Suchergebnisse

Rhetoric is a universal persuasion system: it is the ability to discover persuasive ways and means in each particular case. The essential part of the convincing process – argumentation – becomes the core of the rhetoric science. The article deals with the argumentation level of political discourse, specifically with political advertising. The aim of the article is to elucidate the concept of eristic and eristic arguments, as well as reveal the universal character of rhetorical persuasion – to identify and explain the dominant models of eristic reasoning in political advertising. Eristic arguments are considered as logical fallacies, unreliable arguments, but classical rhetoric justifies the ethical use of sophismata and eristic ways in persuasive discourses. Eristic argumentation is ethical as long as the addressee is free to accept or reject the arguments put forward, so the eristic must be understood further because we can identify and reveal false statements. An analysis of the peculiarities of argumentation of various forms of advertising reveals that eristic argumentation is the predominant kind of argumentation in advertising. The choise of eristic argumentation in political discourse is influenced by the competitive mode of elections, clearly seen in the pre-election debates and other verbal form of dispute.

Rhetoric is a universal persuasion system: it is the ability to discover persuasive ways and means in each particular case. The essential part of the convincing process – argumentation – becomes the core of the rhetoric science. The article deals with the argumentation level of political discourse, specifically with political advertising. The aim of the article is to elucidate the concept of eristic and eristic arguments, as well as reveal the universal character of rhetorical persuasion – to identify and explain the dominant models of eristic reasoning in political advertising. Eristic arguments are considered as logical fallacies, unreliable arguments, but classical rhetoric justifies the ethical use of sophismata and eristic ways in persuasive discourses. Eristic argumentation is ethical as long as the addressee is free to accept or reject the arguments put forward, so the eristic must be understood further because we can identify and reveal false statements. An analysis of the peculiarities of argumentation of various forms of advertising reveals that eristic argumentation is the predominant kind of argumentation in advertising. The choise of eristic argumentation in political discourse is influenced by the competitive mode of elections, clearly seen in the pre-election debates and other verbal form of dispute.

Rhetoric is a universal persuasion system: it is the ability to discover persuasive ways and means in each particular case. The essential part of the convincing process – argumentation – becomes the core of the rhetoric science. The article deals with the argumentation level of political discourse, specifically with political advertising. The aim of the article is to elucidate the concept of eristic and eristic arguments, as well as reveal the universal character of rhetorical persuasion – to identify and explain the dominant models of eristic reasoning in political advertising. Eristic arguments are considered as logical fallacies, unreliable arguments, but classical rhetoric justifies the ethical use of sophismata and eristic ways in persuasive discourses. Eristic argumentation is ethical as long as the addressee is free to accept or reject the arguments put forward, so the eristic must be understood further because we can identify and reveal false statements. An analysis of the peculiarities of argumentation of various forms of advertising reveals that eristic argumentation is the predominant kind of argumentation in advertising. The choise of eristic argumentation in political discourse is influenced by the competitive mode of elections, clearly seen in the pre-election debates and other verbal form of dispute.

Rhetoric is a universal persuasion system: it is the ability to discover persuasive ways and means in each particular case. The essential part of the convincing process – argumentation – becomes the core of the rhetoric science. The article deals with the argumentation level of political discourse, specifically with political advertising. The aim of the article is to elucidate the concept of eristic and eristic arguments, as well as reveal the universal character of rhetorical persuasion – to identify and explain the dominant models of eristic reasoning in political advertising. Eristic arguments are considered as logical fallacies, unreliable arguments, but classical rhetoric justifies the ethical use of sophismata and eristic ways in persuasive discourses. Eristic argumentation is ethical as long as the addressee is free to accept or reject the arguments put forward, so the eristic must be understood further because we can identify and reveal false statements. An analysis of the peculiarities of argumentation of various forms of advertising reveals that eristic argumentation is the predominant kind of argumentation in advertising. The choise of eristic argumentation in political discourse is influenced by the competitive mode of elections, clearly seen in the pre-election debates and other verbal form of dispute.

Eristic methods of the Stalinist courts are a phenomenon, on the one hand, well-documented, yet on the other hand, insufficiently explored from the theoretical perspective. They can be understood as forms of violence occurring in the language of the judicial discourse participants (judges, prosecutors), aimed at the total elimination of political opponents. The article is an attempt to characterise these methods using the conceptual instruments, developed by Chaïm Perelman and presented in the work Logique juridique. Nouvelle rhétorique and L'empire rhétorique. Rhétorique et argumentation. What weighs in favour of using Perelman's theory are its roots in the abundant achievements of the ancient rhetoric. More importantly, however, one of the main objectives of Perelman was the development of the modern theory of legal argumentation, including judicial one. In this regard, the views of the philosopher are adopted as a counterpoint in the rhetorical analyses of the abuses of the Stalinist courts discussed on the example of the Trial of the Sixteen and the Trial of General A. E. Fieldorf "Nil".

Eristic methods of the Stalinist courts are a phenomenon, on the one hand, well-documented, yet on the other hand, insufficiently explored from the theoretical perspective. They can be understood as forms of violence occurring in the language of the judicial discourse participants (judges, prosecutors), aimed at the total elimination of political opponents. The article is an attempt to characterise these methods using the conceptual instruments, developed by Chaïm Perelman and presented in the work Logique juridique. Nouvelle rhétorique and L'empire rhétorique. Rhétorique et argumentation. What weighs in favour of using Perelman's theory are its roots in the abundant achievements of the ancient rhetoric. More importantly, however, one of the main objectives of Perelman was the development of the modern theory of legal argumentation, including judicial one. In this regard, the views of the philosopher are adopted as a counterpoint in the rhetorical analyses of the abuses of the Stalinist courts discussed on the example of the Trial of the Sixteen and the Trial of General A. E. Fieldorf "Nil". ; 6 ; 2 ; 7 ; 48 ; 1 ; Filozofia Publiczna i Edukacja Demokratyczna

Political commentary is called the genre of evaluative journalism with fundamental indication, the expression of subjective opinion, on purpose to explain political phenomena and to assess it. From the perspective of rhetoric science positions, the most important is the argumentative level of commentary, i.e., persuasive substantiation of author's propositions with its various forms: from argued reasoning and discussion what brings commentary closer to analytical genre to the usage of manipulative eristic argumentation. This article analyses the comments of political reviewers which are different from published comments in printed and electronic media: structurally they are too fragmented to identify them as traditional comments; they are different from new genre of internet comments as usually they are the product of multidirectional interactive reflection with the content and expression forms that are predetermined by specific communication circumstances. Political commentary is explored as political rhetoric expression form on purpose to identify and reveal the changes of political commentary and to define the factors that inspire them.

Political commentary is called the genre of evaluative journalism with fundamental indication, the expression of subjective opinion, on purpose to explain political phenomena and to assess it. From the perspective of rhetoric science positions, the most important is the argumentative level of commentary, i.e., persuasive substantiation of author's propositions with its various forms: from argued reasoning and discussion what brings commentary closer to analytical genre to the usage of manipulative eristic argumentation. This article analyses the comments of political reviewers which are different from published comments in printed and electronic media: structurally they are too fragmented to identify them as traditional comments; they are different from new genre of internet comments as usually they are the product of multidirectional interactive reflection with the content and expression forms that are predetermined by specific communication circumstances. Political commentary is explored as political rhetoric expression form on purpose to identify and reveal the changes of political commentary and to define the factors that inspire them.

Political commentary is called the genre of evaluative journalism with fundamental indication, the expression of subjective opinion, on purpose to explain political phenomena and to assess it. From the perspective of rhetoric science positions, the most important is the argumentative level of commentary, i.e., persuasive substantiation of author's propositions with its various forms: from argued reasoning and discussion what brings commentary closer to analytical genre to the usage of manipulative eristic argumentation. This article analyses the comments of political reviewers which are different from published comments in printed and electronic media: structurally they are too fragmented to identify them as traditional comments; they are different from new genre of internet comments as usually they are the product of multidirectional interactive reflection with the content and expression forms that are predetermined by specific communication circumstances. Political commentary is explored as political rhetoric expression form on purpose to identify and reveal the changes of political commentary and to define the factors that inspire them.

Political commentary is called the genre of evaluative journalism with fundamental indication, the expression of subjective opinion, on purpose to explain political phenomena and to assess it. From the perspective of rhetoric science positions, the most important is the argumentative level of commentary, i.e., persuasive substantiation of author's propositions with its various forms: from argued reasoning and discussion what brings commentary closer to analytical genre to the usage of manipulative eristic argumentation. This article analyses the comments of political reviewers which are different from published comments in printed and electronic media: structurally they are too fragmented to identify them as traditional comments; they are different from new genre of internet comments as usually they are the product of multidirectional interactive reflection with the content and expression forms that are predetermined by specific communication circumstances. Political commentary is explored as political rhetoric expression form on purpose to identify and reveal the changes of political commentary and to define the factors that inspire them.

We study the discourse in Mexico from July to September 2006 with respect to the Mexican elections, focusing on viewpoints expressed in the discussion on whether the election was legal or fraudulent. We take into account the social dynamics of argumentation: the 'topology' of positions (Faye 1976); the political conjuncture; the relation of each viewpoint with the whole hidden iceberg of the social actors' positions (Gilbert 1997); and the eristic dialogues (Kotarbinski 1963; Walton 1998; and Reygadas 2005).

The contemporary political scene, especially the public debate, is dominated by eristic forms of argumentation, i.e., verbal fights per fas et nefas — by any persuasive means, not only regardless of ethics and respect for dignity of adversary, but also regardless of the adequacy of arguments. Although classical rhetoric is not considered by everyone (following Plato's example) as the best means of achieving the truth (here the Socratic dialectic and dialogic method are considered more appropriate), the effective and honest rhetoric is based on reliable arguments, although it does not avoid pathos, and therefore emotions. Social media do not improve, but worsen the quality of public debate, and in turn, the constantly increasing flood of insignificant, not to mention even false media information, does not form a conscious citizen, but a political ignorant. Father Professor Leon Dyczewski, with his life-long scientific and didactic activity in the field of media and journalism, criticized this trend of degradation of the media, the public sphere and journalism, even at a time when it was not dominant, but inferior, or rather marginal. Especially now, his works deserve all the more remembrance and continuation not only as a form in memoriam, but also in the form of a creative and updating continuation.