The Development of Theories: Philosopher Chaim Perelman

He writes, "Actually, to reason is non only to demonstrate, it is also to be deliberate and to argue" (p. 798). He argues that two mathematicians could never debate two sides of an arithmetic numeration: the calculation has a right answer and a wrongly one, and this is an unquestionable, logical fact on which both scientists would agree. Yet set and human judgment atomic number 18 not so clean-cut: "There is always something to say in favor of the glacial thesis . . . In fact, ratiocination about values is frequently more standardized a juridical argument than like a mathematical deduction" (p. 798).

Because Perelman's background included considerable legal training and interest in the law, his public opinions about converse turned to the ways in which argumentation and judgment are used in the tribunal. He hoped at first to reach the principles of strict logic to the formulation of an ideal way of transformation judgments before a court of law. Instead, he began to see the courtroom as a remarkable microcosm of rhetoric in action, though he did not feature his use of the margin at first, probably because it held such a negative connotation in modern thinking. "Rhetoric" was then an old-fashioned term that implied bad reasoning and a way of using language that could be twisted to suit whatever purpose was needed at the moment.

By 1958, he and his colleague, L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, had decided to attempt to return the term to its form

er glory. Calling their abundant work The New Rhetoric (translated into English and copyrighted in 1969), they outlined a detailed analysis of every verbalism of argumentation they could elucidate. They chose their title because, knowing that "logicians and modern philosophers have dumbfound totally disinterested in our subject . . . we hope that our attempts will contribute to the revival of an ancient and glorious tradition" (1958/1969, pp. 4-5).

dickens of the important points of The New Rhetoric are the fact that the psyche sets out to persuade a given reference and that this audience determines some of the initial points from which the argument proceeds.

In an article primitively published in 1951, Perelman contends, "What is accepted by certain persons is not necessarily accepted by others; and so the audience whitethorn extend from the individual himself . . . through the whole series of peculiar(a) audiences to the universal audience" (1989, p. 44), and he points out that this "universal audience" is only an ideal concept, a group that changes with different propagation and with different speakers. In The New Rhetoric, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca expand on this idea, considering issues such as the size of the audience and the ways in which a speaker adapts himself or herself to the circumstances of the argument.

Perelman, C. (1989). The brand-new rhetoric. In R. D. Dearin (Ed.), The new rhetoric of Chaim Perelman: Statement and response (pp. 37-41). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

The floor of Professor Perelman's theories offer an interesting example of the development of a scholarly body of thought. Not intending at first to suss out a specific bailiwick, his combined background of law and ism offered him a particularly useful perspective on an area that had been neglected by modern thinking. Because he remained open to his subject, he continues to produce intriguing thought on the subject of thought itself.

In the introduction to the new
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.