzione effettiva del diritto. In particolare, focalizza l'attenzione sulla loro "legittimazione", dunque sul ruolo centrale che assumono i consociati nella democrazia sociale in qualità di membri sovrani dell'«uditorio universale» teorizzato da Perelman.

Desde la perspectiva de la argumentación jurídica de Chaïm Perelman, el texto muestra un primer resultado de investigación en torno a las premisas de la argumentación y las técnicas argumentativas empleadas por la Corte Constitucional colombiana en un caso concreto, que podría ser catalogado como “caso difícil”. El resultado que ahora presentamos muestra una parte de la construcción de ese marco teórico y su aplicación. Intentamos responder esta pregunta: ¿cómo han establecido las Altas Cortes sus modelos de justificación judicial en un caso concreto y cómo pueden interpretarse estos modelos desde una nueva teoría de la argumentación basada en Perelman?
La conclusión a la que se llega es doble: haber mostrado, por un lado, otra perspectiva de abordaje —muy poco recorrida en Colombia— al problema de las decisiones judiciales y, por otro, haber presentado las bases de la teoría de la argumentación de Perelman y su aplicación efectiva a casos concretos de la realidad nacional.

L’articolo interpreta un aspetto della poetica manzoniana, cioè la polemica con l’Illuminismo, corrente di pensiero da cui l’autore deriva parte della sua stessa formazione intellettuale, soprattutto il rigore logico-razionalistico. Nell’articolo si studia la polemica con la filosofia settecentesca attraverso la scelta di tre concetti in particolare, l’opinione, il pubblico e la posterità, nei quali Manzoni vede il pericolo di scadere dalla tensione dialettica razionale all’ideologia del razionalismo astratto. L’articolo analizza la discussione dei suddetti concetti in Storia della colonna infame e conclude portando in luce le somiglianze e le divergenze fra quest’opera e le Osservazioni sulla tortura di Verri.

In: Revista Páginas de Filosofia. , v.1, p.61 - 78, 2009.

Critical balance of the Chaïm Perelman´s universal audience notion - The universal audience is a central concept in the New Rhetoric of Chaïm Perelman and indicates, in the same time, the rhetoric and universalistic nature that he attributes to the philosophical argumentation. So, this paper intends to make a critical balance of this notion. The critics from Manuel Atienza, Antonio Pieretti, Aulis Aarnio, Eemeren & Grootendorst and Tidale & Groarke, referred to a supposed ambiguity in the universal audience concept will be analyzed. In response to these critics, we will sustain that the supposed ambiguity reflects the nature of our argumentative practices and particularly of the philosophical argumentation that show contextual facts and ideal universalistic presupposes."

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.