home homemade tool

Report specificity of rhetorical argumentation. Rhetorical view on the specifics of argumentation Rhetorical argumentation speech means of proof

MOSCOW
AUTOMOBILE AND ROAD STATE TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
(MADI)

Department of the Russian language of the main faculties

Student: Petrov A.V., group 4ZAP 2
Leader: Professor Chesnokova M.P.

Moscow 2011-2012

Definition of rhetoric
The first known definition of rhetoric was given in ancient Greece, where it was described as the ability to find possible ways of persuading about any given subject. Such a view of rhetoric as a science of the forms and methods of speech impact on the audience was developed and consistently presented in the treatises of Isocrates, Hermagorus, Apollodorus. Another approach is given by the Roman tradition, which considered rhetoric to be the science of "good speech", and this definition included both the requirement of persuasiveness of speech, and attention to expression, to verbal design. The further fate of rhetoric is connected with the strengthening of this trend - interest in form comes first, the beauty of expression becomes the main measure of practice. We owe this branch of rhetorical practice the widespread idea of rhetoric as a pompous "externally beautiful, but of little substance" work of speech. It was then that the expression "empty rhetoric" appeared and a stable negative attitude towards this term developed.
However, today it has become clear that it is not the word, not science that is to blame: everything depends on the content that we put into this word and which we are engaged in studying science. Our society needs rhetoric not as a science of decorating speech, but as a discipline that helps to learn how to intelligently express one's thoughts, to influence the audience through speech. Therefore, it is quite obvious that modern rhetoric should return as a whole to the Greek interpretation of the subject, resolutely put form at the service of content, because only in this case will it be able to cope with the important tasks that the time sets before it. It is from such positions that A.K. Avelichev: "Rhetoric is the science of methods of persuasion, various forms of predominantly linguistic influence on the audience, taking into account the characteristics of the latter and in order to obtain the desired effect."

Purpose of speech
The first classification of speeches by purpose was proposed by Aristotle in his famous Rhetoric. In addition to the purpose, it took into account the time and place of communication. On these grounds, Aristotle singled out deliberative, judicial, and epideictic speeches. At the same time, the deliberative speech, as he believed, is turned to the future, acts in the form of advice and aims to persuade to commit a certain action; judicial speech is turned to the past and aims to convince the defendant of the guilt or innocence; epideictic speech is addressed to the present and aims to praise or scold a person.

The most important task of speech

In addition to the task, the goal setting also includes the super-task of speech. “The term “super task” was introduced by Stanislavsky into the theory of theatrical art, and it means that hidden spring of action, which, according to the director’s intention, should keep the emotions of the audience in line with the director’s intention throughout the performance. The super task in a persuasive speech is also an element of art. Without it, the speech strategy will be directed only at the consciousness, the “head” perception of the speaker’s position by the listeners. “…” Of course, the listeners’ emotions are affected by the general harmony, persuasiveness of the evidence, and the rigidity of the conclusions. However, in order to induce people to reconsider not only their views, but also their behavior, to change their methods of action, a purposeful, cross-cutting, but very well hidden from direct perception super-task is needed, specially designed for the emotions of listeners, influencing not only the consciousness, but also the subconscious.”
Thus, The most important task of speech is a hidden idea that is suggested to listeners by influencing their feelings and subconsciousness. The most important task is never presented openly, but hidden in the subtext. Its content is in no way connected with the type of speech in terms of purpose and depends only on the intentions of the speaker. Therefore, cases are possible, for example, when a speaker makes an informational speech (task: "to acquaint the audience with the state of affairs in the trade union movement"), but at the same time has a persuasive super-task ("to convince listeners that the trade union movement plays an important role in modern social life") or even an incentive ("to encourage listeners to join trade unions"). This situation cannot be qualified as the presence of several tasks in speech. After all, a task is something that is declared and implemented in speech openly - such a task is always the same. The most important task is that, out of oratorical caution, the speaker does not impose directly, but inspires by indirect means.

Argumentation

The creation of a speech begins with the definition of a strategy for a future speech - finding a topic, analyzing the characteristics of the audience, determining the task of speech, formulating a thesis and conducting its conceptual analysis. These actions help create the idea of speech, determine the direction of the main blow. This is the most important part of working on a speech, helping the future speaker to determine for himself the main content of the speech. However, after the speaker himself clearly understood to whom, why and what he would say, it was time to think about the audience, how to make the thesis of the speaker their property, to convince them of the correctness of their thoughts. These tasks are implemented at the tactical stage of working on a speech, which consists mainly in the fact that the speaker selects the material that, in his opinion, will help him realize his plan in the intended audience. The specificity of rhetorical argumentation is the subject of consideration.
Traditionally, reasoning is described in writings on logic. There are many similarities between the understanding of argumentation in logic and rhetoric, but there are also very significant differences that need to be paid special attention. The comparison is also important because the logical understanding of argumentation is widely known, while the rhetorical understanding is still little known, which creates the danger of replacing rhetorical argumentation with evidence in the practice of mastering rhetoric. In order to avoid this undesirable phenomenon, it is first necessary to determine, as precisely as possible, what meaning logic and rhetoric attach to the concept of "argumentation".

The specifics of rhetorical argumentation

Argumentation in logic and rhetoric

A purely logical view of the problem of argumentation is presented, for example, by the following opinion: “If the process of argumentation in its abstract purity is a unity of logical and non-logical components aimed at a single goal - the formation of certain beliefs in someone, then it is usually resorted to in cases where the narrow-logical components for the addressee turn out to be insufficiently convincing for some reason and, as a result, the proof does not reach the goal. The non-logical components here take on the function of strengthening the process of proof and ensuring the desired effect. become sufficient, then the need for any extra-logical elements disappears. The process of argumentation thus passes into the process of proof. In this regard, the proof can be conditionally represented, if we use the mathematical term, as a "degenerate case" of argumentation, namely, as such an argumentation, the extra-logical components of which tend to zero. This implies the legitimacy of the position: if there is a proof that is perceived as such, then an argument that has in its composition other than purely discursive-logical components is not needed."
This position is also characteristic of other works by logical specialists who consider argumentation to be a purely logical subject, necessary only when the audience does not immediately perceive the evidence presented and additional arguments are required, which should still remain within strictly rational framework. "Philosophical-ideological, axiological, psychological and other components" are allowed in the argument as secondary and only to the extent that "each of them satisfies the requirements of formal logic, its typical, standard schemes." And even the choice of this or that logical argument is determined not by the specifics of the intended audience, but by "near-scientific mythology", "fashion" and "requirements of an ideological nature."
The opposite position is taken by representatives of neo-rhetoric, in whose works argumentation is decisively declared the prerogative of rhetoric, and who consider argumentation one of the possibilities of speech influence on human consciousness. So, V.Z. Demyankov points out that, unlike proof, argumentation serves to win listeners over to one's side, and for this it is not necessary to resort to rational arguments. It is often enough to simply make it clear "that the position in favor of which the proponent speaks lies in the interests of the addressee; protecting these interests, one can still influence emotions, play on a sense of duty, on moral principles. Argumentation is one of the possible tactics for implementing the idea." This opinion goes back to a non-rhetorical assessment of the essence of argumentation by H. Perelman, who argued that "the area of argumentation is such assessments of arguments as plausibility, possibility and probability, taken in a meaning that cannot be formalized in the form of calculations. Any argumentation aims at bringing consciousnesses closer together, and thus presupposes the existence of intellectual contact." Thus, here we see a purely rhetorical view of the essence of argumentation, which is understood as "the possibility of speech impact on human consciousness", "part of the theory of achieving social understanding" and is opposed to logical impact. An important element of this position is the requirement to take into account the characteristics of the audience as an indispensable condition for the effectiveness of argumentation, which is actually a rhetorical factor that is not used in logic. Argumentation is evaluated in terms of relevance, which is also the responsibility of rhetoric, not logic.
However, it is clear that rhetoric cannot claim a monopoly on the consideration of argumentation. The distinction between logical and rhetorical in argumentation has a positive meaning for both sciences.
As a starting point for such a distinction, consider the point of view of V.F. Berkova: "All argumentation has two aspects - logical and communicative. In logical terms, argumentation acts as a procedure for finding and presenting for a certain position (thesis) expressing a certain point of view, support in other positions (grounds, arguments, arguments). In some cases, the thesis is based on the grounds in such a way that it is determined by the true content of the latter, as if filled with them. the basis "If p, then q, and if q, then r", then it is obvious that it is constructed from the elements included in this basis. It is this method of argumentation that is characteristic of science. Outside of science, the situation is usually different, and the thesis can be based on religious faith, the opinion of authority, the strength of tradition, the momentary mood of the crowd, etc. The ultimate goal of this process is the formation of this belief. Argumentation achieves this goal only if the recipient: a) perceived, b) understood and c) accepted the thesis of the argumentator. According to two aspects, the functions of argumentation are distinguished: cognitive and communicative.
The distinction between the logical aspect of argumentation, focused on the cognitive function, and the rhetorical aspect, focused on the communicative function, will help to correctly understand the essence and purpose of the argumentation, to understand its corresponding components.

The ratio of evidence and suggestion

The relationship between the cognitive and communicative aspects of speech can change significantly. Moreover, the case when only the logical aspect is relevant is called proof, and the case when only the communicative aspect is relevant is called suggestion.
Proof- the concept is predominantly logical. This is a set of logical methods of substantiating the truth of a judgment with the help of other true and related judgments. Thus, the task of proof is the destruction of any doubts about the correctness of the thesis put forward. When constructing a proof, the speaker uses rational (logical) arguments: scientific theories and hypotheses, facts, statistics. All these arguments must withstand the test of truth, be based on knowledge, consist of impersonal judgments.
Suggestion- the concept is predominantly psychological. This is the imposition of a ready-made opinion on the addressee by influencing the subconscious. Thus, the task of suggestion is to create in the addressee a feeling of voluntary perception of someone else's opinion, its relevance, attractiveness. When constructing a suggestion, the speaker uses emotional (rhetorical) arguments: psychological, figurative, references to authorities, etc. These arguments are based on assessments and norms, must seem plausible, rely on opinions and appeal to the individual.
etc.................

2 . - Well... Tell us what you know about the Vyatka province.

- Vyatka province, - said Chelnokov, - is distinguished by its size. This is one of the largest provinces of Russia ... In terms of its area, it occupies a place equal to ... Mexico and the state of Virginia ... Mexico is one of the richest and most fertile countries in America, inhabited by Mexicans who are clashes and battles with Guerillas. The latter sometimes enter into an agreement with the Indian tribes of the Shavnias and Hurons, and woe to that Mexican who ...

“Wait,” the teacher said, peering out from behind the magazine. - Where did you find the Indians in the Vyatka province?

- Not in the Vyatka province, but in Mexico.

- Where is Mexico?

- In America.

- And the Vyatka province?

- In Russia.

- So you tell me about the Vyatka province.

- Hmm! The soil of the Vyatka province has little chernozem, the climate there is harsh and therefore arable farming is difficult. Rye, wheat and oats are the main things that can grow in this soil. Here we will not meet any cacti, or aloes, or tenacious vines, which, spreading from tree to tree, form an impenetrable thicket in virgin forests, which the tomahawk of the brave pioneer of the Far West overcomes with difficulty, which boldly makes its way forward under the unceasing cries of monkeys, multi-colored parrots, announcing the air ...

I hear one of them. Unfortunately, he does not say anything about the Vyatka province. (A. Averchenko)

3 . Some people's deputies of the USSR, who are the chairmen of the Soviets and at the same time the first secretaries of the regional committees of the Communist Party, do not give the floor to the people's deputies of the RSFSR at their sessions, in particular, Comrade Ivan Sergeevich Boldyrev. I propose that the Congress vote to confirm the possibility of the People's Deputies of the USSR being in the meeting room of the Congress, and not on the balcony. I spoke at the session on this question and explained to Comrade Boldyrev that people's deputies of the USSR could be in the hall, but he believed that they could not be in the hall. Therefore, I ask the Congress to confirm the possibility of their being in the hall by a vote of the Congress. (A.V. Kulakovsky)

4 . Journalist: The ultimatum adopted by the UN concerned both Serbs and Croats. Why did the air strikes affect only the Serbs?

A person from the Foreign Ministry: The fact is that it was a bilateral ultimatum, which involved the withdrawal of troops from the demilitarized zone. Now all Serbian weapons depots are blocked and cannot be used. I hope that after this outbreak of violence, the parties will sit down at the negotiating table. (TV, "Vremya", 05/27/1995)

5 . He gave a speech like this:

- I really like it here. I have never lived in a forest; but I once had a tame possum, and on my last birthday I turned 9 years old. I can't stand going to school. The rats ate 16 eggs from Jimmy Talbot's aunt's pockmarked hen. Are there real Indians here in the forest? I want more gravy. Why does the wind blow? Because the trees sway? We had 5 puppies. Hank, why is your nose so red? My father's money seems to be invisible. Are the stars hot? On Saturday I beat Ed Walker twice. I don't like girls! You can't really catch a toad, except with a string. Bulls roar or not? Why are oranges round? Do you have beds in the cave? Amos Murray - six-fingered. A parrot can talk, but monkeys and fish can't. A dozen is how much? (O'Henry)

6 . Bourgeois propaganda proclaims: "We have complete freedom: if you want, vote for a communist; if you want, choose a defender of the capitalist system." So the "great American" Abraham Lincoln was the son of a carpenter - bourgeois ideologists will not fail to remind. The falsity of such an argument becomes obvious as soon as we turn to the real facts of the same American reality. It is said that Abraham Lincoln, running for the House of Representatives, spent 75 cents on the entire election campaign, exposing voters to a barrel of cider. Today it is remembered as a historical curiosity. Now, in order to get to the Capitol, and even more so to The White house, hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars are needed. In the age of aviation, television, total advertising, they go to saturate the jet engines of special liners, buy airtime, maintain a huge staff of assistants - From writers of speeches to specialists in diction and gestures ... (E.A. Nozhin)

Task number 16. Determine the purpose of the speeches. Find a thesis in each of them and draw up a plan-outline.

1 . A monument to Pushkin has been erected: the memory of the great national poet is immortalized, his merits are attested. Everyone is happy. We saw yesterday the delight of the public, they rejoice only when merits are given their due, when justice triumphs. It is hardly necessary to speak about the joy of writers. From the fullness of my overjoyed soul, I also allow myself to say a few words about our great poet, his significance and merits, as I understand them.

On this holiday, every writer is obliged to be a speaker, is obliged to loudly thank the poet for the treasures that he bequeathed to us. The treasures given to us by Pushkin are indeed great and invaluable. The first merit of a great poet is that through him everything that can become wiser becomes wiser. In addition to pleasure, in addition to forms for expressing thoughts and feelings, the poet also gives the very formulas of thoughts and feelings. The rich results of the most perfect mental laboratory are being made public property. The highest creative nature attracts and equalizes everyone. The poet leads the audience to a land of grace unfamiliar to her, to some kind of paradise, in the subtle and fragrant atmosphere of which the soul rises, thoughts improve, feelings are refined. Why is every new work from the great poet so eagerly awaited? Because everyone wants to think and feel loftily with him, everyone expects that he will tell me something beautiful, new, which I do not have, which I lack, but he will say, and this will immediately become mine. This is why love and worship of great poets, this is why great sorrow at their loss, emptiness, mental orphanhood is formed: there is no one to think, no one to feel.

But it is easy to recognize the feeling of pleasure and delight from an elegant work, and it is rather difficult to notice and trace one's mental enrichment from the same work. Everyone says that he likes this and that work, but a rare person realizes and admits that he has grown wiser from it. Pushkin was admired and wised up, admired and wised up. Our literature owes its mental growth to him. And this growth was so great, so rapid, that the historical sequence in the development of literature and public taste was, as it were, destroyed, and the connection with the past was severed. This leap was not so noticeable during the life of Pushkin, although his contemporaries considered him a great poet, they considered him their teacher, but their real teachers were people of the previous generation, with whom they were connected with a feeling of boundless respect and gratitude. No matter how much they loved Pushkin, but still, in comparison with older writers, he seemed to them still young and not quite solid, to recognize him alone as the culprit of the rapid forward movement of Russian literature meant for them to offend respectable, in many respects very respectable people. All this is understandable, and it could not be otherwise, but the next generation, brought up exclusively by Pushkin, when they consciously looked back, saw that his predecessors and many of his contemporaries were no longer even past, but long past for them. That's when it became noticeable that Russian literature in one person has grown for a whole century. Pushkin found Russian literature in the period of its youth, when it still lived on other people's models and worked out forms based on them, devoid of living, real content - and what then? His works are no longer historical odes, not the fruits of leisure, solitude, or melancholy, he ended up leaving us samples equal to those of mature literature, samples perfect in form and original, purely folk content. He gave seriousness, raised the tone and significance of literature, brought up the taste in the public, conquered it and prepared readers and connoisseurs for future writers.

Another beneficence bestowed on us by Pushkin, in my opinion, is even more important and even more significant. Before Pushkin, our literature was imitative - along with forms, it took from Europe various trends historically established there, which had no roots in our life, but could be accepted, as much transplanted was accepted and rooted. The relationship of the writers to reality was not direct, sincere, the writers had to choose some conventional angle of view. Each of them, instead of being himself, had to tune in to some way. Outside these conditional directions, poetry was not recognized, originality would be considered ignorance or freethinking. The release of thought from the yoke of conventional methods is not an easy task, it requires enormous strength. A solid foundation for the liberation of our thought was laid by Pushkin, he was the first to treat the themes of his works directly, directly, he wanted to be original and was, was himself. A great writer leaves behind a school, leaves followers. And Pushkin left school and followers. What is this school that he gave to his followers? He bequeathed to them sincerity, originality, he bequeathed to everyone to be himself, he gave courage to any originality, he gave courage to the Russian writer to be Russian. After all, it's just easy to say! After all, this means that he, Pushkin, revealed the Russian soul. Of course, for his followers, his path is difficult: not all originality is so interesting as to be shown and occupied by it. But on the other hand, if our literature loses in quantity, it wins in quality. Few of our works go to the evaluation of Europe, but even in this little the originality of Russian observation, the original way of thinking has already been noticed and appreciated. Now it only remains for us to wish that Russia would produce more talents, to wish the Russian mind more development and space, and the path along which talents should follow was indicated by our great poet. (A.N. Ostrovsky, 06/07/1880)

2 . Courage is the glory of the city, beauty is the body, rationality is the spirit, truthfulness is the cited speech; anything to the contrary is just blasphemy. We owe a man and a woman, a word and a deed, a city and an act, if they are commendable - to honor with praise, if they are not praiseworthy - to defeat with mockery. On the other hand, it is equally foolish and untrue to condemn what is praiseworthy, and to praise what is worthy of ridicule. Here I have to reveal the truth at the same time, and denigrate those who discredit - discredit that Helen, about whom, unanimously and unanimously, both the true word of the poets, and the glory of her name, and the memory of troubles have been preserved to us. I set out, in my speech, citing reasonable arguments, to remove the accusation from the one who had to hear rather bad things, to show her detractors as lying, to reveal the truth and put an end to ignorance.

But having passed the old times in my present speech, I will pass to the beginning of the commendation I have undertaken and for this I will state the reasons for which it was just and proper for Helen to go to Troy.

Was it by chance, by the command of the gods, by necessity, by legalization, did she do what she did? Was she abducted by force, or coaxed by speech, or embraced by love?

If we accept the first, then the accused cannot be guilty: God's providence is not a hindrance to human thoughts - by nature, not a weak obstacle to the strong, but strong power and a leader to the weak: the strong lead, and the weak follow. God is stronger than man and in power and wisdom, like everything else: if we must attribute guilt to God or chance, then Helen must be recognized as free from dishonor.

If she is kidnapped by force, illegally overpowered, unjustly offended, then it is clear that the kidnapper and the offender are guilty, and the kidnapped and offended is innocent of her misfortune. What barbarian acted so barbarously, let him be punished for it in word, right and deed: his word is accusation, right is dishonor, deed is revenge. And Elena, having been subjected to violence, having lost her homeland, having remained an orphan, doesn’t she deserve more pity than reproach? He did, she endured the unworthy; really, she is worthy of pity, and he of hatred.

If it was her speech that convinced her and captured her soul by deceit, then here it is not difficult to defend her and exonerate her from this guilt. For the word is the greatest lord: it looks small and imperceptible, but it does wonderful deeds - it can stop fear and turn away sadness, cause joy, increase pity. What prevents us from saying about Elena that she left, convinced by her speech, she left like the one that does not want to go, as if she were illegal if she submitted to force and was kidnapped by force. She allowed herself to be possessed by conviction; and the conviction that has taken possession of it, although it does not have the appearance of violence, coercion, but has the same force. After all, the speech that convinced the soul, having convinced it, makes it obey what was said, sympathize with what was done. The one who convinces is just as guilty as the one who forced; She, convinced, as if forced, in vain hears reproach in her speeches.

Now, in the fourth speech of the fourth, I will deal with her accusation. If love has done this, then it is not difficult for her to escape the charge of the crime she is said to have committed. If Eros, being the god of the gods, possesses divine power, how can the weakest from him and fight back and defend himself! And if love is only suffering for human diseases, an eclipse of spiritual feelings, then it should not be condemned as a crime, but as a misfortune, a phenomenon should be considered. She comes as soon as she arrives, fate catching - not thoughts by command, compelled to yield to the oppression of love - not born by conscious force of will.

How can it be considered fair if Elena is reviled? Whether she did what she did, defeated by the power of love, whether convinced by a lie of speeches or carried away by obvious violence, or forced by the coercion of the gods - in all these cases there is no fault on her. (Gorgias)

Task number 17. Here are 6 options for outline plans on the same topic (about etiquette). However, the specific topics of speeches are different. Formulate the topic, task and thesis of each speech. Determine in which audience they could be delivered. Edit each outline to fit the task and characteristics of the audience, as well as the thesis of the speech.

Option 1.

I. The ability to master the rules of etiquette has always been valued and appreciated.

II. The rules of etiquette should become the second multiplication table for the Russian people.

1) The rules of etiquette must be taught from school.

2) It is necessary to start training from an early age, because it is easier to teach than to retrain.

3) Teaching etiquette should take place in the family from an early age.

4) Even in a friendly company, at least a basic knowledge of the rules of etiquette is necessary.

III. The rules of etiquette need to be revived in our time with a low culture.

Option 2.

I. If you want to be respected, respect others.

II. Out of respect for etiquette.

1) Forgotten rules of etiquette lead to low culture.

2) Education of etiquette is the future that will help a person become cleaner, brighter.

3) What are the rules of etiquette.

III. The rules of etiquette not only cannot be abandoned, but they must be revived.

Option 3.

I. The low level of etiquette in our society as a purposeful action.

II. The complete absence of etiquette will contribute to a decrease in the cultural level, the destruction of traditions that have developed over the centuries.

III. Etiquette needs to be revived, not abandoned.

IV. Etiquette and human behavior in society.

Option 4.

I. Introduction. The ability to master the rules of etiquette is an indicator of a person's culture.

II. main part

1) Soviet Union became a victim of the assertion that we do not need etiquette.

2) Having opened a window to the world, we cannot remain uncivilized representatives of our country.

3) The rules of etiquette open the veil to the world of wonderful communication and mutual understanding.

III. Conclusion. At all times, in any society, there were rules of etiquette. They contributed to a high level of relationships between people.

Option 5.

I. Etiquette as a necessary source of communication between people.

II. Violation of etiquette can lead to irreparable consequences(severance of diplomatic relations, war, etc.)

1) Today there is no etiquette as such:

a) the behavior of deputies at Congresses and in the Duma.

b) the behavior of people in transport.

2) Instilling the rules of etiquette in children from an early age.

III. Etiquette is one of the foundations of culture.

Option 6.

I. It is necessary to revive the rules of etiquette in everyday communication.

II. The development of etiquette contributes to the improvement of morality and culture of people.

1) There are few people in our society who follow the rules of etiquette for certain reasons.

2) Etiquette is a framework that defines the various qualities of a person.

3) A norm that smooths out the friction and contradictions that arise between people.

4) A measure that restrains negative emotions and affirms the correct relationship between people.

5) This is a tradition gradually developed by mankind, the history of relationships.

6) In everything, a measure is needed, beyond which etiquette makes communication difficult.

III. As flowers decorate our lives, so etiquette brings joy to gray everyday life.

ARGUMENTATION

Traditionally, reasoning is described in writings on logic. Between the understanding of argumentation in logic and rhetoric, of course, there is much in common, but there are also very significant differences that need to be paid special attention, since this will save us from an incorrect assessment of this phenomenon. Comparison is also important because the logical understanding of argumentation is widely known, replicated in many textbooks and scientific articles, while rhetorical understanding is still little known, which creates the danger of replacing rhetorical argumentation with evidence in the practice of mastering rhetoric. In order to avoid this undesirable phenomenon, it is first necessary to determine, as precisely as possible, what meaning logic and rhetoric attach to the concept of "argumentation".

The specifics of rhetorical argumentation

§24. Argumentation in logic and rhetoric

§ 24. A purely logical view of the problem of argumentation is represented, for example, by the following opinion: “If the process of argumentation in its abstract purity is a unity of logical and non-logical components aimed at a single goal - the formation of certain beliefs in someone, then it is usually resorted to in cases where the narrow-logical components for the addressee turn out to be insufficiently convincing for some reason and, as a result, the proof does not reach the goal. The extra-logical components here take on the function of strengthening the process of proof and ensuring the desired effect. But when logically If the components themselves become sufficient, then the need for any extra-logical elements disappears. The process of argumentation thus passes into the process of proof. In this regard, the proof can be conditionally represented, if we use the mathematical term, as a "degenerate case" of argumentation, namely, as such an argument, the extra-logical components of which tend to zero. This implies the legitimacy of the position: if there is a proof, which as such is perceived, then an argumentation that has in its composition, in addition to purely discursive-logical, also other components, not needed."

This position is also characteristic of other works by logical specialists who consider argumentation to be a purely logical subject, necessary only when the audience does not immediately perceive the evidence presented and additional arguments are required, which should still remain within strictly rational framework. "Philosophical-ideological, axiological, psychological and other components" are allowed in the argument as secondary and only to the extent that "each of them satisfies the requirements of formal logic, its typical, standard schemes." And even the choice of this or that logical argument is determined not by the specifics of the intended audience, but by "near-scientific mythology", "fashion" and "requirements of an ideological nature."

The opposite position is taken by representatives of neo-rhetoric, in whose works argumentation is decisively declared the prerogative of rhetoric, and who consider argumentation one of the possibilities of speech influence on human consciousness. So, V.Z. Demyankov points out that, unlike proof, argumentation serves to win listeners over to one's side, and for this it is not necessary to resort to rational arguments. It is often enough to simply make it clear "that the position in favor of which the proponent speaks lies in the interests of the addressee; protecting these interests, one can still influence emotions, play on a sense of duty, on moral principles. Argumentation is one of the possible tactics for implementing the idea." This opinion goes back to a non-rhetorical assessment of the essence of argumentation by H. Perelman, who argued that "the area of argumentation is such assessments of arguments as plausibility, possibility and probability, taken in a meaning that cannot be formalized in the form of calculations. Any argumentation aims at bringing consciousnesses closer together, and thus presupposes the existence of intellectual contact." Thus, here we see a purely rhetorical view of the essence of argumentation, which is understood as "the possibility of speech impact on human consciousness", "part of the theory of achieving social understanding" and is opposed to logical impact. An important element of this position is the requirement to take into account the characteristics of the audience as an indispensable condition for the effectiveness of argumentation, which is actually a rhetorical factor that is not used in logic. Argumentation is evaluated in terms of relevance, which is also the responsibility of rhetoric, not logic.

However, it is clear that rhetoric cannot claim a monopoly on the consideration of argumentation. The distinction between logical and rhetorical in argumentation has a positive meaning for both sciences.

As a starting point for such a distinction, consider the point of view of V.F. Berkova: "All argumentation has two aspects - logical and communicative. In logical terms, argumentation acts as a procedure for finding and presenting for a certain position (thesis) expressing a certain point of view, support in other positions (grounds, arguments, arguments). In some cases, the thesis is based on the grounds in such a way that it is determined by the true content of the latter, as if filled with them. the basis "If p, then q, and if q, then r", then it is obvious that it is constructed from the elements included in this basis. It is this method of argumentation that is characteristic of science. Outside of science, the situation is usually different, and the thesis can be based on religious faith, the opinion of authority, the strength of tradition, the momentary mood of the crowd, etc. The ultimate goal of this process is the formation of this belief. Argumentation achieves this goal only if the recipient: a) perceived, b) understood and c) accepted the thesis of the argumentator. According to two aspects, the functions of argumentation are distinguished: cognitive and communicative.

The distinction between the logical aspect of argumentation, focused on the cognitive function, and the rhetorical aspect, focused on the communicative function, will help to correctly understand the essence and purpose of the argumentation, to understand its corresponding components.

§25. The ratio of evidence and suggestion

§ 25. The relationship between the cognitive and communicative aspects of speech can change significantly. Moreover, the case when only the logical aspect is relevant is called proof, and the case when only the communicative aspect is relevant is called suggestion.

Proof is a predominantly logical concept. This is a set of logical methods of substantiating the truth of a judgment with the help of other true and related judgments. Thus, the task of proof is the destruction of any doubts about the correctness of the thesis put forward. When constructing a proof, the speaker uses rational (logical) arguments: scientific theories and hypotheses, facts, statistics. All these arguments must withstand the test of truth, be based on knowledge, consist of impersonal judgments.

Suggestion is a predominantly psychological concept. This is the imposition of a ready-made opinion on the addressee by influencing the subconscious. Thus, the task of suggestion is to create in the addressee a feeling of voluntary perception of someone else's opinion, its relevance, attractiveness. When constructing a suggestion, the speaker uses emotional (rhetorical) arguments: psychological, figurative, references to authorities, etc. These arguments are based on assessments and norms, must seem plausible, rely on opinions and appeal to the individual.

From this follow all the other differences that are at different poles of the influencing communication of evidence and suggestion. The proof is addressed to the thesis and aims to substantiate its truth. If the speaker has succeeded in showing by logical methods that smoking is unhealthy or that the firm's offerings are the best, he considers his task of proof accomplished. In this case, he is not interested in the life of proven truth. Whether the listener accepted it and how it influenced his actions does not matter. "This approach to argumentation ... is based on two assumptions. Firstly, the participants in the discussion exclude motives of personal interest from it. Secondly, the unity of the psychological decision-making mechanism is assumed: intuition and deduction, according to Descartes, as a clear and distinct perception of the subject and the use of uniform rules and symbols, is based on the idea of the same rationality of all people, differing only in the strength of the mind. "

The suggestion is addressed to the audience and aims, by influencing the sensual and emotional spheres of a person, to force them to accept the proposed ideas and be guided by them in practical matters. Who among smokers does not know about the dangers of smoking? But they continue to smoke, despite all the (well known to them) perniciousness of their passion. The speaker, resorting to suggestion, arouses in this situation a feeling of self-preservation, fear or disgust, etc., and thereby achieves the abandonment of a bad habit; or, appealing to personal interests, induces the audience to sign a contract with his own firm. If the effectiveness of logical proof depends on the truth of the arguments themselves, then the effectiveness of suggestion may depend to a decisive extent not on the content of speech, but on such extraneous points as a) the tone used by the speaker (confident - uncertain, respectful - cheeky, etc.); b) information about the speaker, known to the audience before his speech (specialist - non-specialist, director - subordinate, etc.); c) the degree of resistance of the audience to the arguments given (I have a prejudice against your company - I heard only good things about it, etc.).

The distinction between proof and suggestion is based on the existence of two types of reasoning, identified by Aristotle: analytical and dialectical. Detailed description analytical judgments are found in the First and Second Analysts, where the foundation of formal logic is laid. Dialectical inferences are considered by Aristotle in the Topic and Rhetoric, where he describes their essence and predominant scope: “There is a proof when an inference is built from true and first [propositions] or from those, knowledge of which originates from certain first and true [provisions]. Dialectical reasoning is built from plausible [provisions]. True and first [provisions] are those that are reliable not through others [positions], but through themselves. For the principles of knowledge do not need to be asked "why", and each of these principles must be reliable in itself. Plausible is what seems right to all or most people, or wise - to all or most of them or the most famous and glorious. "

Thus, according to Aristotle, proof is based on truth, suggestion is based on opinion, on what seems plausible to the audience. Further, Aristotle writes about the essence of plausibility: “No reasonable person will put forward in the form of provisions that no one seems right, and will not put forward as a problem what is obvious to all or most people. After all, the latter would not cause any bewilderment, and no one would assert the former. For what the wise believe can be considered plausible, if it is not contrary to the opinion of the majority of people. Dialectical positions are also similar to plausible, and offered as contradictory to those that are opposite to those considered plausible, as well as opinions consistent with the acquired arts. Thus, true statements are those that correspond to objective reality, and plausible statements are those that are perceived as true, that is, that the audience believes. These concepts may or may not coincide. Thus, the argument "because the Earth revolves around the Sun" is true and seems quite plausible to a modern listener, but in antiquity (to the same Aristotle) it seemed absolutely implausible, although it was just as true as it is now. The speaker's claim that he saw aliens, theoretically reasoning, may well turn out to be true, but is perceived by many audiences as implausible. On the other hand, the statement that Jesus, the son of God, lived on earth may well not correspond to the truth (this is exactly what representatives of other faiths think), but a huge number of people believe this (and therefore consider it plausible).

ARGUMENTATION OF JUDICIAL SPEECH

Introduction 3

1. The concept of argumentation 5

2. Rhetorical look at the specifics of argumentation 6

3. Ethical reasoning 7

4. Strategies 9

5. The principle of constructing a system of rhetorical argumentation on

example of defensive speech 11

Conclusion 14

References 15

Introduction

Argumentation has many aspects that serve as the subject of research - in various sciences - linguistics, rhetoric, philosophy, logic, psychology, in a number of social sciences, etc. None of the sciences can fully cover the phenomenon of argumentation precisely because for this it needs to go beyond its subject.

Argumentation studies are carried out within the framework of argumentation theory, linguistic pragmatics, discourse theory, cognitive semantics, etc. (G.Z. Apresyan, N.D. Arutyunova, A.N. Baranov, B.F. Gak, G.P. Grice, T.A. van Dijk, V.I. Karasik, Yu.N. Karaulov, E.S. Kubryakova, I.A. Sternin, etc.). But despite a large number of studies, the rhetorical aspects of this problem are given unreasonably little attention.

The choice of the rhetorical direction of the study of argumentation is due to the complex nature of rhetoric. According to I. Kraus, "rhetoric shows an amazing ability to fill the gap created by the ever-deepening specialization of the sciences." Rhetoric has become an integral area, covering the problems of creating speech; and ways of exerting influence, it "describes the process that goes from the communicative task to the actual message, then to the integration of the form and content of the text" .

Strategy is recognized as the basic unit of argumentation. For each genre, a general strategy can be defined, arising from the specifics of the genre itself, and private strategies, the choice of which depends on the desire of the speaker. According to the main intention, all strategies can be defined as ethical, rational or emotional.

The relevance of the study is due to the important social role argumentation of a judicial defensive speech and is determined by the following aspects: the rhetorical characteristics of the argumentation of a judicial speech, the study of which is very relevant for identifying the essential features of rhetorical argumentation in general, have not yet been the subject of scientific research; the basic rhetorical characteristic of the argumentation of a judicial speech is the presence of a hierarchy of values, the study of which makes a certain contribution to the solution of some problems of the linguistic theory of values-linguoaxiology, the most important component of the rhetorical argumentation of judicial speech is rational; (logical) component, the study of which is important for the theory of logical argumentation, a significant part of rhetorical argumentation, judicial speech is an emotional component, the study of which as a full-fledged component of argumentation makes a significant contribution to the theory of speech impact.

The concept of argumentation

IN Lately In Russian and foreign science, there is an increasingly persistent interest in argumentation, which is understood as an interdisciplinary field of the humanities. This interest is due to the fact that argumentation is present as an integral component not only in any act of communication, but also in the most various fields human knowledge. Increased attention to the problems of argumentation leads to the unification of the efforts of scientists from different directions to overcome the one-sidedness of the study of this complex phenomenon. Gradually comes the understanding that argumentation is primarily a process of communication, both verbal and non-verbal, based on the rational, emotional and even existential foundations of the human personality. Today, in the theory of argumentation, psychological and linguistic mechanisms are studied, which are by no means limited to the sphere of the rational, the field of thinking.

However, the difficulty lies in the fact that, despite the generally recognized interdisciplinarity of the emerging theory of argumentation, it is influenced either by logic (according to tradition) or pragmalinguistics. In the first case, there is a clear tendency to transfer the methods and forms characteristic of the exact sciences to the humanities. In the second case, special attention is paid to the form, grammatical ways of expressing certain intentions. Moreover, if the first direction is still trying to somehow interact with rhetoric, then the second usually strongly dissociates itself from it: .

At the same time, rhetoric was conceived by Aristotle precisely as a science responsible for finding arguments suitable for specific situations of communication. It is no coincidence that the founder of the theory of argumentation called his science "neorhetoric", since he understood that argumentation is the heart of rhetoric.

In this regard, there is now an urgent need to eliminate this flagrant injustice and show the role of rhetoric in the formation of the theory of argumentation.

A rhetorical look at the specifics of argumentation

The rhetorical view on the specifics of argumentation is due to its purely teleological nature: the ultimate goal of the theory here is always supposed to provide practical assistance to the speaker, the development of such a concept that would lead in practice to optimize the impact on the audience. The key concept of rhetoric is "impact", which is considered as the goal and result of speech action and manifests itself in the form of a new psychological state of the addressee - new knowledge, mood, agreement with the proposed point of view, desire to act in a certain way.

In this regard, since the time of Aristotle, it has been assumed that, in addition to the purely rational elements studied by logic, influencing speech must necessarily contain ethical and psychological components, consisting of the values of the author and appeal to the feelings of the audience. These components were commonly described in rhetoric as ethos, logos, and pathos.

Ethos is the moral (ethical) basis of speech (mores). Traditionally, this is mainly considered the appearance of the speaker, that oratorical mask that the speaker considers it necessary to present to the audience in order to achieve mutual understanding. However, it seems that ethos should be understood more broadly, as all ethical aspects of speech. The importance of the ethical component of the argumentation is determined by the fact that the survival of a person as a genus and species is conditioned by reflexive acts of reflecting oneself in the world, and this reflection is initially ethical: “And God saw that it was good ...”, - says the first chapter of the Bible (Gen. 1.10-15) - the primary source of Christian ethics.

From a cognitive point of view, the role of ethical argumentation is that with its help it is possible to form certain models. social behavior, since it is a kind of mechanism for the interaction of thinking and speech (language). Argumentation is not just a way of reasoning expressed in speech, but also a “tool” that allows a person to carry out effective behavior in social environment. It acts as a mediator in the development of social representations and models of conditioned social behavior.

Logos is an idea, the content (logical) side of speech (arguments). Logos is responsible for the audience's rational understanding of the essence and circumstances of the thesis. “In private rhetoric, methods of argumentation are studied that are characteristic of specific types of literature, for example, theological, legal, natural science, and historical argumentation. In general rhetoric, the method of constructing an argument in any kind of word is studied.

Paphos is a means of influencing the audience (the psychological side of speech, passion). To achieve the consent of the listeners, it is necessary not only to understand, but also to sympathize with the ideas of the speaker. Emotional arguments allow you to influence the feelings and desires of the listeners. Figurative thinking is older than logical, reasoning. Because of this, images penetrate deeply into consciousness, and logical forms remain on its surface, performing the function of scaffolding around the building of thought.

Ethical reasoning

Ethical reasoning stands apart from the other two branches. Many authors do not distinguish this category of arguments at all; sometimes such arguments are combined with emotional ones, at other times they are combined with rational ones. The main disputes in all areas of argumentation theory are over the division of rational (logos) and emotional (pathos) branches of argumentation.

The universality of the old rhetorical principle of the need to appeal to reason, feeling and will for the best impact on the audience is also confirmed in modern science. So, V.I. Karasik notes that the unit of knowledge relevant to the linguistic personality - the concept - has three main components: conceptual, figurative and value.

Further, within these traditional areas, the main units of argumentation should be defined. The most optimal such unit, which is most appropriate for the tasks of the rhetorical description of the argumentation, is the strategy, which is the planning of the speaker's activity, which consists in choosing certain steps of the argumentation based on optimality criteria. This is organically related to the general understanding of discourse, which is not the sum of arguments, but has a penetrating strategic essence. Moreover, drawing up a strategy cannot be identified with the creation of a speech plan (still so beloved by many authors of textbooks on rhetoric). Strategy is the principle of all activities of the speaker, constantly adjusting his plans in accordance with changing situations, since he constantly has to “choose from a certain number of alternative options such a move that seems to him the“ best answer ”to the actions of others.

The points of contact between the theory of speech genres and the theory of speech strategies are pointed out by O.S. Issers, which lists the parameters that bring together the concepts of "strategy" and "speech genre": the communicative goal as a constitutive feature, the image of the author, the concept of the addressee, predicting the possible reactions of the interlocutor, etc.

For the theory of rhetorical genres, the concept of strategy is even more necessary. So, if "the goals of speech acts and - in most cases - speech genres are limited to a specific communicative situation, episode", then for rhetorical genres, as well as for strategies, the goals "are long-term, calculated on the final result" [ibid., p. 73]

Strategies

Strategies used for rhetorical purposes can be defined as rational (having predominantly logical elements of influence), value (having predominantly ethical elements of influence) and emotional (having predominantly psychological elements of influence).

The strategies that form the basis of speech influence in a particular rhetorical genre are formed into a system. The first level of this system is formed by the general strategy corresponding to the general task of the genre. At the second level, private strategies appear that help to concretize the speaker's intention. Their set already largely depends on the desire of the speaker and the situation (and not just on the genre), however, here, for typical situations, there is also a typical set of possibilities. Each particular strategy has its own microtask, the solution of which makes a certain contribution to the solution of the general task of speech.

Strategies are complex units and are built from smaller units - tactics. "From the point of view of speech impact

strategy can only be considered through the analysis of tactics, since strategy is the art of planning based on correct and far-reaching forecasts. Tactics is the use of techniques, ways to achieve a goal, a line of conduct for someone. In this context, strategy is a complex phenomenon, and tactics is an aspect one. Thus, it is necessary to analyze aspectual phenomena in order to form a holistic view of the strategy.

Tactics is determined by "a system of operational methods, techniques and means used in the process of discussing the problem and aimed at the effective implementation of the set strategic goals by each of the participants in the dispute" . Tactics is the art of solving particular technical issues necessary for the implementation of a strategy. However, strategy is more complex than just the sum of tactics. Rather, it “does not “compose” of them, but determines their general direction. And vice versa: being to some extent parts of the strategy and unfolding linearly (in time and space), tactics do not precede the strategy, do not constitute it, but implement it.

In this regard, the question arises: does the speaker always consciously choose this or that strategy (tactics)? Doesn't a situation arise here when strategies can be found in influencing speech, but it is difficult to assume that the speaker was going to use them (as in speech one can always find and classify certain syntactic constructions, but it is unlikely that the speaker thinks about which constructions he uses)?

On this matter, researchers colloquial speech note the admissibility of the unconscious nature of the use of strategies: “The possible actualization of free schemes is due to the free use of structures without preliminary consideration of efficiency in the process of their selection and further application. In spontaneous speaking, the form cannot be preliminarily clearly defined by the speaker. Spontaneous construction (modeling) of form seems to us a natural process. At the same time, in institutional discourse, the use of certain strategies is conscious, arising from the specifics of the situation and genre. Of course, the speaker cannot reflect on the topic every time: what strategy to choose? However, automatism in the choice of strategies is achieved through hard training, awareness of which particular strategies are characteristic (mandatory) for a particular genre, that is, the genre strategic field is conventionally limited and defined.

An argument (lat. argumentum from the verb arguo - I show, I find out, I prove - an argument, proof, conclusion) we will call a fragment of a statement containing a justification for a thought, the acceptability of which seems doubtful.

To substantiate means to reduce a doubtful or controversial idea to an acceptable one for the audience. Acceptable can be a thought that the audience finds true or plausible, correct from the point of view of one or another norm, preferable from the point of view of their (and not the rhetor - the sender of the speech) values, goals or interests.

Argument structure

A rhetorical argument consists of: (1) position and (2) justification. Consider an example:

(1) "But is it really possible to find the truth? - One must think that it is possible if the mind cannot live without it, but it seems to live, and, of course, does not want to admit that it is deprived of life" .

Justification - a set of arguments, formulations of thoughts, through which the rhetor seeks to make the situation acceptable to the audience: ... if the mind cannot live without truth, but it seems to live, and, of course, does not want to recognize itself as deprived of life.

The position of the argument is the formulation of a thought that is put forward by a rhetorician, but presented to a dubious audience: But can one really find the truth? - You must think that you can

From the point of view of structure and content, the rhetorical argument includes three components: scheme, top, reduction.

The schema is the logical form of that particular argument. The construction of the scheme is subject to the rules of logic, and the scheme is a kind of logical backbone of the argument, which allows not only to judge the structure of a complex thought, but also to determine its correctness.

Common place or top - a position that is recognized as true or correct and on the basis of which a particular justification seems convincing. The top is contained or implied in the premises of the argument. The first top of the above argument: the mind lives by the truth. This position is not proved and does not follow from anywhere, but it seems obvious to the audience to which St. Philaret is addressing.

Argumentation can be dogmatic and dialectical. Dogmatic reasoning proceeds from provisions that are accepted as postulates and are considered self-evident and universal; these are the basic principles of scientific theory. Dialectical argumentation comes from premises that are convincing to the audience and are drawn from a variety of sources. Dialectical argumentation is fundamentally designed for a private audience.

Rhetorical argumentation is basically dialectical. This means, firstly, that the position of a rhetorical argument is a thought (thesis), which can be opposed by another thought (counterthesis). The counterthesis, however, does not always logically exclude the thesis.

Thesis: A committed a heroic deed; counterthesis: A violated military discipline. The premises substantiating the counterthesis are also not always a negation of the premises confirming the thesis, and may be quite compatible with them. If the audience is inclined to regard every owner as a dishonest person, it will be convincing, for example, such an argument: A set fire to the insured property because he wanted to receive an insurance premium. Here the premises will be implied: every owner is ready for a crime for the sake of profit; A is the owner; the fire destroyed the property A, insured for a large amount; therefore, etc.

But the opposite position can be justified not by the opposite in meaning (not every owner is ready for a crime for the sake of profit), but by a different, no less convincing premise, for example: A did not commit arson, because at that time he was in another place.

Secondly, the rhetor first puts forward a position or thesis, and then looks for premises that confirm it. The most difficult and, apparently, interesting questions not only of rhetoric, but also of philosophy: where do we get premises to substantiate the positions that we put forward? what parcels and why do we prefer? how and in what words do we formulate them?

Argument reduction is the operation of reducing a position to one or more certain judgments (premises) connected in a certain way. At the logical-conceptual level, reduction is included in the schema of the argument. At the verbal level, which is the most significant, reduction is a set of linguistic means that ensure that the audience understands and interprets the argument in accordance with the rhetor's intention. The composition of the reduction includes a verbal series and an introduction to the argument (convention).

Through the verbal series, the sender of the statement creates a chain of words or phrases that connect the terms of the position with the terms of the premises, creates a verbal image of the subject of thought and a modality in which the statement is evaluated, which achieves the lexical-syntactic unity of the argument.

The words in example (1) are selected and interconnected in such a way as to create a single semantic image of the subject and give the thought a special persuasiveness.

Firstly, the meanings of some words (life, lives, mind) in the context of a phrase are not logical, but lexical - they are included in the meanings of others (true) reduction - the operation of bringing the meanings of the words contained in the position to the meanings of the words contained in the premises.

Secondly, in example (1), the syntactic structure and articulation of the phrase itself is formed by combining several figures of speech. The position contains the figure of dialogism (question-answer), connected with the figure of the environment (it is possible ... it is possible), the repetition of a word or form in various meanings, which introduces the figure of plot (distinction) meanings: "can" in the meaning of "possible" and "can" in the meaning of "in a state" - (meaning: if knowledge is possible, then we are able to know), and after it the figure of gradation, that is, an increase in the intensity of the meaning (lives and does not want to recognize itself as deprived of life).

Thirdly, all these figures create an image of dialogic relations: the question is asked, as it were, on behalf of the audience, and the answer is given in an emphatically impersonal form, as if from the norm of thinking (must think); further, the modal introductory words seem to and of course clearly belong to the speaker, which refers to the listener's assessment and agreement. In such a structure of the phrase, images of "society", "audience" and "speaker" appear, which, in accordance, reveal the truth of the reasoning, which creates the convincing pathos of the phrase.

Fourth, in order to understand the content and meaning of a particular argument, the semantics of the keywords of the lexical chain from the position (inference) to the larger premise is extremely important. Indeed, what does "truth" mean in the context of this speech of St. Philaret? "Truth" and "life" here address the recipient not only to the usual meaning of this word, but also to the gospel context: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; and we beheld His glory, as of the Only Begotten from the Father" [Jn. 1.14]. The word "truth" means not only the correspondence of the statement to reality: the expression "to find the truth" means, first of all, "to find the Truth as such", that is, God, and secondly - "to find any scientific, philosophical, legal, etc. truth, since it is a particular expression of absolute truth." This philosophical and theological ambiguity of the word in the context refers to a certain instance, the natural mind of a person, which in turn is approved by the context of Holy Scripture [Rom 1. 20-24]. Thus, the substantiating premise in example (1) is addressed to the natural mind of a person and to the Holy Scriptures as an instance confirming its acceptability, and not only to the fact of the logical paradox of a liar, which follows from the proposition "Truth cannot be found."

The introduction to the argument, or its conventional component as part of the reduction, is a metalinguistic construction that is needed to evaluate the argument itself or to formulate the conditions for its acceptability. An introduction to the argument is provided in examples (3), (4), (5), where the conditions for the admissibility of justification are established and justified, in particular, the evidentiary significance of premises. So, in example (3), the lawyer argues that the controversy refers to the status of establishing and it is about the presence or absence of the fact of setting fire to the pantry, and not about the qualification of the act of the accused, and this provision is specially substantiated and subsequently repeated. The examples also contain repeated evaluations of the arguments presented ("Hence one possible conclusion<…>. This conclusion is clear as God's day"). In example (5), the introductory part of the argument is expressed even more clearly and appears as a sequence of questions and answers: The unknown is prompted to accept the convention after the Confessor explains the logical technique of substantiation (reduction to absurdity).

So, the arguments of the argument are connected with the position and among themselves through the scheme - the construction of the inference, the conclusion of which (the judgment contained in the position) follows from the premises - the judgments underlying the arguments; verbal series - words, lexico-semantic and syntactic links that define the meaning of the statement; the top that is contained in the base of the argument. The verbal series of an argument is always individual, its structure is determined by the style and target setting of the utterance. The scheme of the argument is individual, but is built according to the rules of logic. The top of an argument, by definition, is a generally accepted proposition. Therefore, it is obviously possible to construct a typology of verbal series of arguments.

The classification of rhetorical arguments gives a picture of the so-called "argumentation field": it allows you to present and evaluate the possible ways of substantiating a thought and to establish which speech-thinking techniques and in what proportion are used in a particular verbal culture. Rhetorical argumentation can be built in various ways and on various grounds. But considering the types of rhetorical arguments, that is, presenting a picture of public argumentation, it should be borne in mind that the position that is put forward by the rhetorician is not necessarily considered as true or false. Moreover, the very truth of the put forward position, even if it can in principle be true or false, is often relegated to the background if a decision is made or an assessment of the subject of speech is given. Therefore, the statements of one class of arguments, for example, arguments to authority, can be considered as true or false, as constructive or non-constructive, as ethically or practically acceptable or unacceptable: an authoritative source may say that the Earth revolves around the Sun, that this should be done in such and such a way, but all this will equally be an argument to authority.

In real rhetorical argumentation, the construction of a verbal series is of decisive importance: the audience of oratory, homiletics, journalism, mass media and even philosophical prose is by no means always able to restore and even more so analyze the scheme of the argument, to identify the source of its premises - words are convincing. Therefore, rhetoric was and remains a philological, and not a psychological or philosophical discipline. But it also follows from this that modern development rhetorical prose urgently requires philological rhetorical criticism, the task of which is to explain the actual structure of public argumentation.

Dialectical Problems and Argumentation Statuses

The rhetorical-dialectical tradition classifies arguments on a substantive basis. Aristotle points out that "there are three types of propositions and problems, namely: some propositions concerning morality, others - nature, and others - built on reasoning. Concerning morality - such as, for example, whether parents or laws should be obeyed more if they do not agree with each other. Built on reasoning - such as, for example, whether the same science studies opposites or not, and concerning nature - such as, for example, whether the world is eternal or not ". This classification of Aristotle systematizes arguments according to the content of dialectical problems. Aristotle connects tops as trains of thought with schemes of arguments, but this connection is one-sided, since the top in its logical part, as a relation of categories, is connected with the scheme, and in its content part - with the verbal series of the argument.

Quintilian's Institutio oratoria develops the ideas of Aristotle and later Greek authors in a coherent theory of argumentation statuses. By speech (oratio) Quintilian understands oral or written statement, which "consists of what is denoted and of what denotes, that is, of things and words" . The word "thing" (res) in Latin has many meanings. With regard to rhetorical terminology, this word can be conveyed as a matter under consideration or an object of thought with its content and circumstances. The most important relation of thought to the word is certainty and accuracy. Any speech denoting a certain "thing" appears as an answer to a question and is given by the content and structure of the question, which, therefore, underlies it.

In relation to the criterion of correctness, questions are divided into "written" and "unwritten" (esse questiones aut in scripto, aut in non scripto), written questions are rational, or questions about things-questions are legal, and unwritten (in rebus) and about words (in verbis). The correctness of answers to legal questions is determined by the relation of the act to the norm. The correctness of answers to rational questions is determined by the relation of facts to words: the truth or falsity of statements.

According to the purpose and nature of the answer, the questions are divided into speculative (is the world guided by Providence?) And practical (should one take part in political life?). Speculative questions suggest three kinds of answers: does a thing exist (an sit?), what is it (quid sit?), what is it (quale sit?). Practical questions suggest, according to Quintilian, two types of answer: how to achieve what is being said? how to use it? (quo modo adipiscamur? quo modo utamur?).

In relation to the content, questions are divided into general (non-final - infinitae) and specific (final - finitae). A general question is called a thesis or a proposition (propositio proposition), a particular question is called a hypothesis (subthesis) or a deed (causa). IN general issues persons, time, place, circumstances are not indicated (should I get married?); private questions contain a designation of a person, place, time, therefore they are reduced to facts and people (should Cato marry?). Any particular question necessarily reduces to a general one: in order to decide whether Cato should marry, it is necessary to determine whether to marry at all. But it is important to keep in mind, Quintilian warns, that there are private matters hidden under the guise of general ones (should one take part in civil affairs under tyranny?). It is also obvious that practical questions should be reduced to speculative ones.

Indeed, considering the most important part of the theory of question-answer, the doctrine of statuses, Quintilian does not associate statuses exclusively with private questions of a practical nature. Statuses are independent of the semantics of variables - the meanings of words, but are determined by the ratio of the meaning of the interrogative word to "the totality of answers allowed by this question": any of the above topics of Roman rhetoric is correlated with any status.

If we consider the logical order of statuses on speculative matters, then the status of establishment (status coniecturalis) will be the first, followed by the status of determination (status finitionis) and the status of evaluation (status qualitatis).

The status of the establishment involves the question of the presence and composition of the fact under discussion. Here the possibility and presence of an act are considered according to circumstantial tops: quality, quantity, place, time, action, suffering, possession, mode of action, as well as person, attitude, order, etc.: arbitrariness or chance, cause, confluence of incidental circumstances. When discussing these issues, "the mind is directed to the truth", which appears as a reality, and the task of the rhetor is to achieve the correspondence of words to things so that the speech becomes true.

The definition status consists in finding the relationship of an individual fact (case) to a species, rule or norm. Here we discuss the question of what this fact is, and how the general views to which it can be attributed. In the status of a definition, Quintilian identifies five main problems: written and conceivable laws, contradiction of laws, norms deduced speculatively, ambiguous norms, and retracted norms. Consequently, in the status of a definition, speech becomes correct from the point of view of a social norm.

The third status - assessments - consists in the relation of the rule and the fact to the special circumstances of the case or problem: the individuality of the actor and the characteristics of the situation, the motives and specific consequences of the action are assessed. Therefore, in the status of evaluation, speech becomes fair, humane and practical, that is, it is associated with action.

In matters of proper legal, Quintilian gives a different order of statuses: establishing, evaluating, determining, recusing (status praescriptionis), in the latter the question of the competence of the court, the competence or legality of the accusation is decided.

“We see,” notes M. L. Gasparov, “that in the transition from status to status, the field of vision gradually expands: with the status of establishment, only an act is in the field of view; with the status of a definition, an act and a law; with an assessment status, an act, a law and other laws; with a challenge status, an act, a law, other laws and an accuser. specific case, in the second - on the understanding of this norm, in the third - on the comparative force of this norm, in the fourth - again on the applicability of the norm. In the field of philosophy, the first statement takes us (in modern terms) to the field of ontology, the second - to the field of epistemology, the third - to the field of axiology. Such a sequence of consideration is applicable not only to such specific issues with which the court has to deal, but also to any of the most abstract.

Classifications of rhetorical arguments, which are traditionally built by logicians in orientation to the norms of scientific speech or evidence of guilt in criminal proceedings, obviously miss the mark, since they are based on the scheme, the logical form of arguments, and the scheme is not the most important component of rhetorical argumentation, although it is obvious that it should not be neglected.

The theory of statuses seems important for understanding the laws of rhetorical argumentation, but it does not contain a classification of arguments as such: in any of the three or four statuses, in principle, various common places and types of arguments can be used. Therefore, obviously, one should look for other ways of systematizing and semantic ordering of rhetorical argumentation.

Instances and appeals

In rhetorical argumentation, appeal is of particular importance - an appeal to a specific subject-semantic area, which the audience considers as a separate and significant source of external or inner experience. Indeed, an argument is usually an argument "to something": ad rem, ad iudicium, ad hominem, etc.

The rhetorical or dialectical argumentative situation involves: 1. the rhetor - the sender of the message, 2. the audience as the recipient of the message, who decides to agree with the proposition and join the argument; 3. the instance to which the rhetor appeals and which is a significant source of tops for the audience, chosen as arguments; 4. an opponent putting forward (or potentially able to put forward) incompatible proposals.

The definition of an instance turns out to be the product of at least an internal dialogue, that is, a discussion of the history of an argumentative situation. In a rhetorical work as a literary form, we are dealing with the images of the rhetor (author of the statement), the audience, the subject of speech (persons and situations about which the discussion is going on), the opponent, as well as with the image of the instance, which the rhetor refers to as the source of his position and which is sometimes personified in the figure of the verbiage. Each of these images can be developed to a greater or lesser extent, but their interaction is the dramatic spring of a rhetorical work.

At the same time, the instance (in a personal or impersonal way) appears as an arbiter of the dispute. When a speaker seeks to justify his point in a way that is convincing to the audience, he turns to one or another source of the premise that seems acceptable, and assumes that such a call will lead the audience to agree with the proposal. This means that an appeal to a certain semantic area is essential for the audience, which appears as a source of value judgment. In essence, the premises of any rhetorical argument are value judgments. The appeal can be of two kinds: either to the coercive force of reality, which "general common sense" recognizes as an objective criterion of truth, necessity or possibility, in which case this "general common sense" will be the instance; either to an external authority, whether custom, established rule, competent opinion or experience; or to the audience, worldview, self-consciousness, whose intuition is considered as a value and criterion for the acceptability of the premise. The specific image of a rhetorician is built in relation to the instance of argumentation and depends on its nature: the image of an objective researcher of reality will be fundamentally different than the image of a believer or the image of a "friend of the people".

Appeals to reality are usually seen as universally valid. Appeals to authority, even if they appear in the form of a categorical imperative, are in principle considered as private, limited by place, time, social conditions - the degree of recognition of this authority by the audience to which the statement is addressed: everything is determined by the nature of this instance, which can be higher than any reality.

Arguments for reality

Arguments to reality are arguments, the justification of which contains in the premises an assertion about the coercive force of reality, prompting a decision about the truth and correctness of the proposition.

Arguments to reality include two groups of arguments - (1) to fact and (2) to logic. Arguments to a fact are based on the tops about the reality of an individual event or about the relationship of an individual fact to a class (genus): they, respectively, can relate to the status of establishment and definition and be private and general. Arguments to logic are based on the top of the necessary truth of a correct logical conclusion based on true premises: the logical form itself is considered as reflecting the real relations of things: "Facts in the logical space are the world" .

Arguments for the fact

Arguments to a fact contain the substantiation of the position, based on the statement about the presence or possibility of specific facts.

At the same time, a fact in rhetoric is understood not as a physical event, but as an act of a rational being with free will and therefore more or less capable of making a different decision. Thus, the rhetorical fact implies: (1) the agent, (2) the action, (3) the object undergoing this action, (4) the time of the action, (5) the place of the action, (6) the order or sequence of the action, (7) the manner of the action, (8) the instrument or instrument of the action, (9) the qualities or properties of the actor, object or action, (10) the state of the actor and the object of the action, (11) the incidental circumstances of the action, (12) the cause: acting (external or internal) or final (goal, intention). These characteristics of the fact are circumstantial or descriptive tops - semantic categories that underlie the construction of a meaningful grammatically correct sentence, descriptive or narrative statement as a compositional speech form.

Descriptive tops, interconnected by certain semantic relationships (for example, one time period of an act is incompatible with another time period of the same act; but the various qualities of the actor are compatible with each other, as well as the motivating reason and goal), are the main tops of the establishment status and represent common sense statements that come from experience, but are not deduced logically. Therefore, a fact (in a rhetorical sense that is different from that of L. Wittgenstein) may be true or false, possible or impossible in whole or in part: if we assert that Peter the Great founded St. Petersburg, the capital Russian Empire at the mouth of the Neva in 1703, then all or some of the components of this fact may be false, for example, that Peter the Great founded St. Petersburg, but not in 1703, but in 1998.

But the fact in the rhetorical sense is not reduced to the particular circumstances of the case - in order to become a fact, it requires substantiation and comprehension for itself. So the fact must be determined. The definition of a fact is based on the corresponding status and corresponding tops, and the same event can be given not only different, but also incompatible definitions. Remaining single as an event, the fact receives a place and significance as a casus - a case of a certain kind. If we are dealing with an argument to reality, then the fact itself is considered within the relations of reality, and reality must be organized in a certain way. It is to this originally given organization of reality that the medieval dispute about universals goes back. The fact is that rhetoric must find generally acceptable grounds for argumentation and rhetorical appeals in the field of reality as well as in the field of values, and the ultimate source of values must coincide with the ultimate source of the organization of reality - the world order. This category of tops: substance - accident, genus - species, part - whole, name - thing, essence - sign, no matter how they are formulated, seem to be absolutely necessary from a practical point of view, since they correspond to common sense ideas about the relationships of things: common sense believes in the objectivity and orderliness of reality, it is realistic in the medieval or Aristotelian sense, like Aristotelian physics.

A fact can be presented as a separate act and as a sequence or class of acts, one way or another connected with each other and arranged in a certain order.

(2) “If a certain result seems impossible in the essence of the matter, then the question cannot be resolved by the fact that it is done little by little. And this is precisely the argument Darwin resorts to. He directly says that the assumption that the eye, with all its amazing adaptations, has developed due to natural selection, may seem extremely absurd; but it is worth assuming gradualness and everything is explained very easily. able to lift mountains. One only has to accustom it little by little, adding grain of sand to sand: with the variability of the organism and the hereditary transmission of acquired habits, after several thousand generations, it will already carry Mont Blanc. In reality, gradualness is nothing but a certain mode of action; the result is obtained only when there is a cause capable of producing it. Therefore, in explaining the phenomenon, it is necessary first of all to investigate the properties of the cause; gradualness by itself does not explain anything.

In example (2), the large premise containing the top (the first and last two sentences of the example) is a general proposition, as is the refuted statement of Charles Darwin about the eye in general. The above illustration is a private judgment. Here, the fact of eye evolution is considered as a class of events to which the tops of genus and species, essence and accidents are applied, and the question itself is considered in the status of a definition: does Darwin rightly define changes in living nature as facts of evolution?

Synchronic Arguments to Fact

Synchronic arguments to a fact proceed from the composition of the fact, which is discussed in its components as a single semantic complex. The data on which the reasoning (or description) is based are presented as forming a semantic complex of a single completed event in which the sequence of components, if any, has the meaning of order, and not of temporal succession as such. Thus, the description of any repetitive action - a route, a rite, a ballet figure, a part of a piece of music, a standard everyday situation - has a synchronic character.

Arguments of fact are based on common sense beliefs. We believe that every event takes place at a certain place and time, that events that have been repeated before will continue to be repeated in the future, that everything has its cause, and identical causes produce identical effects - such is the reality that seems obvious from experience. To that common sense and the rhetorician appeals when he substantiates the possibility or impossibility, the greater or lesser probability of this or that action.

(3) “Here, the Kelesh brothers are charged with arson for a mercenary purpose, for the sake of an insurance premium. Each charge can be compared to a knot tied around the defendant. But there are indissoluble knots and knots with a trick. , if the knot is with a focus.Then one has only to catch a secret, disguised tip or loop, pull on them, and all the fetters unwind by themselves - a person comes out of them completely free.

Such a tip sticks out quite clearly in this case - it is even almost not disguised - and I will grab it right. This is the question - was there even the most arson? This is the story of the fire itself. If you follow it, you will certainly see that a fire could have occurred here only by accident, and then, if there was no crime, then there is no reason to talk about those responsible.

On January 16, at 6 pm, the Kelesh brothers' tobacco factory was sealed by the inspector Nekrasov. At 12 o'clock in the morning, signs of fire were discovered inside this pantry. The question is: how could it happen? Who and how could get there? The lock, from which the key was kept by the controller, turned out to be locked and undamaged. The attached seal held the door with its sticky compound and was therefore not removed. There were no other passages to the pantry and no one had been laid.

True, Mr. Bobrov, the landlord, suggests that we dwell on the assumption that it was possible to enter through the window, and to get to the window on the fourth floor by stairs or through a drainpipe. But let us reason within the limits of what is possible and let us not allow fairy tales. No one saw the ladder attached, and in order to climb the drainpipe to the fourth floor, you need to be a monkey or an acrobat, get used to it from childhood, and the Kelesh brothers are forty-year-old people and do not differ in body flexibility. Finally, after all, the window on the fourth floor is locked from the inside: if it had been left open during the winter cold, then the controller Nekrasov, locking the pantry, would have noticed this, and all the windows would have had time to freeze. Moreover, the vents are not made in the lower showcase of the window, but higher, it is difficult for the body of any of the Keleshas to bend over it - it would be necessary to break the window, but all the windows were found intact during the fire. So, if you don’t allow a fairy tale, if you don’t believe that one of the Keleshas could climb into a crack like a mosquito or fly into the pantry through a pipe, like a witch, then it will be necessary to admit that from the minute Nekrasov locked the pantry, and until the time when after 6 hours a fire was discovered in it, and the pantry was still locked, no one entered and could not enter it.

Hence, one possible conclusion is that the elusive, inaccessible to the eye cause of the fire, microscopic, but, unfortunately, real, was already lurking in the storeroom at the moment when the "shabash" and when Nekrasov locked the storeroom. The conclusion is as clear as God's day."

The above example (3) contains a synchronous argument to the fact: the lawyer S. A. Andreevsky considers the possibility of committing or not performing a number of actions by a specific person in specific circumstances, the totality of which indicates the impossibility of a specific act as the realization of an intention in these conditions.

The scheme of the argument is a conditionally dividing inference according to modus tollens. Logical tops are used: place, order, time, means, mode of action, person-action, external circumstances, etc. The semantic area to which the rhetorician appeals is common sense: "Let's reason within the limits of the possible and let's not allow fairy tales."

Synchronic arguments to a fact justify its essence already in the status of a definition, since the fact receives a name, acquires a certain content and is included in the class of related facts - "intentional arson of property", "accident", "foundation of a city", etc.

Diachronic Arguments to Fact

Diachronic arguments to a fact are characterized by an appeal to a sequence of events or actions that are considered as states (synchrony) of an object.

(4) "Everything that we find in the case confirms it (the conclusion made in the speech - A. Volkov). First of all, remember the testimony of F. Nekrasov, one of the Muravyovskiy witnesses, and therefore not inclined to indulge us, remember his testimony that at 10 o'clock in the evening, i.e. two whole hours before the strong smell of burning and a fog of smoke caused real alarm, as a whole two hours before this minute F. Nekrasov already "I smelled in the air of the neighboring yard a faint smell of the same burning, only weaker. Remember that the fire was not visible at all even when the firemen arrived. There was only a stench and smoke. The first flame ignited only when the windows were broken and air was let into the pantry. What does all this mean? All this precisely means that the cause of the fire was tiny, acting very sluggishly, very slowly, barely noticeable - the cause is so weak that it caused only smoldering, smoke, only a trifle, only an unextinguished cigarette, a sunken spark, could act in this way. From a spark, tobacco smoldered somewhere. The air is dry, in the pantry, roasted by the Amos oven, tobacco smolders and smolders, smokes, does not give a flame, but the heat passes from one layer of tobacco to another; the more it decayed, the more the neighboring layers dried up - quietly and quietly, work inside the pantry continues. It smoked at first with rare smoke, and then thicker. There is already so much smoke that it is drawn out, trickles stretched through the window cracks into the air, began to wander over the factory yard, followed the wind to the neighboring yard, but there are still few of them, you can’t smell them in the frosty air, and even if you smell them, you won’t pay attention. But now the smoky smell grows stronger in the factory and in the neighboring yard. Nekrasov already quite clearly hears him. But even that does not attach any importance to it: you never know, they say, why and from where it can smoke in the winter. Another two hours pass, and the burning increases so gradually, so slowly and imperceptibly, that only towards the end of this period did the residents of the two neighboring yards finally take care and begin to find out the reasons. And even at this time of the actual fire, i.e. there was no fire yet, all the smoke and smoke is pouring out, and you can’t make out where it came from.

If, therefore, you remember that after the smoke had already made its way out, more than two hours passed before it began to really attract attention to itself, then you, of course, admit that for the internal process of smoldering, you also need to set a considerable and, in any case, even more hours, and it will become obvious to you that at 6 o’clock in the evening the pantry was locked by the controller Nekrasov already with an invisible, but ready cause of a future fire ".

The argument is built in the form of a narrative in which the sequence of states of the subject who perceives the signs of a fire is highlighted: the initial state, subsequent states, the final state, each of which is depicted by the rhetor through an appeal to the audience ("remember") and is presented as a consequence of the previous one. From this series of consequences, the initial cause of the fire is also determined on the basis of common sense. From the fact that the fire started gradually, it does not logically follow that there was no arson. But common sense, along with the rhetorician, suggests that the insignificant ("microscopic") cause of the fire was accidental.

The scheme of the argument is built in the form of a conditionally affirmative inference according to modus ponens.

Argument tops: time, place, state, order, sign, cause-effect.

With the help of diachronic arguments, a conventional relation or reason is established to the fact. The preceding (not necessarily in time) fact or state is considered as the basis of another, subsequent fact or state, which are presented as a consequence, but in a conditional sense. But the reason itself is established on the basis of the goals of argumentation and convention: to look for a reason in a certain semantic area given by the subject of discussion. Thus, a separate fact or event is included in a sequential series, in which it can be comprehended in one way or another. In accordance with such a state-assignment, diachronic slices are distinguished in their sequence, which play the role of variables in the argument scheme.

The main difference between a diachronic argument and a synchronic one is the understanding of time, cause, state, and order.

The synchronic argument is characterized by the understanding of time as a repeating and reproducible length of events that are located in a certain sequence in a certain period of time. The expression "if A, then B" means either that A is before B and the cause of B: "if it was raining, then the pavement is damp," or that A is a necessary feature of B, and B is the condition or cause of A: "if the light is on, then there is current." But in both cases, no matter when it happens, today, yesterday or in the Mesozoic era, "if the light bulb is on, then there is current." Therefore, in the first part of the above logical expression, the variables B, C, D mean classes of events, and in the second part - single events of the corresponding classes: "if a person is fat and elderly, then in winter he cannot climb through the drainpipe into the window of the fourth floor; this person is fat and elderly; therefore, etc.".

In diachronic argumentation, the understanding of time, order, and state is different, but the cause does not exist in this sense. The physical cause of a fire is a consequence of a conscious act of a particular person, or the absence of such. This conscious act may or may not be performed by a certain person at a certain point in time in a certain way under certain external circumstances. Person, time, manner and circumstances are conventionally defined as plausible or implausible. If the sequence of states of an object, which is unique, leads to the idea that the physical cause of the fire does not satisfy the conventional conditions for its occurrence as a consequence of an act, then it is recognized that such an act was not committed. Therefore, the variables of both parts of the expression mean single events, but the meaning of the constant changes: the word "therefore", denoting objective reason, changes the meaning to "it will become obvious to you": each state of the event is depicted through the assessment of the situation by the common sense of the recipient of the statement - the audience.

Synchronic and diachronic arguments constitute a single complex, since the fact is presented in an exhaustive way from the internal (synchronous argumentation) and external (diachronic argumentation) sides.

Arguments to logic

Arguments to reality, the truth or correctness of the position of which is justified by the statement about the coercive force of a logically correct conclusion from true (or accepted as such) premises, we will call arguments to logic.

Arguments to logic are built on the presumption of the ontological reality of logical relations and laws, which are considered as a direct reflection of the laws of being, and not of thinking. Common sense is convinced of the inviolability of the laws of identity, non-contradiction, and the excluded middle and the consequences arising from them, but the use of logical arguments is nevertheless limited by the ability of the audience to follow the course of reasoning, which may not be obvious to the Unknown, while remaining logically flawless. Therefore, in example (5), the Confessor returns to the foundations of his reasoning and reproduces its logical form.

The rhetorical persuasiveness of arguments to logic is based on the convention: the Confessor formulates the condition for the persuasiveness of his arguments, and the Unknown agrees to accept it and consider the subject of discussion as an intellectual problem; secondly, the verbal sequence of the argument to logical correctness is no less, and perhaps even more important, than in rhetorical arguments of other types. The fact is that in the practice of rhetorical argumentation, exact definitions of terms are rarely used, the concepts of "plastic" and "forging", according to Perelman, and constantly change their content in the course of argumentation: Leibniz's thought, given in the epigraph, is especially significant here. Therefore, for arguments to logic, as can be seen in example (5), the Confessor selects those words and in the meaning as they are used by the Unknown, or, at least, are used in ordinary speech.

Arguments for logical necessity

Arguments to logical necessity are based on an appeal to the logical correctness of an inference that necessarily leads to a conclusion compatible or incompatible with the position of the argument.

(5) "Confessor. What do you mean by the word "evidence"?

Unknown. By this I mean facts, or logical reasonings, which are indispensable to the human mind.

Confessor. Fine. With regard to the question of immortality, what evidence would satisfy you?

Unknown. First of all, of course, the facts. If any evidence were given from the "other world" about the life of the human soul continuing after the death of the body, I would consider the issue resolved. This is not. What remains is logic. Logic is, of course, less convincing than facts, but to some extent it can replace them.

Confessor. The evidence you're talking about is plentiful. But such is the nature of unbelief. It always demands facts and always denies them. It is difficult to prove anything with facts when it is required that the facts themselves, in turn, be proved.

Unknown. But what to do, it is impossible to consider stories from the lives of saints as reliable facts?

Confessor. You can, of course, but I understand that you can’t prove anything with such facts now, because these facts need proof for you no less than the immortality of the soul.

Unknown. Quite right.

Confessor. We will approach the issue differently. We will also proceed from the facts. But from a fact that is undeniable to you - from your own inner experience.

Unknown. I do not get you.

Confessor. Wait, you'll understand. Until then, I'll ask you. Suppose you see a green tree with your own eyes. They will prove to you by logical arguments that there really is no tree. Will you then say: "It is not true, it is"?

Unknown. I'll tell you.

Confessor. Here you go. This is the way I choose in my reasoning. I take what you see and what you do not doubt, then I conditionally stand on the point of view of "denying immortality." I prove to you that what you see and what you do not doubt is nonsense and does not really exist. Will you tell me then: "It's not true, it exists - I know it"?

Unknown. I'll tell you.

Confessor. But then you will have to renounce the basic position, admitted conditionally, - the denial of immortality.

Unknown. All this is not entirely clear to me.

Confessor. It will become clear to you later. Now tell me, do you recognize free will in man?

Unknown. Of course I do.

Confessor. Do you recognize any moral difference in the actions of people, that is, you consider some actions good and others bad?

Unknown. Of course.

Confessor. Do you recognize any meaning in your existence?

Unknown. Yes, I admit it. But I reserve the right to see this meaning in what seems to me to be meaning. For me it is one thing, for others it may be completely different.

Confessor. Wonderful. So, the undoubted facts for you are free will, the difference between good and evil, and some meaning of life.

Unknown. Yes.

Confessor. Do you see all this, do you doubt all this?

Unknown. Yes.

Confessor. Now for a while I become an unbeliever and I do not recognize any other world except the material one. I begin to reason and come to the logically inevitable conclusion that "undoubted" for you is in fact nonsense: there is neither free will, nor good, nor evil, nor the meaning of life. And if you do not find the slightest error in my proofs, will you still say that I am telling a lie, that free will exists, that there is good and evil and the meaning of life, that this is not nonsense, but an undoubted fact?

Unknown. Yes, I will.

Confessor. But if you say this, will you not have to reject my main premise from which these conclusions are drawn, that is, my unbelief?

Unknown. I think, yes...

Confessor. So let's start talking. We are faced with the question of free will. What is meant by this concept? Obviously, such a beginning, the actions of which are not determined by any cause, but which itself determines these actions, being their root cause. The human will begins a series of causally determined phenomena, while itself remaining free. Do you agree that I correctly define the concept of free will?

Unknown. Yes.

Confessor. Can we recognize the existence of such a beginning? Of course no. For us, materialists, the concept of "freedom" is a flagrant nonsense, and our mind cannot imagine any other actions, except for causal ones. After all, the world consists of various combinations of atoms and electrons. There is no existence other than material existence. Man is no exception. And he is a kind of combination of the same atoms. Human body and the human brain can be decomposed into a certain amount of chemicals. In the sense of materiality, there is no difference between a living organism and a so-called inanimate thing. And the material world is subject to certain laws, of which one of the main ones is the law of causality. In this material world there are no meaningless and absurd notions of "free action" The ball rolls when we push it. And he cannot roll without this push, and he cannot help but roll when the push is given. And he would be ridiculous if, having consciousness, he began to assure that he rolls of his own free will and that the push is his own desire. He is no more like a ball that rolls depending on various shocks, and being a thing, in vain imagines himself to be some kind of "free" being.

Everything that has been said can be concluded in the following logically inevitable series: there is no other existence, except for the material one. If this is so, then a person is only a material particle, then he is also subject to all the laws by which the material world lives. If the world lives according to the laws of causality, then a person, as a particle of matter, lives according to the same laws. If the material world does not know free "causeless" phenomena, then the will of a person should not be free and itself should be causally conditioned. So there is no free will. Do you agree that I am speaking strictly logically?

Unknown. Yes.

Confessor. Do you agree with this conclusion?

Unknown. No, of course I don't agree.

Confessor. Let's discuss further. We are faced with the question of good and bad deeds. One man gave the last piece of bread to the hungry. Another took the last piece of bread from the hungry. Do you recognize the moral difference between these two actions?

Unknown. I admit.

Confessor. And I say that there is no difference between these actions, because the concepts of good and evil are utter nonsense. We have already proved the meaninglessness of the concept of free will in the material world. We must recognize the same nonsense as the concepts of good and evil. How can one speak of the moral behavior of a ball that moves when pushed and stops when it encounters an obstacle? If every phenomenon is causally determined, then in the moral sense they are indifferent. The concepts of good and evil logically inevitably presuppose the concept of freedom. How can one speak of good and bad deeds when both are equally independent of the person who performs them?

Imagine an automaton that makes only those movements that are caused by a wound spring - can you say that the automaton acted morally or immorally by lowering its hand? He lowered his hand because he could not do otherwise, because such is his spring, and therefore his mechanical actions cannot have any moral assessment.

Let us conclude everything that has been said again in a consistent logical series: there is no other world except the material world. If this is so, then man is only a particle of matter. If it is a particle of matter, then it is subject to the laws of the material world. In the material world, everything is causally determined, and therefore a person does not have free will. If he does not have free will, then all his actions, as mechanically inevitable, are morally indifferent. So, "good" and "evil" do not exist in the material world. Do you agree that I'm talking logically?

Unknown. Yes, I did not notice any error in your reasoning.

Confessor. So you agree with my conclusions?

Unknown. No, I don't agree.

Confessor. Why?

Unknown. Because I have a moral sense, and I will never agree that there is no moral difference between a vile and a noble act.

Since the argument (5) is constructed as a kind of intellectual example and is devoid of the verbal imagery inherent in real rhetorical argumentation, its structure is clearly visible.

The above example is indicative in two respects: firstly, it contains an argument to logic, and secondly, this argument to logic is part of an argument to the audience (ad hominem), since data about the Unknown is introduced into the premises. The argument as a whole is an extended epicheirema, that is, an inference, the premises of which, in turn, are inferences. The argument to logic, in fact, constitutes the second premise. The first premise is the argument to the audience - to internal experience: The Unknown, on the basis of his internal experience, testifying to free will and good and evil, accepts the logical argument as such, while rejecting the acceptability of its conclusion, but if the conclusion is rejected, then the premise to which it is given is also rejected. The argument is built with a deliberate selection of a scheme in the form of two sorites (the second partly reproduces the first), to which the particular position appeals and which is the basis for the consent of the Unknown.

Arguments for a logical possibility

The essence of the argument to a logical possibility is that the appeal refers to the correctness of a probabilistic inference, thus the position of the argument contains a statement about the optimal solution. Pascal's famous argument is a classic example.

(6) "Let us now reason on the basis of natural reason. If God exists, then He is completely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no relation to us. Therefore, we are unable to know either what He is or whether He is. their religion is not such that one can give an account of it? They declare that in a worldly sense this is madness. And you complain that they do not prove it to you! If they tried to prove it, they would not keep their word: it is precisely this lack of evidence on their part that speaks in favor of their reasonableness.

"Yes, but if this excuses those who say that religion is unprovable, and removes from them the reproach of not presenting evidence, then this does not justify those who accept it."

Let us examine this question and say: God exists or God does not exist. But which side will we lean on? The mind cannot decide anything here. We are separated by endless chaos. At the edge of this infinite distance, a game is being played, the outcome of which is not known. What will you bet on? Reason has nothing to do with it, it cannot show us a choice. Therefore, do not say that those who have made a choice are mistaken, because they know nothing about it.

"But I would not blame them for having made this or that choice, but for the fact that they decided to choose at all; since those who chose even and those who chose odd are equally mistaken. The most correct thing is not to play at all."

Yes, but it is necessary to make a bet: it is not up to you to play or not to play. Where will you stop? Since a choice must be made, let us see what is of less interest to you: you can lose two things, truth and good, and two things you have to stake, your mind and will, your knowledge and your bliss; your nature should avoid two things: error and disaster. Since it is necessary to choose, your mind will not be harmed by either choice. This is undeniable; and your bliss?

Let's weigh the win and the loss, betting that God exists. Take two cases: if you win, you win everything; if you lose, you won't lose anything. Therefore, do not hesitate to bet that He is."

The first part of the argument discusses the question of the fundamental possibility of proving the existence of God. Here is an ad hominem argument in which the assertion that God's existence cannot be proved is brought to authority: . The proof of the existence of God seems impossible, because any proof by facts and logical proof has a coercive force, while God expects love and faith from a person, giving him a free choice to believe or not to believe. Coercion is affirmed in the necessity of choice and its consequences, and this free choice itself is defined as reasonable.

The second part of the epicheirema (after the words "Since the choice must be made ...") is the actual argument to the probability.

Thus, the argument for logical probability is also based on a convention, the establishment of an initial choice condition: a person is forced to be free, in which case he must choose the most expedient solution from two equally probable possibilities. The alternative itself is separated from the value condition ("avoid error and disaster"), so the basis of the argument lies precisely in the appeal to probability, not to value.

As can be seen from the examples, arguments to reality, like all rhetorical arguments, are firstly dialectical, that is, they involve finding a top on which the big premise is based, and secondly, accepting this premise as true or correct is a preliminary agreement on value. In the above dialogue, Rev. Valentina Sventsitsky to the question of the Confessor "Let's say you see a green tree with your own eyes. They will prove to you by logical arguments that there really is no tree. Will you then say: "It's not true, it exists?" The unknown person answers: "I will tell." Such an answer implies independence of thought and intellectual honesty, which are more common in philosophical writings than in real life. Personal experience can be stronger than logic, which is not surprising, personal experience can be stronger than general common sense However, authoritative opinion, as a rule, is stronger for us than personal experience, and common sense, and logical proof.

As for the facts or logical form to which the appeal is directed, they are presented in the minor premises of the argument and connect the top with the position of the argument and in this sense are auxiliary tools of rhetorical argument.

Argumentation to reality is used mainly in the status of establishing and defining and is in fact the only type of rhetorical argumentation, the conclusions of which are considered from the point of view of truth. That is why it seems to be the basis of rhetorical argumentation, both in terms of content and in ethical terms.

In terms of content, the discussion and establishment of the truth or at least the plausibility of judgments and the determination of the likelihood of future events in deliberative argumentation is the basis for the productivity of decisions. The value of all subsequent argumentation in the status of definition and evaluation depends entirely on the reliability of the presentation and analysis of evidence. And despite the fact that rhetorical argumentation in all its forms - as dialectical, didactic, polemical (eristic) - cannot be considered as a reliable means of finding the truth, it remains the main tool of knowledge in practical life. It is on the basis of rhetorical argumentation that we make real decisions not only of a practical, but also of an ideological nature.

The scientific toolkit of cognition, which is also far from always, even if it is a formal mathematical demonstration, can be considered perfect, is not applicable to the problems of life reality. The use of the conclusions of scientific knowledge in technical, social practice and in ideological issues requires rhetorical argumentation, not to mention the fact that in the composition of scientific works themselves, natural sciences to the same extent as in the humanities, rhetorical argumentation obviously occupies a much larger place than it seems to the natural scientists themselves.

The ethical side of the problem is no less significant. It is in the argumentation of the status of establishment that the thoroughness and conscientiousness of the arguments seem especially necessary. Legal proof and the truth of historical fact underlie culture public relations. And where the establishment of a fact depends on the purpose of definition and evaluation, as happens systematically in modern political discourse, the manipulation of data leads to a compromise of reality, which is even more dangerous than the compromise of behavioral norms.

Arguments based on an appeal to an instance external to the sender and recipient of the statement, which is regarded as a reliable source of knowledge or norms, will be called arguments to authority.

Arguments to authority are the most common class of rhetorical arguments and appear to be the most persuasive. At the same time, the quality of discussion and the level of problems resolved in the course of rhetorical discourse depend on the composition and hierarchy of instances adopted in the course of argumentation. Top classes are determined by the degree of authority of the instance from which they come, therefore, when the composition and accepted properties of instances are limited, both the level of discussion and the content of decisions are reduced. Indeed, such instances - sources of tops as public opinion, current legislation, liberal-humanistic political ideology with the primacy of individualistic interests over the interests of society, obviously do not allow or, at least, make it difficult to use the topic of spiritual morality, which is necessary when discussing and resolving issues related to fundamental cultural conflicts.

Yu.V. Rozhdestvensky considers the system of authoritative instances as sources of common places based on the cultural and historical scheme of the development of literature and connects tops with certain classes of texts as genres of literature. At the same time, the system of common places grows and changes with the development of new textures of speech and is determined by the cultural skills of a private audience: “Common places depend on the audience, its breadth and narrowness, on the interests of the audience and on what kind of pathos is characteristic of speech that embraces the audience. Common places for a given type of literature cannot be formed spontaneously. Luther's theses are put forward sometime and by someone, people adjoin these theses in their minds and unite around these theses.Common places are texts whose meaning serves to unite<…>other texts with different compositions".

Without denying the legitimacy and significance of Yu.V. Rozhdestvensky to the topic, it should be noted that it can lead to a certain relativism in the interpretation of the system of tops: tops in this case should be considered in relation to the culture of a private audience that exists at a certain historical time and in a certain cultural space. And even if we take into account the cumulative nature of culture, that is, we assume that the common places characteristic of a certain historical category of works of the word are preserved with a change in the composition of literature, we have to admit that the hierarchy of common places historically changes its structure - common places that occupied the highest places in the hierarchy of values at previous stages of the history of culture, give way to these higher places to other, new classes of common places and move to lower or marginal positions. On the other hand, modern rhetorical discourse is rapidly changing the genre composition of rhetorical literature: new sources of tops appear and old sources of tops fade into the background, modern rhetorical forms lose both their internal genre unity and classical ways of substantiating positions.

However, the system of common places and instances from which they come is not just conventional and historical, but obviously has a special internal form, which is due to the potential possibilities of argumentation in rhetorical discourse, and therefore must contain certain constants independent of the prevailing worldview of the time. The facts show that the artificial elimination of certain significant instances of arguments for authority and other types of axiological arguments based on them leads to the destruction of the entire system of commonplaces and to the limitation of the possibilities of epideictic argumentation as a whole. At the same time, the main types of instances to which the argument refers are used throughout history and in various cultural areas. In this regard, it is useful to consider the types of authoritative instances to which the argument refers.

1. Authoritative instances can be absolute and relative. Instances act as absolute, the authority of which is fundamentally, that is, based on the definition of an instance as such, is undeniable. Relative are authoritative instances, whose judgments by condition may be subject to doubt.

At the end of the first stasim "Eumenides", Athena, in response to Orestes' request for a trial, utters the following words: "This matter is so terrible that it is not for a mortal to judge.<….>But since the dispute has reached the court, forever from now on there will be an elected jury on blood litigations here, I said "and transfers the case to the discretion of the Athenian jury. With these words, Athena not only defines the deity as a relative authority, but also does not see the possibility of absolute authority (for example, Zeus), sending Orestes to the jury, who, however, will have to bear real responsibility for the decision, whether it is made in favor of Orestes or against it: the gods are not able to make an absolute judgment.An entirely different matter is the judgment of St. Apostle Paul: "And who are you, man, that you argue with God? Will the product say to the one who made it: "Why did you make me like this?" [Rome. 9, 20]. Bl. Theophylact of Bulgaria (XI century), in his commentary on this and the next verse of the Epistle to the Romans, notes: “Paul used this example not to destroy our free will and present ours as inactive and motionless, but in order to teach us how to submit to God and show Him deep and silent obedience.” The peculiarity of the absolute instance lies in its indisputability and, according to W. Ockham, in independence, the absence of obligation: "God does not sin, because he is not obliged to hold on to the contrary, for he is not anyone's debtor."

2. Authoritative authorities can be permanent and variable. Permanent instances establish the main composition of the tops as a doctrine and keep it unchanged, considering the topic as universal, eternal, self-evident, etc. Variable instances change their topic over time or present it as historically or socially determined. Religion, public morality, artistic (musical) art, and law belong to permanent instances. How variables are defined by science, the practical arts, politics, public opinion. This division stems from internal organization authoritative authorities. If, for example, public morality sees itself as historically or socially determined rather than eternal and universal, it loses its authority in argumentation, since every appeal to authority can be challenged as irrelevant to time, place, and person. If science proclaims itself to be the constant and unchanging basis of a person’s worldview and the ultimate source of common ground, it thereby denies the controversy of theories necessary for its own development and, ultimately, its picture of the world, and seeks to take the place of religion: science, as a process of cognition, is obliged to recognize its picture of the world as changing and controversial.

3. Authoritative instances can be personal and impersonal. The former define themselves as emanating from a certain source, which can be referred to as "you" or "you", and this determines their argumentative nature. Aristotle's god or the second law of thermodynamics cannot be addressed in this way; it is pointless to ask him for anything, especially for the main thing - an exception to a general rule or law, which is absolutely necessary, especially when we are dealing with the status of evaluation. Therefore, the personal instance appears in the concrete image of a dialogue participant with free will, individual mind, responsibility and his own special idiolect - style. This last circumstance makes the opposition of a personal/impersonal instance one of the key ones for classifying rhetorical arguments, since it creates an image of a personalistic environment of rhetorical communication.

The types of arguments to authority differ depending on the nature of this instance, external to the rhetor and the audience, to which the large premise of the conclusion appeals. Such authorities are hierarchical. The hierarchy of instances is one of the most difficult problems in the theory of rhetoric. It seems quite obvious that there are two main types of authoritative instances - personal and impersonal.

An impersonal instance is a kind of indefinite source of judgment, for example, "folk wisdom", "general opinion", "science", "state interests", "world community", "democratic public" or even "there is an opinion", the formulation of the position of which is sometimes a figure of an adjective (a fictitious direct speech from a certain person, for example, a people), for which it exists: a proverb, a parable, a maxim, a whole speech. Consider an example.

(7) “The best philosophy is that which bases a man’s office on his happiness. It will tell us that we must love the good of the fatherland, for our own is inextricably linked with it; that its enlightenment surrounds us with many pleasures in life; that its silence and virtues serve as a shield of family pleasures; that his glory is our glory; Thus, love for our own good produces in us love for the fatherland, and personal pride - the pride of the people, which serves as the basis of patriotism. Thus, the Greeks and Romans considered themselves the first peoples, and all others - barbarians; thus, the English, who in modern times more than others are famous for their patriotism, more than others they dream of themselves.

The hedonistic ethics of the Enlightenment appears here as such an indisputable authority, whose position is personified by the verb "will say." At the same time, the meaning of the word "us" is just as generalized and inclusive: to all "us" - both the rhetorician and the audience. Here we are dealing with the assertion of a common opinion about the "best philosophy", the concepts of which are included in the verbal series of the argument: "benefit", "enlightenment", "pleasures", "silence", "virtues", "family pleasures", " own good", "People's pride", "patriotism". Therefore, the whole argument appears as addressed to a universal audience and is based on the top of reversibility: "citizen" must take care of the fatherland, if the fatherland takes care of the "citizen" in the sense defined by the named concepts - bringing him "happiness".

It can be seen from example (7) that the impersonal instance implies a special interpretation, often in the form of a verbal series, the components of which are attractive, so the arguments to the impersonal instance are close to the arguments to the audience - in this case, to the pragmatic argument - and are presented as universal. They are very common in modern argumentation: such concepts as "world community", "civilized countries", "democracy", etc., in modern use are completely identical to Karamzin's "best philosophy": "world community" also "says" what the rhetor wants to say, and to the same extent is his fiction. Therefore, in modern political discourse there is a whole system of such impersonal instances - political concepts-names of a symbolic umbrella, to which the argumentation appeals and through which political, ethical and legal topics are substantiated and approved.

The argument to impersonal authority does not always contain a direct indication of the authoritative source of the premise. As a rule, information about the nature of the instance can only be found in the content of the premise, which can clearly indicate it.

(8) "Egocentrism deserves condemnation not only from the point of view of one European Romano-Germanic culture, but also from the point of view of any culture, because it is an anti-social principle that destroys all cultural communication between people. Therefore, if among the non-Romano-Germanic people there are chauvinists who preach that their people are the chosen people, that all other peoples must obey its culture, then all their fellow tribesmen should fight against such chauvinists. people who will preach dominance in the world not of their own people, but of some other, foreign people, will offer their fellow tribesmen to assimilate in everything with this "world people". Indeed, in such a sermon there will be no egocentrism - on the contrary, there will be the highest eccentricity. Therefore, it is impossible to condemn it in exactly the same way as chauvinism is condemned. But, on the other hand, is the essence of the doctrine not more important than the personality of the preacher? If the domination of people A over people B was preached by a representative of people A, this would be chauvinism, a manifestation of an egocentric psychology, and such preaching should have met with a legitimate rebuff both among B and among A. But will the whole thing change completely, as soon as a representative of people B joins the voice of a representative of people A? Of course not; chauvinism will remain chauvinism. The protagonist in this whole supposed episode is, of course, the representative of people A. The will to enslave, the true meaning of chauvinistic theories, speaks through him. On the contrary, the voice of the representative of people B may be louder, but essentially less significant. Representative B only believed the argument of representative A, believed in the strength of people A, let himself be carried away, or maybe he was simply bribed. The representative of A stands up for himself, the representative of B - for another: through the mouth of B, in essence, A speaks, and therefore we are always entitled to consider such a sermon as the same disguised chauvinism.

In example (8) from the article by N.S. Trubetskoy, such a premise is the statement: "But, on the other hand, isn't the essence of the doctrine more important than the personality of the preacher?", which contains the main top of the entire argument. If we turn to the classification of Yu.V. Christmas topics by types of literature, it can be determined that the top refers to the image of a teacher-propagandist, who acts here as an impersonal authority: this type of Russian rhetorician is united by the ideas of objectivity and value of the subject of knowledge and partisanship of literature, which decisively prevail over the personality of the author.

Personal instance - appears in the form of a specific individual or collective, but necessarily indicated by the proper name of the author of the judgment, which contains a top, for example, the prophet Isaiah, or a description of the action of a certain person, which is considered as a model. The judgment has a certain formulation - a saying, the possibilities of interpretation of which are limited by a specific intention and context, or a parable, that is, a description of an exemplary act (model) or a negative, wrong act (anti-model) with an appropriate commentary. In each version of the argument to personal authority, special methods of verification or compromise of data presented as a position of an authoritative instance are used.

(9) “So, a million-dollar loss in the past threatens in the future not only with million-dollar losses, but, according to the conclusion of the audit, with liquidation. Sad as these consequences are, threatening Moscow with an unprecedented collapse, but we can say that they are almost insignificant compared to the social evil caused by the bosses of the Credit Society.

They have perverted the elective principle; they created a parody of self-government. Through a system of long-term embezzlement, they have developed dangerous speculation and the most base slander. By the spectacle of lucrative fraud with impunity, they corrupted the masses. In the words of the most worthy citizen of Moscow, Mitrofan Pavlovich Shchepkin, it was "the death of public trust and public property."

In example (8), which is one of the premises of the argument, a wide amplification of an authoritative statement is noteworthy, which does not follow directly either from Shchepkin’s statements or from the audit conclusion: the authority’s judgment turns out to be a general assessment of the consequences of the defendants’ actions and confirmation of the lawyer’s thought, and is addressed both to the composition of the court, and mainly to the public - the so-called double audience effect.

(9) “I pass on to the second point of the accusation, to the form of slander attributed to Mr. Notovich, to the question of whether slander is possible in this particular form. This form is a comparison, a comparison of two banks close in their past.<...>If the question of the criminal identity of the two banks is rejected, then at the same time the question, still quantitative, of the complete proof or incompleteness of those signs that were put forward in Novosti as features of similarity between the two banks will be resolved.

The district court held to the principle that if, let us say, ten signs of similarity are indicated, and seven or eight of them are confirmed, and two or three remain without confirmation, then the defendant will still be recognized as a slanderer and, as such, will be punished. In order to establish the complete inconsistency of such a view, I take the liberty of presenting to the Chamber not the decision, but the verdict of the Criminal Cassation Department, which it decided as an appellate instance in the Kulikov case on February 20, 1890. Of course, this sentence is not a decision; only judgments are published to guide the courts in the uniform application of the laws. But I believe that no one will dispute the high authority of the Senate's verdicts. The peasant Kulikov was an accountant in the Novouzensk zemstvo council; he reported to the governor and informed the prosecutor about the abuses that had taken place in the council, and even published an article in the Saratov Leaflet of 1887, No. 182, which contained the following words: "All the statement I made (to the governor) was confirmed and the theft of zemstvo money was discovered with amazing clarity." During the investigation on charges of Kulikov under 1039 Art. Far from all the accusations were confirmed by excerpts from printed journals of zemstvo assemblies and volost boards. The Saratov chamber condemned Kulikov; he appealed to the Senate and the Senate acquitted him for the following reasons: “One name for the actions of the members of the zemstvo council is the systematic theft of zemstvo money, although there is an inappropriate expression, it still does not serve to apply Article 1039 of the Code to Kulikov, since the characteristic does not contain a direct indication of the commission of any criminal acts by the members of the council, but can also be attributed to disorderly and disadvantageous conduct for the zemstvo land affairs." As for the fact that not all the abuses that are declared Kulikov were confirmed, the government Senate says: “Documentary data in favor of Kulikov, contained in his detailed testimony during the preliminary investigation, as well as the excerpts from the magazines of zemstvo meetings and the certificates of zemstvo elders contain some confirmation of the instructions of the accused of the depressed money and the waste of money and Famous incorrectness in their spending. " On this basis, the Senate acquitted Kulikov.

In this decision, the Senate also established the distribution of oneris probandi. If A accuses B of bad deeds and B sues for slander, then A is obliged to prove the validity of at least some of the bad facts that he raises against B. But if B wants A to be punished, then he himself must be clean, because if he is even a little dirty, then he no longer has the right to claim for slander.

The main premise of the argument is the decision of the Cassation Department of the Senate, which is presented as authoritative, and the nature of the authority is specifically stipulated by the defender. In itself, an authoritative decision is needed to establish an analogy between two similar acts and a court decision, which acts as a norm with the desired court decision, this principle of asymmetry, according to the defender, should be guided by the court (they are formulated in the last sentence of the example). So the defender seeks to build in a comparative argument a proportion based on the top of justice: the attitude towards similar acts committed by similar persons in similar circumstances should be the same. The subject of discussion in this case may consist in the degree of similarity.

Therefore, the interpretation of the premise - a statement emanating from personal authority - is of particular interest in the example. The lawyer builds a general model of the decision, which acts as an interpretation of the private decision of the Senate. Indeed, it is fair to call a person a scoundrel if he has committed an act A, or an act B, or an act C, which fit such a qualification. At the same time, if he did not commit, say, an act C, then all the same, the qualification will remain fair - an ethical judgment is built on disjunction, since it is of a qualitative nature. From a legal point of view, the qualification of guilt fundamentally implies a conjunction of acts: the measure of punishment corresponds to the composition of the acts (that is, A, B, and C). In other words, if A asserts that B has some moral defect, then even if only some of the facts cited by A are true, A's judgment is not slander, but if A accuses B of a criminal offense, the accusation will turn out to be slander, even if only some of the reported facts turn out to be false, since each of such acts would increase the punishment, which is the reason for the conclusion that onus probandi should be transferred to the accusation.

Arguments to personal authority are the most common type of rhetorical argument. They are found in almost any rhetorical work, especially in judicial oratory and journalism, although they are often mistaken for other types of arguments. Testimonies, references to documents, presentation of facts from sources, interviews as a genre of rhetorical prose are arguments for authority. In each of these categories, the inclusion of an authoritative statement in the premises and the assertion of the significance of an authoritative instance is achieved by a special technique.

In arguments to authority, a number of heterogeneous instances can be used, especially if each individual instance is not convincing enough, and the argument itself is built as a divisive conclusion.

(10) “Let’s try, on the other hand, to clarify the question for ourselves: what is punishment? What goals does it pursue? The first is to satisfy public indignation against the criminal. But is it really possible to talk about him here? Remember the words of Ivan Kiselev: “When the people learned about the event, they rushed not to the house where the deceased was lying, but to the house where the accused was, and, surrounding him, everyone wept uncontrollably.” The second is to subject the criminal to torment. "He endured them over the years of his life with the deceased, and even now, when events have shattered his family, personal, social life? And thirdly, they are condemned in order to protect society from an evil person. Is he like that? Look closely - does he look like a villain? Events still do not make a person such. There are unforgettable words spoken by the famous scientist Feuerbach: "The noblest characters are capable of killing in a state of spiritual excitement." And everyone says about Kiselev: " honest", "sober, devoted to the cares and labors of a person". If such a person breaks down, one does not want to believe that this is his insoluble fault ... "

Argument (10) is built according to the classical, especially in judicial defense speeches, scheme of a conditionally categorical inference in a negative mode, but as an epicheireme: the premises of the argument are conclusions from enthymemes - inferences with omitted premises. Each premise receives a justification, but at the same time the premise is arranged in the so-called Homeric sequence - at the beginning and at the end there are stronger premises, in the middle there is a weak premise ("torment the criminal") with dubious justification. The first strong premise receives justification from authority - the testimony of witnesses. The last final premise receives substantiation by an argument to the audience and a double substantiation by an argument to authority: to Feuerbach's "unforgettable" words and to the general opinion, according to the defender, but this "general opinion" is presented as the opinion of witnesses, which, however, clearly appears as a figure of allusion, that is, artificial quotation - the words taken in quotation marks belong to the lawyer, not to the witnesses.

The argument represents a double hierarchy of instances. The appeal to Feuerbach, in turn, is strengthened by an appeal to witnesses or a general opinion about the defendant, and the latter, in turn, is an argument to the audience, expressed in the impersonal form of the verb “I don’t want to believe,” the use of which in this context means the desire to identify the speaker with the audience. But this appeal, in its meaning, also applies to the first premise of "public indignation" and thereby creates the unity of the entire image of the object reflected in the argument.

Arguments to the audience

Arguments, the premises of which are based on an appeal to the audience's ideas about its usefulness, duty, necessity, or its self-consciousness, will be called arguments to the audience. Arguments to the audience can be divided into two categories: to the goal and to the person, the latter are often denoted in Latin - ad hominem. The difference between these categories of arguments lies in the fact that if in the arguments to the goal the statement of the premise contains a statement about the grounds for the decision being made, which are considered as coinciding points of view of the sender of the speech-rhetor and the audience, then the argument to the person, as a rule, is polemical and contains statements in the premises about the mismatching positions of the rhetor on the one hand and the opponent or audience on the other.

Arguments for a person

An argument to a person, as a type, is an argument to an audience, therefore, it includes statements or an image of the positions of an opponent or audience that appear contradictory, incompatible, or negatively testify to the very source of the statement; and in this case one has to make a choice between acceptable and unacceptable statements or facts.

(11) "According to you, those of the iconoclasts who are more impudent and more sinister, believing cunning with wisdom, ask the question: which of the icons of Christ is true - the one that the Romans, or which the Indians, or the Greeks, or the Egyptians paint - because they are unlike each other, and whichever they declare true, it is clear that the rest will be rejected. But this is their bewilderment, O beautiful statue of Orthodoxy , can be reflected and reproved in many ways as full of great madness and wickedness.

Firstly, you can tell them that they immediately, by means of which they decided to fight against icon-making, even against their will, testified to its existence and the worship [of icons] throughout the world, where there is a Christian race. So they rather speak in favor of what they are trying to refute and are caught by their own arguments.

Secondly, that when they say such things, they imperceptibly become on a par with the pagans - after all, what has been said about honest icons can be equally applied to our other sacraments. After all, one could say: what gospel words do you call inspired by God, and in general, which gospel? For the Roman is written in letters of one shape and form, the Indian in another, the Hebrew in a third, and the Ethiopian in a fourth, and they are not only written in letters of dissimilar form and appearance, but are also pronounced with heterogeneous and very dissimilar sounding and meaning of the words. So let them show (or rather, why don't you say?) that it behooves no one to obey or come to the Gospel, because it is proclaimed by dissimilar lettering and the sound and meaning of words. …"

Example (11) presents two main types of argument to a person: the first is based on evidence of the opponent's words themselves, which contain a logical contradiction or (as in the example) incompatible with his position; the second (third paragraph) is based on the assertion that the opponent's statement indicates qualities of the opponent that are incompatible with his status - in this case, a Christian. Let's call the first type ad hominem to incompatibility, and the second - also a fairly common term for a person (ad personam).

Arguments for incompatibility, in turn, can use semantically incompatible data, as in example (11) or the logical incompatibility of the statement - logical paradox, as in example (1), but in a more explicit form in the following example (12), a direct continuation of the words of St. Philaret.

(12) "There were people who wanted to prove that the truth is inaccessible to human knowledge. But what does it mean to prove? This means that the truth, hiding in the darkness of the unknown or in the mist of doubts, should be brought to light by means of one or several truths, clearly known and undoubtedly recognized. So, the truth exists before the evidence, is already present at their birth and laughs at those who want to prove its absence or non-existence, but for this they are called to call on it to help."

Arguments for the goal

Arguments based on an appeal to the audience's ideas about its social, national, cultural, spiritual and moral, etc. status, values, interests will be called arguments to the goal. The arguments to the goal include: 1. various types of pragmatic argument, the arguments of which are based on the assertion of the benefits or harms of the adopted or proposed decision, and not only for the audience itself (“the benefits of education are doubtful, but the harm is obvious”); 2. arguments of obligation, whose premises are based on the self-consciousness of the audience and contain statements of duty in connection with its status (“as a decent person, you should marry”) or function; 3. arguments of necessity, the premises of which are based on the assertion that the proposed decision is inevitable for the audience in the given conditions (“no one can replace you in this post”), due to the unbearability of the current state of affairs (“any government, but not this one”), the impossibility of making a different decision, etc.

Pragmatic Arguments

Pragmatic arguments are considered in Aristotle's "Rhetoric" as belonging to deliberative argumentation, moreover, as constituting its main content. However, appeals to benefit or harm can also refer to the past tense, that is, to judgmental, or to the present, that is, to demonstrative argumentation; at the same time, deliberative argumentation often contains appeals to duty, necessity, legal or other norms, the concept of justice, and so on.

The category of useful-harmful as the basis of a pragmatic argument is vast and diverse: the audience can consider material benefits, health, safety, happiness as useful, but also salvation of the soul, wisdom, physical and moral suffering ("the mind of the mourner is not the same as it was before sorrow: suffering changes the soul" - Sophocles), therefore pragmatic arguments are included in the arguments to the audience. The image of the audience, its value, even in their own eyes, is determined by the content of the pragmatic argument that is convincing to them. Therefore, it is the pragmatic argument, like no other, that forms the image of the audience in rhetorical prose. This image of the audience becomes, in turn, the instance to which the rhetor turns with his pragmatic argument. So, in the "Diary of a Writer" for April 1877, F. M. Dostoevsky, in the narration of the beginning of the article "War. We are stronger than all," preliminarily builds both main images - the audience and the opponent, in order to then, using them, move on to pragmatic argumentation.

(13) "War! War has been declared." we exclaimed two weeks ago. "Will there be a war?" - asked immediately others. "Announced, announced!" - answered them. "Yes, it has been announced, but will it be?" They kept asking...

And, really, there were such questions, maybe there are now. And it is not only because of diplomatic delay that people have lost their faith, this is different, this is instinct. Everyone feels that something definitive has begun, that some kind of end of something old, long, long old is coming, and a step is being taken towards something completely new, towards something that breaks the former in two, renewing and resurrecting it already for a new life and ... that this step is taken by Russia! This is precisely the disbelief of "wise" people. There is an instinctive foreboding, and disbelief continues: "Russia! But how can she, how dare she? Is she ready? Is she ready internally, morally, not only materially? There is Europe, it's easy to say Europe! And Russia, what is Russia? And for such a step?"

But the people believe that they are ready for a new, renewing and great step. It is the people themselves who have risen to war, with the king at their head. When the royal word was heard, the people poured into the churches, and this was all over the Russian land. When the tsar's manifesto was read, the people were baptized, and everyone congratulated each other on the war. We saw it with our own eyes, heard it, and all this even here in St. Petersburg. And again the same things began, the same facts as last year: the peasants in the volosts donate money, carts according to their strength, and suddenly these thousands of people, as one person, exclaim: "Yes, what victims, what carts, we will all go to war!" Here in St. Petersburg, donors for the wounded and sick soldiers appear, give sums of several thousand, and are recorded as unknown. There are many such facts, there will be tens of thousands of such facts, and you will not surprise anyone with them. They only mean that the whole people has risen for the truth, for the holy cause, that the whole people has risen to war and is going. Oh, the wise men will deny these facts, as they did last year; the sages still, as recently, continue to laugh at the people, although their voices have noticeably quietened down. Why do they laugh, why do they have so much self-confidence? And that's why they keep laughing. that they still consider themselves a force, that very force without which nothing can be done. Meanwhile, their strength is coming to an end. They are approaching a terrible collapse, and when collapse breaks out over them, they will also start speaking in a different language, but everyone will see that they are muttering other people's words and from another's voice, and they will turn away from them and turn their hope to where the king and people are with him ".

The construction of the image of the audience in example (13) follows a common model: the image of the audience merges, on the one hand, with the idea of society as a people to which the reader must join; this society-people-audience is opposed by "wise men", that is, an opponent. The opposition is built in the form of a figure of dialogism, in which the people-audience, the author, the king are compared with "wise men", "others". The people "as one person, exclaims" (Dostoevsky's favorite verb, which means the excited speech of the author and his like-minded people) ~ the sages "ask", "laugh at the people", "mutter from someone else's voice"; "all the people have risen to war and are going" ~ "wise men will deny these facts"; the people "believe that they are ready for a new step" ~ wise men are "self-confident"; the people "rose up for the truth, for the holy cause" ~ the sages "continue to laugh at the people, although they noticeably quieted down"; the people "rushed into the churches" ~ the wise men "laugh" at the people, which creates an allusion to the New Testament image of the "answers of this world" Pharisees and scribes; the people are "taking a step forward" ~ the wise men are "approaching a terrible collapse." The choice of vocabulary shows that the author constructs rhetorical pathos of indignation and anger, which is caused by "neglect either to ourselves or to what belongs to us, when we should not neglect" .

Having thus constructed a single instance of the people-audience, Dostoevsky turns to it subsequent pragmatic arguments.

(14) "We need this war ourselves; not only for the "Slav brothers", tormented by the Turks, we are rising, but also for our own salvation: the war will freshen the air that we breathe and with which we suffocated, sitting in the weakness of corruption and in spiritual narrowness ".

The main premises and conclusion of the conclusion: We are suffocating from the weakness of corruption and spiritual tightness (A is B); "War will freshen the air", that is, "is a means of salvation from the infirmity of corruption and spiritual emptiness (C is not B); the conclusion is: "We need this war" (C is not A).

Since the lesser premise and conclusion of the argument are logically negative judgments (“corruption and spiritual emptiness are evils that must be got rid of”), the content of the argument is revealed through the opposition of the inert mass to those who are denoted by the pronoun “we”, who despises “servility of thought” and believes “in their own and their people’s independence”. The worldview of this inert mass is expressed by the "wise men" who "shout that the authorities are for them, that Europe is for them" and "whistle at those who disagree with them." From this opposition, a phrase is sharply singled out, which, in essence, is the justification for the lesser premise: "No, it is true that the truth is bought only by martyrdom" (since war is martyrdom).

So, a pragmatic argument involves the development of an image of the audience to which it is addressed, that is, an introduction to the argument; at the same time, if the scheme of the argument contains negative judgments, then the importance of developing the image of the opponent, which is needed to oppose and contrast with the combined image of the author and the audience, increases.

Must Arguments

Arguments of obligation, the premises of which appeal to the concept of duty, and not benefit, to the same extent as pragmatic arguments, need an introductory conventional part, that is, to create an image of the audience. This introductory part of the argument can, as in example (15), be included directly in its scheme, and in this case the verbal series of the argument often contains imperative judgments, which is generally characteristic of must arguments.

(15) "Yes, the more penetratingly you relate to the past that prepared the ground for the explosion, the more sacredly fulfill your judicial duty. You are not called here to judge only the mechanical side of the event, not only to condemn the hands raised in a fit of indignation, or a face distorted by impotence to resist the impulse, but that process of slow swelling of grief, anger and despair in the human chest, which finally led to a fatal catastrophe. And then, about following this path of knowledge, you will be able to say whether this sin of man is free or not.

The purpose of the argument to the obligation in example (15) is that it connects the presentation of the case with technical argumentation - the justification of the position, and thus occupies a fundamentally important place in the entire system of the defender's argumentation: the conclusion of the argument is reproduced and strengthened several times in the conclusion of the speech. The scheme is built as a conditional-separative inference with a very unclear expression of the logical scheme, which can be considered as sophism (violation of the rule of inference by modo ponendo-tollens). From the point of view of the appeal, it is significant that the study of the "swelling of grief in the human breast" is included in the "penetrating attitude to the past", which is included in the recognition of the involuntary "sin of a man" (who killed his wife, the mother of three children), which is included in the "sacred performance of judicial duty."

Thus, the reduction of the argument to obligation includes in the concept of duty, to which the appeal is made, quite arbitrarily selected meanings. If in example (14) of the pragmatic argument realistic pathos is used and the reasonable attitude of the people to the subject of speech is contrasted with the "shouts" and "laughter" of the sages, against whom anger is aroused, then in example (15) sentimental pathos is used - pity for the accused and an equally sentimental condemnation of the victim: "Is there no fault of others, their vicious attitude to life, their carelessness to what caused a rush of resentment? other person's words?" .

Arguments to duty have much less persuasive power than pragmatic ones, which is explained by the greater complexity of the chain of words stretched from a particular case to a general concept, on the one hand, and a critical attitude to any statement about duty, on the other.

Arguments for Necessity

In a meaningful sense, arguments for necessity are the strongest of arguments for a goal, since the goal is presented as a necessary or inevitable decision, the opposite of which is the equally inevitable failure or catastrophe, which is often depicted in the premises of the argument. Deliberative arguments of this kind are usually resorted to in election campaigns or when discussing the feasibility of radical reforms. Bet on this, the premises of the argument to necessity can be of a technical nature and be close in meaning to the premises of arguments to reality: the difference is that at the top of the chain of appeals there is always an appeal to one or another value. In the following example from P.A. Stolypin "On Naval Defense", this appeal to the hierarchy of values \u200b\u200bcan be seen.

“For everyone now, it seems, it has become clear that only that people has the right and power to hold the sea in their hands, which can defend it. Therefore, all those peoples who strove for the sea, who reached it, irresistibly took the path of shipbuilding. , free-floating fortresses, a fleet of the line is needed.

All coastal peoples understood this. Defenselessness at sea is just as dangerous as defenselessness on land. Of course, it is possible, under favorable circumstances, to live for some time on land and without shelter, but when a storm comes up, strong walls and a strong roof are needed to resist it. That is why the business of shipbuilding has everywhere become a national affair. That is why the launching of each new ship into the water is a national celebration, a national celebration. This is the return to the sea of part of the people's forces accumulated on land, people's energy. That is why, gentlemen, everywhere powerful states have built fleets at home: at home they protect the construction of the fleet from all accidents; at home they are building up the future power of the people, the future military power.

These simple considerations led the government to the conclusion that Russia needed a fleet. And the question of what Russia needs a fleet was answered by the same state defense commission, which put it this way: Russia needs a capable fleet. I understand this expression in the sense that Russia needs such a fleet, which at any moment could fight with a fleet that stands at the level of the latest scientific requirements. If this does not happen, if Russia has a different fleet, then it will only be harmful, since it will inevitably become the prey of the attackers. Russia needs a fleet that would be no less fast and no worse armed, with no weaker armor than the fleet of the alleged enemy. Russia needs a mighty battle fleet that would rely on a destroyer fleet and an underwater fleet, since it is impossible to fend off those floating fortresses that are called battleships with mine ships alone.

The position of the argument - Russia needs a fleet that includes heavy warships - expensive battleships and battlecruisers. By itself, the argument for necessity (third paragraph of example (16)) is not sufficient and requires substantiation by pragmatic arguments and an argument for authority (first and second paragraphs), since the need to build a large fleet is not at all obvious to the audience. Only through an appeal to the national idea is it possible to turn directly to necessity: in this case, the audience, with all the diversity of the deputies' worldview, in accordance with its status as the State Duma, is obliged to take a top about national interests. The argument for necessity substantiates the proposition about what exactly a new capable fleet should be and how it should be built (end of the first paragraph). Negative premises, the purpose of which is to affirm the impossibility of a different solution, are an obligatory component of the arguments for necessity.

Discussion and Conclusions

Above, only the main categories of rhetorical arguments were considered: arguments to reality, to authority, to the audience. The examples used are taken from classical, mostly Russian, rhetorical prose, whose style allows for a visual demonstration of the structure of an argument, but these three types do not seem to depend on historical or other style: ancient, medieval, and modern rhetorical prose use the same three types of appeal. The private nature of the audience to which this or that type of argument is addressed, and the appeal to authority may turn out to be hidden: the desire to present the argument as generally valid, universal, is characteristic of both rationalistic and modern rhetorical prose: authority itself can be presented as an expression of a universal "universal" position.

However, the question of the attitude to the instance seems significant, since it manifests the real worldview, the mythology of the rhetorical audience: the image of the audience for itself is associated with the idea of the universal significance of the topics, that is, the values accepted by it, but at the same time - any audience of rhetorical prose tends to stand apart, and in this sense, it is important for it to contrast "our ~ someone else's", "we~them". The argument classes combine these diverging tendencies in different ways. If the arguments to reality are characterized by the idea of universality, the external coercive force of circumstances and “our” common sense as a manifestation of common sense in general, then the arguments to authority are characterized primarily by the idea of a community of “we”, united by a significant authoritative source external to “us”, but whose value is potentially universally significant and thereby increases the weight of this “we” so much that the judgment of “our” authority can exceed considerations of common sense: wow, that's amazing!" Arguments to authority are therefore most persuasive and most significant when discussing problems related to spiritual morality, without the solution of which no social agreement is possible. Arguments to the audience make it an authoritative instance and even more clearly oppose it to external social groups than arguments to authority, but make the premises generally valid through an appeal to common sense: the value of internal experience is verified by its objectivity. The image of the audience here most clearly acts as an image of a judge, a free and responsible source of judgments, which is why arguments to the audience are often used to substantiate the provisions of normative ethics in demonstrative argumentation.

The main features by which types of instances are combined and distinguished are as follows: an appeal to an instance external to the audience; appeal to a topic that is understood as private, accepted by this audience; an appeal to the common sense of the audience. Reality and authority are such instances external to the audience, but they differ in their particular and general character and in their relation to common sense. Reality and the audience are united by the common content of common sense, but they also differ in the private and general content and the external and internal source of judgment, the audience and authority are united by the private nature of the topic, but differ in the external and internal nature of the judgment and the attitude to common sense, which is overcome by arguments to authority.

Bibliography

1. Saint Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. Word on the day of the accomplished centenary of Moscow University. (1855). Creations. Sergiev Posad, publishing house "Father's House", 1994. S. 295.

2. For the first time these types of argumentation were distinguished and compared by Giambattista Vico; Frankfurt am Mein-history of topical argumentation: Viehweg Th. Topics and Law. Berlin-Bern-New York-Paris-Wien: Peter Lang, . 1993 (English translation).

3. See, for example, chains of concepts linking the categories of good and evil in A. Schopenhauer: The World as Will and Representation. Per. A. Feta. M., 1892. p. 48-61.

4. Black E. Rhetorical Criticism. A Study and Method. N.Y., 1965.

5. Aristotle. Topeka. (105b, 20). Op. T. 2, M., 1978, p.363

7. Quint. Ibid. p. 226.

8. Quint. Ibid. p. 226-227.

9. Quint. Ibid., p. 228. In fact, there are also three of them: is it possible to achieve what is being said? how to achieve this? how to use it?

10. Belnap N., Steel T. Logic of questions and answers. per. M.: Progress. 1981, p. 13.

11. Volkov A.A. Russian rhetoric course. M., 2001. S. 92-103.

12. Gasparov M.L. Ancient rhetoric as a system. - "Ancient poetics". M., "Nauka", 1991. S. 30.

13. See, for example: V.I. Kirillov, A. A. Starchenko. Logics. M., "Jurist", 2002. S.195-230.

15. Wed. Vinogradov V.V. On the language of artistic prose. M., 1930. S. 75 et seq.

16. By reality, in this case, is meant everything that can be pointed to, which is understood as "this".

17. Wittgenstein L. Ibid. 1.13.

18. Chicherin B.N. property and the state. Selected works. Publishing House of St. Petersburg University. 1998. S.405-406.

19. Andreevsky S.A. Defense speech in the case of the Kelesh brothers. Fav. works and S.33-34.- Tula: Autograph, 2000.-speech.

20. Andreevsky S. A. Ibid. S. 34.

21. Archpriest Valentin Sventsitsky. Dialogues. Saratov, 1999. S. 9-16.

22. Pascal B. Thoughts. M., 1994, p. 131-132.

23. Archpriest Valentin Sventsitsky. There. P. 10.

24. Rozhdestvensky Yu.V. Theory of rhetoric. M., Dobrosvet, 1999. S.331-333; 404-440.

25. Rozhdestvensky Yu.V. There. S. 405.

26. Aeschylus. Oresteia. Per. Vyach. Ivanova. - Greek tragedy, Rostov-on-Don, "Phoenix", 1997. S. 137-138.

27. Apostle with an interpretation by Blessed Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria. Publisher: M., "Ark", 2002. S. 347

28. William of Ockham. Favorites. M., URSS, 2002. P. 197.

29. Karamzin N.M. About love for the fatherland and national pride. Fav. op. M.-L., 1964, p.282.

30. Trubetskoy N.S. Europe and humanity. Story. Culture. Language. M., 1995. S. 62-63.

31. Rozhdestvensky Yu.V. Theory of rhetoric. M., Dobrosvet, 1999 S. 163-166.

32. Urusov A.I. Speech on the case of the Moscow Credit Society. Ibid, p. 372-373.

33. Spasovich V.D. Speech on the Notovitch case. Russian judicial orators in well-known criminal trials. T. VI. M., 1902, p. 211-213.

34. Shubinsky N.P. Defense speech in the Kiselyov case. Russian judicial orators in well-known criminal trials. T. VI / M., 1902. S. 407.

35. Saint Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Amphilochia. Per. D. Afinogenov. - "Alpha and Omega" No. 4 (18). M., 1998. S. 83.

36. Saint Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow There.

37. Aristotle. Rhetoric 1358b. - Ancient rhetoric. M., Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1978. S. 24-25.

38. Dostoevsky F.M. "Man is a mystery."

M.. Publishing house "Izvestia", 2003. S. 340-341.

39. Aristotle. Rhetoric (1377b). There. S. 72.

40. Dostoevsky F. M. Ibid. S. 341.

41. Shubinsky N.P. Defense speech in the Kiselyov case. - Russian judicial orators in well-known criminal trials. T. VI. M., 1902. S. 404.

42. Shubinsky N.P. There.

43. Stolypin P.A. It's about naval defense. - We need great Russia. M., "Young Guard", 1991. S. 151-52.

44. Tertullian, On Baptism. - Selected works. M., "Progress", 1994. S. 93.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

1. Definition of argumentation. Argument and proof. The difference between rhetorical and logical reasoning. Types of argumentation.

2. Requirements for the thesis.

3. Requirements for arguments.

4. Classification of arguments. Rational arguments: a) natural evidence; b) logical arguments (to logos). Irrational arguments: a) arguments to ethos (“mores”); b) arguments for pathos ("passion").

1. The theory of argumentation arose in antiquity. It was developed by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics. “Think chiefly of truth; if you think that I speak correctly, agree, and if not, object as soon as you can, ”such was the principle of Socrates. Plato wrote: “The ability to convince with a word is the greatest good and gives people both freedom and power over other people.”

A.F. Koni in his article “Methods and tasks of the prosecutor's office” noted the main feature of judicial eloquence: “The basis of judicial eloquence is the need to prove and convince.”

Argumentation- a special way of speech interaction between people, during which arguments are offered to the interlocutor or audience either in support of a certain point of view, or to refute the proposed point of view. Argumentation is a logical and communicative process of substantiating some provisions with the help of other provisions, the validity of which is not questioned. This process is dialogical in nature, it presupposes dialogue. Argumentation in the form of a dialogue is implemented in practice in the form of a dispute, polemic, discussion.

The structure of the argument. The reasoning includes: thesis(a statement that needs to be proven true) arguments(judgments by which the truth of the thesis is proved) and demonstration(a way of logical connection between the thesis and arguments). If there is no need to prove something, there is no thesis, that is, a controversial statement. Even Aristotle noted such an important quality of the thesis as its conflict, controversy.

Argumentation is a triune entity, none of whose elements can be excluded, all are necessary. Each of them is necessary, and all of them together are sufficient for the proof.

From a logical-linguistic point of view, argumentation is the process of creating special texts in oral or written form. As you know, professional legal activity is associated with the adoption and justification of responsible decisions, i. is actually an argument. Argumentation is presented at all stages of the legislative process, it is carried out in law enforcement, is necessary for the development of legal science and in the legal education of citizens.

Let us name the general principles of argumentation.

1. Argumentation is used in problem situations due to the need to establish the truth and make a decision.

2. The argumentation is based on the recognition of the equality of the argumentator and the addressee as free individuals, between whom dialogic relations are realized.

3. The argumentator acts with a persuasive word within the field of argumentation formed by the intellectual capabilities of the addressee.

4. In the course of argumentation, an oral or written text is formed, which contains a sequence of theses, arguments and counterarguments.

5. The argumentation construction should introduce such new knowledge that could change the picture of the addressee's world and thereby influence the decision-making process.

6. A necessary condition for the success of argumentation is the correspondence of the argumentative text to the field of argumentation.

Argumentation and proof closely related, but not identical. Proof is a special case of argumentation. Argumentation is a method of reasoning, including proof and refutation. Proof - a logical procedure for substantiating the truth of some statements with the help of others, the truth of which is considered established.

Proof and its techniques have been at the center of attention of almost all prominent logicians and orators. Thus, Aristotle said that people are most convinced of something when it seems to them that it has been proven. Aristotle considered the ability to prove the most important feature of a person.

Ancient Indian logicians studied the process of proof in detail, the Arabic-speaking philosopher Al-Farabi considered the doctrine of proof to be the basis of logic. Thus, centuries-old experience has convinced people that validity, evidence is the most important property of correct thinking. It is a reflection in our minds of the most general patterns of objective reality - the relationship and interdependence of objects and phenomena.

There is no template proof that is universal for all cases. Common to all evidence are the structure and methods of proof, the requirements for the thesis and arguments. The structure and methods of proof are stable, since they are the result of a long abstract work of human thinking, a product of a number of eras, many generations of people. However, in different audiences, effective are Various types argumentation. Any argumentation in a public speech is focused on a specific audience, situation, takes into account a specific topic.

Specificity of rhetorical argumentation. Rhetorical argumentation is in many ways similar to logical one, but there is no complete coincidence between them. In fact, the similarity between them is only external; it is no coincidence that modern theoreticians of rhetoric (for example, the Belgian H. Perelman) called rhetorical argumentation quasi-logical (i.e., pseudological). Without a clear understanding of this distinction, the speaker may unconsciously replace rhetorical argumentation with logical argumentation, which in reality does not correspond to the essence of rhetoric, and also limits the speaker in terms of the possibilities at his disposal.

Rhetoric and logic arose simultaneously and were originally conceived as complementary disciplines. Already in Aristotle we find their consistent distinction. What is this difference?

1. For logic, reasoning is logical or illogical due to its structure, logic excludes the addresser (the author of the message) and the addressee (the recipient of the message) from consideration. For rhetoric, the figures of the addresser and the addressee are very important. The fact is that the task of rhetoric, unlike the task of logic, is not to prove this or that position, but to change the opinions of the addressee.

2. Rhetoric does not operate with true, but only probable statements. If logic is the means by which science acquires new knowledge, then the scope of the orator's activity is public life, and in public life it is not exact knowledge that is more important, but opinions.

3. Rhetorical reasoning is wider than logical. Rhetoric considers as arguments not only logical means, but also special cases, examples. Rhetorical argumentation turns out to be wider than logical and in terms of application.

4. A feature of rhetorical argumentation is also that it chooses an order that is reverse to the normal order in logical proof. If in logic the conclusion follows its premises, follows from the grounds, then in rhetoric the conclusion (thesis) precedes the justification. First, there is a judgment (the thesis of speech) that needs to be proved, and then arguments are sought that would make a particular audience accept this thesis.

5. Rhetoric requires proving those provisions that are of social significance, while logic is more interested in the form, rather than the content of the evidence.

Types of argumentation. There are different types of arguments. First of all, on the basis of the goal, 4 types of argumentation are possible:

– logical- all other species are based on it in one way or another; the speaker refers to the already existing values of the addressee, compares them with his own, establishes the degree of correspondence and draws conclusions about the significance of the theses; this type of argumentation is designed mainly for the left hemisphere information processing strategy (explanations, evaluations, establishing the cause, identity, similarity, etc.);

– emotional- when the speaker assumes that the addressee's value system is stable, even conservative, therefore, reduces the rational beginning to a minimum and counts on a direct emotional impact; this type of argumentation is focused on the right hemispheric strategy of information processing;

– dialectical- the speaker is aware of the difference in the value structure of his own and the addressee, tries to bring positions closer, find a compromise and change the position of values in the addressee's hierarchy; mainly designed for the left hemisphere strategy;

– generative- the speaker intends to destroy the value categories in the mind of the addressee and create new ones; this requires activation of both logical-conceptual and figurative-emotional information processing strategies.

In addition, according to whether the argumentation strengthens or weakens by the end of the speech, the argumentation differs. ascending and descending.

There is an argument unilateral And bilateral. The first presupposes either only arguments “for” or only arguments “against”. At bilateral argumentation, the speaker gives arguments both in defense of his position ("for") and "against" the opponent's arguments.

Types of evidence in terms of the logical form of justification:

– direct, when the thesis is derived directly from the arguments;

– indirect– in the course of indirect evidence, they first prove the falsity of the negation of the proposed thesis and from this the truth of the given thesis is deduced.

There are two types of circumstantial evidence: apagogicAnddividing. Greek the word apagoge means conclusion, apagogos- leading away, diverting. With apagogic proof, an indirect proof is carried out, as if leading away to the side. The argumentator makes a detour, takes a detour. This type of proof is also called proof by contradiction, although it should be more accurately called proof by contradiction.

Indirect separative proof can otherwise be called proof based on the method of eliminating alternatives. These alternatives completely exhaust all possible alternatives in this area. With such a proof, all members of the disjunctive judgment are consistently excluded, except for one, which is the thesis being proved.

According to the form in which evidence is made, inferences can be deductive(from general to particular) and inductive(from particular to general).

In addition, the evidence is divided into progressive(1) and regressive(2): (1) - the course of reasoning goes from the foundations to the consequences; (2) - the course of reasoning goes from the consequences to the foundations.

Among the types of evidence, it is necessary to clearly distinguish conditional evidence, when the basis is accepted as true only under certain conditions.

Requirements for the thesis.

(1) The first and foremost requirement is that the thesis must be true; otherwise it cannot be proven.

(2) The thesis must be clearly and precisely stated.

The accuracy of the thesis formulation is an operation that includes 3 procedures:

- accurately formulate the thesis for the speaker;

- accurately formulate the thesis for the audience:

- combine the first with the second in real text.

The clarity of the wording provides for a careful choice of each word, as well as the placement of each word in a strictly defined place in the short text of the thesis.

(3) The thesis must be consistent throughout the proof. Otherwise, this rule is called the thesis identity rule. In logic, there is a term - "hold the thesis."

Loss of the thesis and substitution of the thesis, full or partial - common mistakes. This can be done by simplifying the wording when important details are omitted. Or not label the necessary conditions. Or some special case to declare general. A variation of such a mistake can be the so-called "argument to personality", when the conversation is transferred from the thesis to the discussion of the personal qualities of a person.

If the reason thesis loss there may be a mental failure, then the reason substitution of the thesis is the conscious unwillingness of a person to prove the thesis that is formulated. Substitution of thesis is often found in long speeches, where it is easiest to replace one position with another. On the other hand, it is a characteristic feature of certain types of speeches (for example, diplomatic speeches), and this is specially taught - how to do it implicitly, but elegantly.

The requirement of internal consistency of the thesis. Consistency as an important feature of logically correct speech is determined by the requirements of two laws of formal logic - the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle.

Law of contradiction (Lex contradictionis): two opposite thoughts about the same subject, taken at the same time and in the same relation, cannot be true at the same time. This law was discovered by Aristotle. In Plato, one can also find the idea that "it is impossible to be and not to be one and the same."

Argument requirements.

1. The argument must be true. Just as in the case of the thesis, this truth is not absolute, but relative. It is about the speaker's belief in the truth of his argument. Both interlocutors must recognize the truth of the argument: after all, if one of them does not recognize, the argument cannot be used as evidence. If the listener does not agree with the argument, then the argument itself turns into a thesis and it has to be proved in the first place. Throughout the argument, it is necessary to ask the question: “Do you agree with this?”

2. The requirement of sufficiency to prove the thesis. The argument must be sufficient for the people to whom it is directed. The level of sufficiency for a particular audience is always individual.

3. The argument must be a thought, the truth of which has been proven regardless of the thesis: it is impossible to cite statements in defense of the thesis that themselves follow from this thesis. Otherwise, a logical-speech error occurs, called a "vicious circle".

4. The requirement of an individual approach to argumentation. First, the speaker must prove the thesis to himself. Proving something to ourselves, we choose those arguments that are convincing to us, and the most convincing argument is the main one. The gross error of argumentation is that, starting to prove his thesis to others, a person gives the same arguments and, as a rule, in the same order. Such argumentation usually fails, since arguments are chosen that are priority for the speaker's consciousness. Arguments that are priority for the consciousness of the interlocutor may turn out to be completely different.

4. Classification of arguments. In rhetoric, there are two main grounds for classifying arguments. First, this division of arguments into natural And artificial; secondly, the selection of evidence in accordance with such aspects of rhetorical communication as logos, ethos And pathos.

natural evidence- this is the testimony of witnesses, documents, expert data, that is, everything that is certified by people due to what they saw or heard.

artificial evidence harder to define as they represent all evidence that is not natural. This is the name of evidence that is somehow connected with the need to reason. Any methods we use to overcome the lack of evidence are artificial evidence.

There is much more artificial evidence than natural evidence. Therefore, further classification will concern artificial evidence.

Aristotle identified three types of evidence. In particular, in the Rhetoric he writes:

“As for the methods of persuasion delivered by speech, there are three types: some of them depend on the character of the speaker, others on one or another mood of the listeners, and still others on the speech itself.”

Evidence that comes from the character of the speaker is traditionally correlated with ethos ("mores"); evidence emanating from the mood of the listeners, with pathos ("passions"), and the proofs coming from speech itself, or, more precisely, from the structure of the objective world with which speech is correlated - with logos (arguments in the proper sense of the word).

Natural evidence and logical arguments were combined into a common group and named rational arguments, substantive arguments (ad rem). They were opposed irrational arguments or arguments to man (ad hominem).

natural evidence have a lot of weight. The main task that the speaker solves with the help of natural evidence is to find out whether this or that fact took place. The main sources of natural evidence are eyewitness accounts and documents.

Evidence– statements of people who were present at the event or nearby and have any information that is important in terms of establishing the actual development of the situation.

From the point of view of the subject ("who testifies?"), evidence can be divided into 4 groups.

a) what the listeners themselves saw or heard is perhaps the most reliable type of natural evidence, since a person trusts his own feelings most of all;

b) testimonies of other people - they are most effective if the person referred to by the speaker is credible from the point of view of the audience; turning to the testimonies of other people is necessary when it comes to past events that neither the speaker nor the audience could have witnessed;

c) testimonies of the speaker himself - the speaker himself can act as a witness or refer to his own experience;

Documentation– written sources, on the basis of which it is possible to reconstruct the course of events.

P. Sergeich: “Facts, documents are weighty and convincing on their own” (p. 173). “The case must be decided by facts, not words, it is necessary to eliminate the influence of chance - the superiority of oratorical talent on the decision of judges or jurors” (p. 151).

“The living basis of the process lies in the testimony of witnesses and experts; in their words is the riddle and solution of the case” (p. 153), and therefore “the most important, almost the only merit of the parties in the conduct of the judicial investigation is the ability to conduct an interrogation” (ibid.).