The New Rhetoric And The Humanities

Modern logic has Wldergone some remarkable developments in the last hun dred years. These have contributed to the extraordinary use of formal logic which has become essentially the concern of mathematicians. This has led to attempts to identify logic with formal logic. The claim has even been made that all non-formal reasoning, to the extent that it cannot be formalized, no longer belongs to logic. This conception leads to a genuine impoverishment of logic as well as to a narrow conception of reason. It means that as soon as demonstrative proofs are no longer available reason will no longer dominate. Even the idea of the 'reasonable' becomes foreign to logic and such expres sions as 'reasonable decisions', 'reasonable choice' or 'reasonable hypotheses' would be put aside as meaningless. The domain of action, including method ology and everything that is given over to deliberation or controversy - i.e., foreign to formal logic - would become a battleground where necessarily the reason of the strongest would always prevail.

Modern logic has Wldergone some remarkable developments in the last hun dred years. These have contributed to the extraordinary use of formal logic which has become essentially the concern of mathematicians. This has led to attempts to identify logic with formal logic. The claim has even been made that all non-formal reasoning, to the extent that it cannot be formalized, no longer belongs to logic. This conception leads to a genuine impoverishment of logic as well as to a narrow conception of reason. It means that as soon as demonstrative proofs are no longer available reason will no longer dominate. Even the idea of the 'reasonable' becomes foreign to logic and such expres sions as 'reasonable decisions', 'reasonable choice' or 'reasonable hypotheses' would be put aside as meaningless. The domain of action, including method ology and everything that is given over to deliberation or controversy - i.e., foreign to formal logic - would become a battleground where necessarily the reason of the strongest would always prevail.

The New Rhetoric is founded on the idea that since “argumentation aims at securing the adherence of those to whom it is addressed, it is, in its entirety, relative to the audience to be influenced,” says Chaïm Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, and they rely, in particular, for their theory of argumentation on the twin concepts of universal and particular audiences: while every argument is directed to a specific individual or group, the orator decides what information and what approaches will achieve the greatest adherence according to an ideal audience. This ideal, Perelman explains, can be embodied, for example, "in God, in all reasonable and competent men, in the man deliberating or in an elite.” Like particular audiences, then, the universal audience is never fixed or absolute but depends on the orator, the content and goals of the argument, and the particular audience to whom the argument is addressed. These considerations determine what information constitutes "facts" and "reasonableness" and thus help to determine the universal audience that, in turn, shapes the orator's approach. The adherence of an audience is also determined by the orator's use of values, a further key concept of the New Rhetoric. Perelman's treatment of value and his view of epideictic rhetoric sets his approach apart from that of the ancients and of Aristotle in particular. Aristotle's division of rhetoric into three genres–forensic, deliberative, and epideictic–is largely motivated by the judgments required for each: forensic or legal arguments require verdicts on past action, deliberative or political rhetoric seeks judgment on future action, and epideictic or ceremonial rhetoric concerns values associated with praise or blame and seeks no specific decisions. For Aristotle, the epideictic genre was of limited importance in the civic realm since it did not concern facts or policies. Perelman, in contrast, believes not only that epideictic rhetoric warrants more attention, but that the values normally limited to that genre are in fact central to all argumentation. "Epideictic oratory," Perelman argues, "has significant and important argumentation for strengthening the disposition toward action by increasing adherence to the values it lauds.” These values are central to the persuasiveness of arguments in all rhetorical genres since the orator always attempts to "establish a sense of communion centered around particular values recognized by the audience.”

A survey of a range of disciplines whose practitioners are venturing into the new field of digital rhetoric, examining the history of the ways digital and networked technologies inhabit and shape traditional rhetorical practices as well as considering new rhetorics made possible by current technologies

No detailed description available for "Handbook of Argumentation Theory".

Both Perelman's collaborators, Professors Haarscher and Ingber, shared with me their deep personal insights about origins, birth and phases of the develop ment of the New Rhetoric. Without their good will, advice and creative com ments, my personal knowledge would have been narrower. I am grateful to the Chaim Perelman Foundation for their grant which enabled me to cover my expenses of collecting materials, editing and preparing the manuscript. Professor Michel Meyer was very instrumental in the negotiations with the publisher. Mr. Raphael Lipski, treasurer of the Perelman Foundation, spent many hours with me, and shared his remembrances of Perelman's personality, his social and political activity. lowe special thanks to Dr. Richard Kramer, whose friendship I cherish for a quarter of a century. He read and edited not only the entire text of the book, but he offered many critical remarks and constructive suggestions which helped me to revise my own ideas and to formulate them more clearly and precisely. The first critical reader and editor was as usual Mrs. Elizabeth Previti. Professor Elzbieta Ettinger-Chodakowska, MIT, read this entire manuscript and shared with me her impressions. lowe special gratitude to my dear friend, Mrs. Stephanie Silvers for her steady help and moral support. Needless to say, I am solely responsible for all the deficiencies of this book.

What role did classical rhetoric play in the writing of the New Testament? What role does classical and modern rhetoric play in interpreting the New Testament today? What role should classical and modern rhetoric play in New Testament interpretation? These and related questions are asked in this collection of over twenty essays originally delivered as papers at the 1992 Heidelberg Conference on Rhetorical Criticism of Biblical Documents. This conference, the first of several scheduled to address fundamental rhetorical issues of increasing importance in New Testament study, drew scholars from three continents and over fourteen countries, making it a truly international scholarly event and this a truly cosmopolitan publication. The authors' varying contexts resulted in a lively and challenging discussion well reflected in this volume's essays. The first part discusses rhetoric in the light of extended interpretation of a variety of New Testament texts. Luke and Acts, most of Paul's letters, and other New Testament documents are scrutinized using various rhetorical categories. In the second part, questions of rhetoric and methodology are raised. New approaches are tested in a number of essays that push the boundaries of traditional rhetorical study. These essays provide an excellent sampling of some of the major work being done in rhetorical study of the New Testament and suggest several avenues for future research.

First Published in 1996. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.