The meaning of the word “rhetoric.” Rhetoric as a science: what it is, meaning, subject, why it is needed Subject rhetoric, what it studies

Ushakov's Dictionary

Rhetoric

rhetoric(or rhetoric), rhetoric, pl. No, wives (Greek rhetorike).

1. Theory of oratory, eloquence ( scientific). Textbook of classical rhetoric. Rules of rhetoric.

| trans. A pompous speech in which beautiful phrases and words hide its vacuity ( books neod.).

2. In ancient times - the name of the youngest of the three classes of theological seminaries (rhetoric, philosophy, theology).

Pedagogical speech science. Dictionary-Directory

Rhetoric

(Greek rhetorike techne from rhetor - speaker) - the theory and practical skill of expedient, influencing, harmonizing speech. The theory of R., which arose in antiquity (mid-1st millennium BC), syncretically contained all the main disciplines of the humanities; by the middle of the 19th century. Their isolation and specialization is completed, and R. loses the status of a theoretical field of knowledge. Development of humanitarian culture since the middle of the 20th century. marked by the so-called “rhetorical Renaissance” or “revival of R.”. This concerns, first of all, the theory of R.: linguistics and literary criticism again turn to the classical rhetorical heritage, rethinking it at a new level; Abroad, a modern new rhetoric (neorhetoric) is emerging, even beginning to claim the role of a general methodology of humanitarian knowledge (the basis for this is found in the fact that many of the most general theoretical concepts of the humanities arose precisely in classical rhetorical theory). Neorhetorics is related to linguistic pragmatics, communicative linguistics, etc.; these young sciences are essentially disciplines of the rhetorical circle; their theoretical apparatus also largely goes back to the system of concepts of ancient R.

From the second half of the 20th century. Abroad, there is an interest in rhetorical practice, special methods and courses are emerging to improve speech communication, listening and understanding, quick reading, etc. In recent years, manifestations of the “rhetorical Renaissance” have been noticeable in our country. However, the modern theory of general speech, the subject of which is the general patterns of speech behavior that operate in various communication situations and ways to optimize speech communication, is just beginning to be developed in Russian philology. The same applies to modern private speeches, on the basis of which it is possible to improve speech communication in the so-called “areas of increased speech responsibility” (such as diplomacy and medicine, pedagogy and jurisprudence, administrative and organizational activities, social assistance, journalism, trade, services etc.).

Lit.: Aristotle. Rhetoric // Ancient rhetoric. - M., 1978; Vinogradov V.V. About the language of artistic prose. - M., 1980; Graudina L.K., Miskevich G.I. Theory and practice of Russian eloquence. - M., 1989; Mikhalskaya A.K. On the modern concept of speech culture // FN. - 1990. - No. 5; Mikhalskaya A.K. Russian Socrates: Lectures on comparative historical rhetoric. - M., 1996; Neorhetoric: genesis, problems, prospects: Sat. scientific and analytical reviews. - M., 1987; Rhetoric and style / Ed. Yu.V. Rozhdestvensky. - M., 1984.

A. K. Mikhalskaya 204

Rhetoric

(Greek rhetorike). Theory of expressive speech, theory of eloquence, oratory.

Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language

Rhetoric

Latin - rhetorica.

In Russian written speech, the word was first used by Avvakum (XVII century), and its spelling was somewhat different from the modern one, changing several times over the centuries. The Old Russian word with the meaning “the theory of prosaic speech in general, eloquence in particular” was written and pronounced as “rhetoric”, then the shortened “rhetoric” became widely used.

At the beginning of the 20th century. The traditional spelling was “rhetoric” (respectively, “retor”, “rhetorical”).

Related are:

Polish – retoryka.

Derivatives: rhetorician, rhetorician, rhetorical.

Culturology. Dictionary-reference book

Rhetoric

(Greek rhetorike) - the science of oratory (about artistic prose in general). It consisted of 5 parts: finding material, arrangement, verbal expression, memorization and pronunciation. Rhetoric was developed in antiquity (Cicero, Quintilian), developed in the Middle Ages and modern times, in the 19th century. joined the theory of literature.

Rhetoric: Dictionary-reference book

Rhetoric

(Old Greek ρητώρίκη)

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

Pedagogical terminological dictionary

Rhetoric

(Greek rhetorike (tekhne) - oratory)

a discipline that studies methods of constructing artistically expressive speech (primarily prose and oral), various forms of speech influence on the audience.

R. received its beginning in Ancient Greece in the 5th century. BC. In the schools of sophists (see), a system of educational oratorical exercises was developed - recitations on given topics. The scientific foundations of mathematics were laid by Aristotle, who viewed mathematics as the science of the laws of opinion (correlating it with logic, the science of the laws of knowledge). The activity of Theophrastus, a student of Aristotle, who in his essay “On the Syllable” gave an extensive, systematized apparatus of rhetorical categories, was important for R.’s education. Teaching in rhetoric schools was based on the study of theory and exemplary works of orators of the 5th-4th centuries. BC.

Later, a gap emerged between theory and the normativity of the samples: the theory set R.’s task to be entertaining in presentation, to develop a high style, while in the samples, Ch. attention was paid to precision of expression. In the Middle Ages, along with grammar and dialectics (logic), R. was included in the trivium - the lowest level of the seven liberal arts. In monastery and cathedral schools of Western Europe, and then in universities. The sources for studying R. were the anonymous Latin “Rhetoric to Herennius” and “On Finding Words” by Cicero. R. remained a part of classical education until the 19th century. However, which began already in the 18th century. The discrepancy between standard school language and language practice was the reason for the exclusion of language from educational courses by the beginning of the 20th century.

In Russia, systematic teaching of religion began in schools of Orthodox brotherhoods in the territory of Southwestern Rus' and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 16th and 17th centuries. according to Latin textbooks. The Kyiv archives preserved 127 R. textbooks in Latin dating back to the 17th and 18th centuries, which were used in classes at the Kiev-Mohyla Academy. The authors of educational books on R. were: Simeon of Polotsk, the Likhud brothers (1698), R. teacher Georgy Danilovsky (c. 1720), M.V. Lomonosov (1748) and others. At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. instead of R., the theory of literature began to be taught under this name from the 70s. 19th century until the 20s 20th century school normative guidelines were published that considered the gl.o. artistic written speech.

Elements of pedagogical R. have been preserved in Russian language and literature courses to this day (creative works, practical exercises on the development of oral and written forms of speech and mastering the norms of speech etiquette, etc.).

Since the 50s In connection with the development of mass communication and information in a number of countries (primarily the USA, France, and Japan), interest in literature as an independent scientific and educational discipline arose again. In Russia Federations in the 90s. R. as an academic discipline was introduced into secondary schools.

(Bim-Bad B.M. Pedagogical encyclopedic dictionary. - M., 2002. P. 241-242)

see also

Dictionary of linguistic terms

Rhetoric

(Old Greek ρητώρίκη)

1) theory and art of eloquence;

2) science that studies expressive techniques; stylistically differentiated speech, methods and techniques of discursive and polemical speech;

3) under the influence of enantiosemy, the meaning of the word R. developed, including a negative assessment: R. - beautiful, pompous, empty speech;

4) According to Volkov A.A.: philological discipline that studies the relationship of thought to word; R.'s scope of action is prosaic speech or public argumentation. “Grammar, poetics, lexicography, textual criticism, literary history, and stylistics arose later than rhetoric and over time developed as auxiliary or preparatory subjects for the study of rhetoric”; today, rhetoric as a philological discipline stands among linguistics, stylistics, textual criticism, theory and history of fiction, folklore, and occupies a place in the system of philological disciplines that is justified historically and methodologically;

R. focuses on the structure of the linguistic personality of the sender and recipient of speech, on the speech technique of argumentation and the method of constructing a meaningful statement;

R. generalizes the experience of social and linguistic practice, studying the type of linguistic personality and the nature of speech relations specific to each cultural and linguistic community;

general R. studies the principles of constructing expedient speech;

private R. studies specific types of speech;

modern Russian technique of argumentation has deep historical roots: it goes back to the ancient Byzantine culture of public speech and adopted the methods and forms of argumentation of Western European societies;

5) R. is an academic discipline that involves the special and literary education of a rhetorician;

R.'s social tasks consist of:

a) in the education of a rhetorician;

b) creating norms of public argumentation that ensure discussion of problems that are significant to society;

c) organization of speech relations in the field of management, education, economic activity, security, law and order;

d) in determining the criteria for assessing public activities, on the basis of which persons capable of holding responsible positions are selected. The science of the art of speech, eloquence, oratory. R. summarizes the experience of word masters and sets the rules.

Ancient world. Dictionary-reference book

Rhetoric

(Greek rhetorike)

the science of the laws of eloquence and their practical application. In Ancient Greece r. arose in the 5th century. BC, but how science developed in the 3rd century. BC. In Ancient Rome r. reached its peak in the 1st century. BC. The Romans learned oratory from the Greeks and borrowed a lot from them. Classic antique r. included 5 main parts: 1) selection and systematization of material; 2) the location of the material and its presentation; 3) verbal expression, combination of words and style of speech (simple, medium, high); 4) conclusion; 5) pronunciation technique. According to the laws of the river the speech should consist of the following parts: introduction, presentation of the essence of the case, evidence and conclusion.

R. of antiquity are mainly judicial and ceremonial (ceremonial) speeches. Roman eloquence reached its perfection in the person of Cicero (about 50 of his speeches have been preserved): even today the best orators are compared with Cicero.

Cicero. Three treatises on oratory. M., 1972; Ancient rhetoric / Ed. A.A. Tahoe-Godi. M., 1978; Kozarzhevsky A.Ch. Ancient oratory. M., 1980; Kuznetsova T.I., Strelnikova I.P. Oratory in Ancient Rome. M., 1976.

(I.A. Lisovy, K.A. Revyako. The ancient world in terms, names and titles: Dictionary-reference book on the history and culture of Ancient Greece and Rome / Scientific editor. A.I. Nemirovsky. - 3rd ed. - Mn: Belarus, 2001)

in the ancient world, the science of the laws of eloquence, theory and practice publ. speech. R. owes its emergence to the widely developed societies and life in the city. democrat, city-states (primarily in Sicily and Athens), where issues of state. management and legal disputes were resolved in the people. meetings and at court hearings with the participation of a number of citizens. In these conditions, priority. The task of the speaker was his justification of his point of view, the desire to convince listeners using all means of influencing their mind and emotions. About the role played by the pub. word in Athens in the 5th - 4th centuries, give an idea of ​​the speeches put by Thucydides into the mouths of the politicians, figures of the period of the Peloponnesian War, as well as preserved. speeches Lysias, Isocrates, Demosthenes and other Athenian orators. Theor. Tradition associates the foundation of speech as a science with the names of the Sicilian teachers of eloquence - Tisias and Coraks (5th century BC) and their compatriot George, who in 427 conquered the Athenians with his oratory skills. Bol. Contributions to the development of R. were also made by other senior sophists (Protagoras, Hippias), who considered one of their chapters. merit is the ability to “make a weak word strong,” that is, to find convincing evidence. any thesis. The first school of R. was opened in Athens by Isocrates, who sought to reinforce the practical training of the orator with his general education. To 2nd half. IV century refers to the 1st normative manual for speaker, lawsuit - the so-called. "R. to Alexander" by Anaximenes (not to be confused with the philosopher!), preserved. among the works of Aristotle. His own “R.”, which was based on the laws of logic, ethics and psychology of perception, did not have any influence on the professional development of R. issues, which were occupied by Ch. place in Theophrastus’s treatise “On Style” (or “On Syllable”), which has not reached us, where, no-vid., the doctrine of 3 styles of speech (high, medium, simple) was first developed and the requirements for its clarity, beauty and “appropriateness”, i.e. correspondence to the speaker’s task. The crisis of democracy, policies and the formation of Hellenes, monarchies (by the 4th - 3rd centuries BC) deprives the meaning of publ. speeches on issues of state importance, and therefore in R. the development of formal-technical technologies prevails. aspects of speech, a detailed classification of the system of evidence, figures of speech, etc., which, however, does not interfere with the manifestation of true taste for art. word in op. Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the anonymous treatise “On the Sublime.” The result of the development of other gr. R. steel production. Hermogenes (2nd century AD), focused on the needs of school education.

In lat. language the first monument to R. yavl. nebol. treatise "R. to Herennius,” erroneously attributed to Cicero, who himself was quite reserved about technical instructions, highlighting the ideal of meaningful speech and comprehensive education of the speaker. From Chapter 3 Cicero's treatises on the orator, art-ve in naib, degree "Orator" (46 BC) is devoted to the systematic presentation of styles. questions R. The establishment of an empire in Rome leads, as in gr. state-wah, to the decline of the content side of R.: Bol. All kinds of recitations intended for fictitious trials and fictitious incidents are becoming widespread in rhetoricians and schools. Consideration of the technical side of the speaker and the art also prevails in the work that completes the development of the theory of R. in Rome. soil, - in “Education of an Orator” Kvintshshana. Numerous monuments to the speaker, preserved prose. from the late antique period. (speeches of Dion Chrysostom, Libanius, Themistius), but in the theory of R. neither the writers themselves, nor the authors of the special. treatises and manuals have not introduced anything fundamentally new. Basic its provisions were fully formed by the 1st century. n. e. and included the division of speeches into political (deliberative), judicial and epidictic (solemn); traditional structure of speeches, ch. arr. judicial (introduction, presentation, evidence, refutation, conclusion), the doctrine of speech preparation (finding material, its arrangement, selection of expressions, means, memorization) and its pronunciation; style theory; detailed classification of speech figures; the requirement for the speaker not only to convince and excite the listener, but also to delight him with the beauty of the sounding word.

(Ancient culture: literature, theater, art, philosophy, science. Dictionary-reference book / Edited by V.N. Yarkho. M., 1995.)

Terminological dictionary-thesaurus on literary criticism

Rhetoric

(from Greek rhetorike, from rhetor - orator) - the science of oratory and, more broadly, of artistic prose in general. In the 19th century joined the theory of literature.

RB: literature and science

Reporter: poetics

Whole: Literary Theory

Ass: style, tropes, figures of speech

* “As a special discipline, rhetoric is aimed at understanding the specifics of artistic language and the means of its creation. It is designed to explain how and why rhetorical figures - these clichés of artistic thought - transform speech, give it style and the quality of artistry" (Yu.B. Borev) .

“Rhetoric from the very beginning becomes a kind of nervous system of literature” (M.Ya. Polyakov). *

Dictionary of forgotten and difficult words of the 18th-19th centuries

Rhetoric

and RHETORICS, And , and.

1. The science of eloquence, public speaking; textbook on the theory of eloquence.

* Regarding the Russian language, we only had textbooks, i.e. grammar, syntax and rhetoric. // Saltykov-Shchedrin. Poshekhon antiquity //* *

RHETORICAL.

2. Pomposity of speech.

* This loyalty is false from beginning to end. The story has a lot of rhetoric, but no logic. // Chekhov. Uncle Ivan // *

3. The name of the junior class of theological seminary.

* [Pravdin:] And you, Mr. Kuteikin, aren’t you one of the scientists? [Kuteikin:] Of the scientists, your honor! Seminaries of the local diocese. He reached the point of rhetoric, but God willing, he turned back. // Fonvizin. Minor // *

Gasparov. Records and extracts

Rhetoric

♦ At school, at the end of the analysis of each work, we were taught to list its three meanings: educational, ideological and educational, and literary and artistic. Actually, this exactly corresponds to the three tasks of rhetoric: docere, movere, delectare (mind, will, feeling).

♦ (T.V.) “Rhetoric is wherever a person first thinks and then speaks, Aristotle is more rhetorical than Plato, and the only Greek non-rhetorician was Socrates.”

♦ An unfamiliar voice called me: "I'm so and so ("oh, I know, of course I read it"), I’m defending my doctorate, don’t refuse to be an opponent". The topic is close to me, there are few specialists, I agreed. Time, as always, is running out. After reading the work, I overcame my fear of the telephone and called him: "I will say the best words, I won’t be able to say just one thing - that this is a scientific work; I hope that my rhetorical experience is enough so that the academic council does not notice this, but think about whether you should take on another opponent". He thought for half a minute and said: "No, I rely on you". There was enough rhetorical experience, the vote was unanimous

♦ (From the diary of M. Shkapskaya in RGALI). Olga Forsh was waiting for a tram, missed four, jumped into the fifth; She was removed by a young policeman, who said: “You, citizen, are not so young as you are unreasonable.” She walked away, touched, and only then realized that he had simply told her the old fool.

♦ It is in vain to think that this is the ability to say what you really don’t mean. This is the ability to say exactly what you think, but in such a way that you are not surprised or indignant. The ability to say one’s own in someone else’s words is exactly what Bakhtin, a hater of rhetoric, did all his life. The Muses in the prologue to Theogony say:

We know how to tell a lot of lies

Similar to the truth,

But we also know how to speak the truth,

Whenever we want.

Published "History of world literature", I wrote the introduction to the ancient section. N. from the editorial board, in a bright speech, demanded that Greece create the type of Promethean man who became a torch for progressive humanity of all times. I listened, remained silent and wrote the opposite - that Greece created the concept of law, world and human, which is above all, etc., - but using vocabulary characteristic of N-u. I N., and everyone on the editorial board was completely satisfied. Anyone who wants can read it in Volume I of IVL.

Terms of Cinematic Semiotics

RHETORIC

(Greek rhetorikē) Ņåoria of oratory. See also in the understanding of K. Metz.

RHETORIC in the understanding of Y. Lotman - Y. Lotman writes: RHETORIC - one of the most traditional disciplines of the philological cycle - has now received a new life. The need to connect the data of linguistics and the poetics of the text gave rise to neo-rhetoric, which in a short time gave rise to an extensive scientific literature. Without touching upon the problems arising in this case in their entirety, we will highlight an aspect that we will need in further presentation. A rhetorical statement, in the terminology we have adopted, is not some simple message on which decorations are superimposed on top, and when removed, the main meaning is preserved. In other words. A rhetorical statement cannot be expressed in a non-rhetorical way. Rhetorical structure lies not in the sphere of expression, but in the sphere of content. In contrast to a non-rhetorical text, a rhetorical text, as already noted, we will call one that can be presented in the form of a structural unity of two (or several) subtexts, encrypted using different, mutually untranslatable codes. These subtexts may represent local orderings, and thus the text in its different parts will have to be read using different languages ​​or act as different words, uniform throughout the text. In this second case, the text suggests a double reading, for example, everyday and symbolic. Rhetorical texts will include all cases of contrapuntal clash within the unified structure of different semiotic languages. RHETORIC of a baroque text is characterized by a collision within the whole of sections marked by different degrees of semioticity. In the clash of languages, one of them invariably appears as a natural (non-language), and the other as a distinctly artificial one. In baroque church wall paintings in the Czech Republic you can find a motif: an angel in a frame. The peculiarity of the painting is that the frame imitates an oval window. And the figure sitting on the windowsill dangles one leg, as if crawling out of the frame. The leg that does not fit inside the composition is sculptural. It is attached to the drawing as a continuation. Thus, the text is a pictorial-sculptural combination, and the background behind the figure imitates the blue sky and appears to be a breakthrough in the space of the fresco. The protruding volumetric leg breaks this space in a different way and in the opposite direction. The entire text is built on the play between real and unreal space and the clash of artistic languages, one of which seems to be a natural property of the object itself, and the other an artificial imitation of it. The art of classicism required unity of style. The Baroque change of local ordering was considered barbaric. All text throughout should be evenly organized and coded in a consistent manner. This does not mean, however, that rhetorical structure is abandoned. The rhetorical effect is achieved by other means - the multi-layered language structure. The most common case is when the object of the image is encoded first with a theatrical, and then with a poetic (lyrical), historical or pictorial code. In a number of cases (this is especially typical for historical prose, pastoral poetry and painting of the 18th century), the text is a direct reproduction of the corresponding theatrical exposition or stage episode. In accordance with the genre, such an intermediary text-code can be a scene from a tragedy, comedy or ballet. So, for example, Charles Coypel’s canvas Psyche abandoned by Cupid reproduces a ballet scene in all the conventions of the spectacle of this genre in the interpretation of the 18th century. (Yu. Lotman Semiosphere of St. Petersburg, Art - St. Petersburg, 2000, pp. 197-198). See also .

P.S. From this text it is clear that Y. Lotman reduces the suddenly popular RHETORIC (NEORHETORIC) to the long-known ECLECTIC, or SYMBIOSIS of artistic means. In contrast, Christian Metz provides a more meaningful explanation for the intense interest of semiologists in medieval RHETORIC. See next term.

RHETORIC in the understanding of K. Metz - Christian Metz writes: “Is the “grammar” of cinema RHETORIC or grammar? Based on the above, we can assume that this is most likely RHETORIC, since the minimum unit (plan) is uncertain, and therefore codification can only affect large units. The doctrine of “disposition” (dispositio) * (or large syntagmatics), which constitutes one of the main parts of classical RHETORIC, consists in prescribing a certain combination of indefinite elements: any legal speech must consist of five parts (introduction, exposition, and so on) , but the duration and internal composition of each of them are arbitrary. Almost all the figures of “cinematic grammar” are many units: 1) iconic (as opposed to “differential”), 2) discrete, 3) large in size, 4) specific to cinema and common to films - are subject to the same principle. Thus, “cross-montage” (alternation of images = simultaneity of referents) is a combination that is both codified (= by the very fact of alternation) and symbolic (since this alternation denotes simultaneity), but the duration and internal composition of the combined elements ( that is, alternating images) remain completely arbitrary. And yet, it is here that one of the greatest difficulties of film semiotics arises, since RHETORIC in its other aspects is grammar, and the essence of film semiotics is that RHETORIC and grammar are inseparable here, as Pier Paolo Pasolini rightly emphasizes "(Collected collection "The Structure of Film" M., Raduga, 1984, article by K. Metz "Problems of denotation in a feature film" pp. 109-110).

Note:

doctrine of “disposition” (dispositio) * - The doctrine of “disposition” is one of the three parts of classical rhetoric: 1) inventio - selection of arguments and evidence, 2) dispositio - development of the order of presentation of arguments and evidence, 3) elocutio - doctrine of verbal expression (Note by M. Yampolsky).

P.S. From the above, at least, it is clear why Christian Metz needed the venerable RHETORIC: he is trying to determine the essence of cinematic grammar, and is not, like Y. Lotman, engaged in only terminological re-signification.

Philosophical Dictionary (Comte-Sponville)

Rhetoric

Rhetoric

♦ Rhetorique

The art of discourse (as opposed to eloquence as the art of speech) aimed at persuasion. Rhetoric subordinates form with all its possibilities of persuasion to content, that is, thought. For example, forms such as chiasmus (***), antithesis or metaphor do not prove anything in themselves and are not capable of serving as an argument for anything, but as an auxiliary means they can help in persuasion. Therefore, one should not overuse rhetorical devices. Rhetoric that tends toward self-sufficiency ceases to be rhetoric and turns into sophistry. Rhetoric is necessary, and only self-righteous people can think that it is easy to do without rhetoric. The best minds of mankind did not disdain rhetoric. Take Pascal or Rousseau: brilliant mastery of oratorical techniques did not prevent each of them from becoming a brilliant writer and thinker. True, we admit that Montaigne looks more advantageous against their background - he is more spontaneous, more inventive and freer. He was much less eager to convince anyone that he was right; truth and freedom were enough for him. However, it cannot be said that he completely dispensed with rhetoric - he simply knew better than others how to maintain his independence from rhetoric. As they say, first learn a craft, then forget you learned it.

Type of parallelism; arrangement of parts of two parallel members in reverse order (“We eat to live, and do not live to eat”).

Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language (Alabugina)

Rhetoric

AND, and.

1. Theory of oratory and eloquence.

* Study rhetoric. *

2. trans. Excessive elation of presentation, pomposity.

* Speak without rhetoric and loud phrases. *

|| adj. rhetorical, oh, oh.

* A rhetorical question. *

Explanatory translation dictionary

Rhetoric

theory of speech expressiveness, theory of eloquence, oratory.

Rhetoric: Dictionary-reference book

Rhetoric

(Old Greek ρητώρίκη)

1) Theory and art of eloquence;

2) science that studies expressive techniques; stylistically differentiated speech, methods and techniques of discursive and polemical speech;

3) under the influence of enantiosemy, the meaning of the word R. developed, including a negative assessment: R. - beautiful, pompous, empty speech;

4) According to Volkov A.A.: philological discipline that studies the relationship of thought to word; R.'s scope of action is prosaic speech or public argumentation. “Grammar, poetics, lexicography, textual criticism, literary history, and stylistics arose later than rhetoric and over time developed as auxiliary or preparatory subjects for the study of rhetoric”; today, rhetoric as a philological discipline stands among linguistics, stylistics, textual criticism, theory and history of fiction, folklore, and occupies a place in the system of philological disciplines that is justified historically and methodologically; R. focuses on the structure of the linguistic personality of the sender and recipient of speech, on the speech technique of argumentation and the method of constructing a meaningful statement; R. generalizes the experience of social and linguistic practice, studying the type of linguistic personality and the nature of speech relations specific to each cultural and linguistic community; general R. studies the principles of constructing expedient speech; private R. studies specific types of speech; modern Russian technique of argumentation has deep historical roots: it goes back to the ancient Byzantine culture of public speech and adopted the methods and forms of argumentation of Western European societies;

5) R. is an academic discipline that involves the special and literary education of a rhetorician; R.'s social tasks consist of: a) educating a rhetorician; b) creating norms of public argumentation that ensure discussion of problems that are significant to society; c) organization of speech relations in the field of management, education, economic activity, security, law and order; d) in determining the criteria for assessing public activities, on the basis of which persons capable of holding responsible positions are selected. The science of the art of speech, eloquence, oratory. R. summarizes the experience of word masters and sets the rules.

encyclopedic Dictionary

Rhetoric

(Greek rhetorike),

1. the science of oratory and, more broadly, of artistic prose in general. It consisted of 5 parts: finding material, arrangement, verbal expression (the teaching of 3 styles: high, medium and low and 3 means of elevating style: selection of words, combination of words and stylistic figures), memorization and pronunciation. Rhetoric was developed in antiquity (Cicero, Quintilian), developed in the Middle Ages and in modern times (in Russia M.V. Lomonosov). In the 19th century the doctrine of verbal expression merged into poetics and became part of the theory of literature under the name of stylistics. All R. 20th century the broad (general literary, linguistic and even philosophical) significance of tereffective speech communication is being revived.
2. Musical rhetoric is a musical theoretical doctrine of the Baroque era, associated with a view of music as a direct analogy of oratorical and poetic speech. Included the same parts as literary rhetoric; their content was expressed in a system of specific musical techniques (see Art. Figure).

Ozhegov's Dictionary

RIT ABOUT RIKA, And, and.

1. Theory of oratory.

2. trans. Pompous and empty speech. Empty river Get into rhetoric.

| adj. rhetorical, oh, oh. R. question(technique of oratory: statement in the form of a question).

Efremova's Dictionary

Rhetoric

1. and.
   1. :
      1. Theory and art of eloquence.
      2. An educational subject containing the theory of eloquence.
      3. decomposition A textbook setting out the content of a given academic subject.
   2. trans. An impressive, beautiful, but lacking in substance speech.
2. and. outdated The name of the junior class of theological seminary.

Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron

Rhetoric

(ρητορική τέχνη) - in the original meaning of the word - the science of oratory, but later it was sometimes understood more broadly, as a general theory of prose. European eloquence got its start in Greece, in the schools of sophists, whose main task was purely practical training in eloquence; therefore, their R. contained many rules related to stylistics and grammar itself. According to Diogenes Laertius, Aristotle attributed the invention of R. to the Pythagorean Empedocles, whose work is unknown to us even by name. From the words of Aristotle himself and from other sources, we know that the first treatise on R. belonged to Empedocles’ student, Corax, a favorite of the Syracusan tyrant Hiero, a political orator and lawyer. In him we find an interesting definition: “eloquence is the worker of persuasion (πειθοΰς δημιουργός)”; he is the first to attempt to establish the division of oratorical speech into parts: introduction (προοιμιον), proposal (κατάστάσις), presentation (διήγησις), proof or struggle (άγών), fall (παρέκβασις) and conclusion; He also put forward the position that the main goal of the speaker is not the revelation of the truth, but persuasiveness with the help of the probable (είκός), for which all sorts of sophisms are extremely useful. The work of Corax has not reached us, but ancient writers tell us examples of his sophisms, of which the so-called crocodile enjoyed particular fame. Corax's student, Tizius, developed the same system of sophistic proofs and considered the main means of teaching R. to be memorizing exemplary speeches of judicial orators. From his school came Gorgias of Leontius, famous in his time, who, according to Plato, “discovered that the probable is more important than the true, and was able in his speeches to present the small as great, and the great as small, to pass off the old as new and to recognize the new as old, about one and the same.” express conflicting opinions on the same subject." Gorgias' teaching method also consisted of studying patterns; each of his students had to know excerpts from the works of the best speakers in order to be able to answer the most frequently raised objections. Gorgias owned an interesting treatise “on a decent occasion” (περί τοΰ καιροΰ), which spoke about the dependence of speech on the subject, on the subjective properties of the speaker and the audience, and gave instructions on how to destroy serious arguments with the help of ridicule and, conversely, to respond to ridicule with dignity . Gorgias contrasted beautiful speaking (εύέπεια) with the affirmation of truth (όρθοέπεια). He contributed a lot to the creation of rules about metaphors, figures, alliteration, and parallelism of parts of a phrase. Many famous rhetoricians came from the school of Gorgias: Paul of Agrigentum, Licymnius, Thrasymachus, Even, Theodore of Byzantium; The sophists Protagoras and Prodicus and the famous orator Isocrates, who developed the doctrine of the period, belonged to the same stylistic trend. The direction of this school can be called practical, although it prepared rich psychological material for the development of general theoretical principles about the art of oratory and this made the task easier for Aristotle, who in his famous “Rhetoric” (translation by N. N. Platonova, St. Petersburg, 1894) provides a scientific justification for the previous dogmatic rules using purely empirical methods. Aristotle significantly expanded the field of R., compared with the common view of it at that time. “Since the gift of speech,” he says, “has a universal character and is used in a wide variety of cases, and since the action when giving advice, with all kinds of explanations and persuasion given for one person or for entire assemblies (with which the speaker deals ), essentially the same, then R., just as little as dialectics, deals with any one specific area: it embraces all spheres of human life. Rhetoric, understood in this sense, is used by everyone at every step; both in matters relating to the everyday needs of an individual, and in matters of national importance: once a person begins to persuade another person to do something or dissuade him from something, he must resort to the help of R., consciously or unconsciously.” Understanding R. in this way, Aristotle defines it as the ability to find possible ways of persuasion regarding each given subject. Hence, the goal that Aristotle pursued in his treatise is clear: he wanted, on the basis of observation, to give general forms of oratory, to indicate what should guide the speaker or, in general, anyone who wants to convince someone of anything. Accordingly, he divided his treatise into three parts: the first of them is devoted to the analysis of those principles on the basis of which an orator (that is, anyone speaking about something) can encourage his listeners to do something or deviate them from something. anything, can praise or blame something. The second part talks about those personal properties and characteristics of the speaker, with the help of which he can inspire confidence in his listeners and thus more accurately achieve his goal, that is, persuade or dissuade them. The third part concerns the special, technical, so to speak, side of rhetoric: Aristotle speaks here about those methods of expression that should be used in speech, and about the construction of speech. Thanks to many subtle psychological comments on the interaction of the speaker and the environment (for example, on the meaning of humor, pathos, on the influence on young people and on old people), thanks to an excellent analysis of the power of evidence used in speech, Aristotle’s work has not lost its significance for our time and had a strong influence on the entire subsequent development of European R.: in essence, some of the questions posed by Aristotle could now be the subject of scientific research, and, of course, the same empirical method that Aristotle used should be used. Having accepted many of Aristotle's provisions as dogmatic truths, R., however - both in Greece and, later, in Western Europe - greatly deviated precisely from his method of research, returning to the path of practical instructions along which the Sophists walked. Among the Greeks we see two directions after Aristotle: attic, concerned primarily with the accuracy of expression, and asian, which set the goal of entertaining presentation and developed a special high style based on contrasts, replete with comparisons and metaphors. In Rome, the first follower of this Asian trend was Hortensius, and subsequently Cicero joined him, speaking, however, in some works in favor of Atticism, the most elegant representative of which in Roman literature can be considered Caesar. Already at this time one can see in the works of some rhetoricians the emergence of the theory of three styles - high, middle and low - developed in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Cicero owns a considerable number of treatises on oratory (for example, Brutus, Orator), and Roman R. received its most complete expression in the works of Quintilian; she was never distinguished by originality. In the era of the struggle of Christianity with ancient paganism, the science of Christian oratory was created (see Homiletics), which reached brilliant development in the 4th and 5th centuries. after R.H. In a theoretical sense, it adds almost nothing to what was developed by antiquity. In Byzantium, R.'s techniques come closest to the Asian direction, and in this form this science was transmitted to ancient Rus', where we can see excellent examples of its influence in the works of Metropolitan Hilarion and Cyril of Turov. In the West, R. adheres to the instructions of Aristotle, Cicero and Quintilian, and these instructions turn into indisputable rules, and science becomes some kind of legislative code. This character is asserted in European R., especially in Italy, where, thanks to the meeting of the Latin scientific and Italian folk languages, the theory of three styles is best applied. In the history of Italian R., Bembo and Castiglione occupy a prominent place as stylists, and the legislative direction is especially clearly expressed in the activities of the Academy della Crusca, whose task is to preserve the purity of the language. In the works of, for example, Sperone Speroni, there is a noticeable imitation of Gorgias’s techniques in antitheses, the rhythmic structure of speech, and the selection of consonances, and in the Florentine Davanzati a revival of Atticism is noticed. From Italy this direction is transferred to France and other European countries. A new classicism is being created in R., which finds its best expression in Fenelon’s Discourse on Eloquence. Any speech, according to Fenelon’s theory, should either prove (ordinary style), or depict (medium), or captivate (high). According to Cicero, the oratorical word should approach the poetic; there is no need, however, to pile up artificial decorations. We must try to imitate the ancients in everything; the main thing is clarity and correspondence of speech to feelings and thoughts. Interesting data for characterizing French R. can also be found in the history of the French Academy and other institutions that protected traditional rules. The development of R. in England and Germany throughout the 18th century was similar. In our century, the development of political and other types of eloquence should have led to the abolition of the conventional, legislative rules of oratory - and R. returns to the path of observation outlined by Aristotle. The concept of science is also expanding: thus, in Wackernagel, R. contains the entire theory of prose and is divided into two sections (narrative and instructive prose), and comments on style are completely excluded from R., since they apply equally to poetry and to prose, and therefore constitute a special department of stylistics. In Russia, in the pre-Petrine period of the development of literature, R. could only be used in the field of spiritual eloquence, and the number of its monuments is absolutely insignificant: we have some stylistic remarks in Svyatoslav’s “Izbornik”, a curious treatise of the 16th century: “The Speech of Greek Subtlety” ( ed. of the Society of Lovers of Ancient Writing) and “The Science of Composing Sermons”, Ioannikiy Golyatovsky. The systematic teaching of R. began in southwestern theological schools in the 17th century, and the textbooks were always Latin, so there is no need to look for an original treatment in them. The first serious Russian work is Lomonosov's Rhetoric, compiled on the basis of classical authors and Western European manuals and providing a number of examples in Russian to confirm the general provisions - examples drawn partly from the works of new European writers. Lomonosov, in his “Discourse on the Use of Church Books,” applies the Western theory of three styles to the Russian language. Due to the fact that the field of eloquence in Russia was limited almost exclusively to church sermons, R. almost always coincides with homiletics (see); on secular rhetoric we have extremely few works, and even those are not distinguished by their independence, like, for example, the leadership of Koshansky (see). The scientific development of R. in the sense as it is understood in the West has not yet begun in our country.

Hi all!

What skill do you think unites all successful businessmen, famous politicians and public figures? That's right, the ability to communicate effectively and convince people. This is what the discipline of rhetoric teaches. I invite you to a conversation about what rhetoric studies, how relevant this science is in our time, and who will benefit from it.

Oratory is the oldest branch of human activity; this art was known back in Ancient Egypt and Babylon. The ancient Greeks are considered the creators of rhetoric. In the 5th century BC. Greek sophist philosophers compiled the first textbook on oratory, where knowledge about the art of speaking was systematized. Unfortunately, it did not reach us.

According to the Greeks, a skilled orator is a person who knows how to persuade, by means of cunning conclusions he can present the worst argument in the most favorable light.

Rhetoric is a science that studies methods of harmonious and technically correct speech that persuades the listener and encourages action. The speaker’s speech must comply with the lexical norms of the language and be appropriate in the given situation.

In the grammar schools of Ancient Rome, boys were taught first to read, then to write, and then taught the highest art - the ability to speak in front of an audience. The Romans believed that a real speaker is one who knows how to speak beautifully and figuratively, adhering to a certain syllable in his speech.

In the modern world, rhetoric is perceived as a scientific discipline that combines methods of harmonious speech, the ability to convince an audience, and encourage action. The speaker’s speech must comply with the lexical norms of the language and be appropriate in the given situation.

Rhetoric is divided into private and general.

General rhetoric: how to compose a text?

Here we discuss the general rules and methods of composing the text of speeches, based on the patterns of human communication. Whether a teacher is preparing to teach a lesson at school, or a prosecutor is writing an indictment for the court, or perhaps a toastmaster is preparing a wedding speech, they all must take into account the principles of speech behavior.

General rhetoric states that any oratory must comply with four basic rules:

1. The rule of communication with the listener is to build an active dialogue with the audience.
2. Navigation rule - the speaker must lead the listener along with him, building his speech in a logical and understandable sequence.
3. The rule of feelings is that speech should be voluminous and emotional.
4. The rule of success is that a speaker will be successful when he takes into account the tastes and interests of the public.

Sections of general rhetoric

Rhetoric is usually divided into several sections corresponding to different spheres of human activity:

• Rhetorical canon (stages);
• Oratory technique;
• The art of verbal combat (controversy);
• The art of communication (conversation);
• Non-verbal methods of communication (gestures, posture, facial expressions);
• Ethnorhetorics is a section that studies issues of speech behavior among representatives of different nations.

Rhetorical canon

Preparation for any public performance consists of five stages:

• Selection of material, awareness of the topic;
• Drawing up the structure of a future speech;
• Elaboration of speech details, insertion of artistic images;
• Memorizing text;
• The actual performance.

This sequence of work on speech was known to the ancient Greeks; it was they who invented the ancient rhetorical canon, which we still use today. The canon consists of invention (invention), disposition (order), elocution (beauty), memorio (remembering), accio (performance). In one of the articles we will discuss these stages with you in detail.

Private rhetoric: when and where to speak?

There are a number of professions that in one way or another involve speaking in front of an audience. An advertising manager must be able to present a product face to face, a priest must deliver his sermon in such a way as to evoke tears of joy and tenderness in parishioners, a lawyer must structure his appeal in such a way that it becomes clear to the court that the defendant is innocent.

In each specific case, the speaker will have his own speech, meeting certain requirements and rules. Private rhetoric is the study of the characteristics of oratorical performances in a particular professional field.

Types of speech

Oratory speech is divided into types:

• Academic – distinguished by a strict style and logic; special terminology is used during the presentation. Academic speech includes a report, review, dissertation, as well as pedagogical types of speeches: lecture, lesson, abstract.
• Judicial - speech in court, for example, an accusatory speech by a prosecutor, a defensive speech by a lawyer. The main features of this type are objectivity, argumentation and evidence.
• Theological-church - a religious sermon delivered by church ministers. As a rule, there is no clear argumentation and the laws of logic are not observed; emotionality and imagery come to the fore.
• Socio-political – oratory on economic or political topics, agitation and diplomatic activities. Examples: round table, debate, military-patriotic speech.
• Social is speech that emphasizes family and social relationships. This includes a toast, a wedding and funeral speech, and congratulations for the hero of the day.

Genres of speech

Depending on who the oratorical speech is addressed to and on what occasion it is delivered, the speaker’s speech is divided into genres. Each genre has its own set of expressive language means and techniques, its own goal, and takes into account the listener’s level of awareness, taste preferences and interests.

Today, there are hundreds of genres in rhetoric, here are some of them:

1. Information purpose – genres: instruction, report, presentation, self-presentation, recommendation, lecture;
2. Emotionally inspiring (epideictic) purpose - congratulations, opening remarks, introducing the guest, greeting;
3. For the purpose of persuasion in something - an accusatory speech, debate, debate, meeting;
4. Call to action – advertising campaign, civil appeal, appeal.

Interaction with other disciplines

Rhetoric, as the art of oratory and the art of effective communication, follows two directions:

• Logical – the persuasiveness of the speaker, the presence of argumentation and evidence base;
• Artistic – beauty and imagery of presentation, pomp and floridness of style.

The main tasks of rhetoric: correctness of speech, persuasiveness and expediency of speech. From this follow three basic concepts of oratory: ethos - appropriateness, morality; logos - logical reasoning and pathos - sensuality.

What disciplines does rhetoric come into contact with?

• Linguistics. It is simply impossible to imagine a speaker who does not know the norms and rules of the Russian language.
• Stylistics. The effectiveness of speech is determined by its expressiveness and compliance with a certain style.
• Logics. The speaker consistently builds a chain of events, convincing the audience.
• A culture of speech. The level of spiritual and intellectual development of the speaker directly affects the quality of speech.
• Psychology. During the speech, the speaker actively uses means of verbal and non-verbal influence on the audience.

Why is rhetoric needed?

Well, well, the reader will say, rhetoric is needed by a lawyer, an advertising manager, a company leader, or a preacher. Why study rhetoric for a person whose profession is not at all related to communication?

In everyday life, we often have to communicate with friends, family, work colleagues, discuss current problems, and make joint decisions. Do you agree, how many people, so many opinions? And sometimes many problems are solved through discussions, debates, mutual convictions and arguments.

The last word goes to the person who managed to convince everyone else. To convince means to justify and argue your decision so that this decision seems obvious to all participants in the dispute. Have I convinced you? J

conclusions

I hope I didn't bore you too much with scientific terms. A large number of them suggests that rhetoric is not an easy science. Rhetoric studies the methods of inventing and forming lively persuasive speech, as well as methods of effective interaction with the audience. The subject of rhetoric is the birth of an effective word that can influence the thinking of others.

Rhetoric is a practical science. Simply reading Greek treatises on oratory is not enough to learn how to speak logically and beautifully. It takes hours and years of practice, constant work on oneself.

Those who want to study all the intricacies and intricacies of this science on their own, stay tuned for new articles, I will tell you about everything in great detail. You can also look at this free course.

All the best! Always yours Yuri Okunev.

At the time of its emergence in ancient times, rhetoric was understood only in the literal meaning of the term - as the art of an orator, the art of oral public speaking. A broad understanding of the subject of rhetoric is the property of a later time. Nowadays, if it is necessary to distinguish the technique of oral public speaking from rhetoric in a broad sense, the term is used to denote the first oratorio.

Traditional rhetoric (bene dicendi scientia “the science of good speech”, according to Quintilian’s definition) was opposed to grammar (recte dicendi scientia - “the science of correct speech”), poetics and hermeneutics. The subject of traditional rhetoric, in contrast to poetics, was only prose speech and prose texts. Rhetoric was distinguished from hermeneutics by a predominant interest in the persuasive power of the text and only a weakly expressed interest in other components of its content that did not affect the persuasive power.

The methodological difference between rhetoric and the disciplines of the rhetorical cycle from other philological sciences is the orientation towards the value aspect in the description of the subject and the subordination of this description to applied tasks. In Ancient Rus' there were a number of synonyms with a value meaning, denoting mastery of the art of good speech: good language, good speech, eloquence, cunning, golden mouth and finally eloquence. In ancient times, the value element also included a moral and ethical component. Rhetoric was considered not only the science and art of good oratory, but also the science and art of bringing to good, persuasion of good through speech. The moral and ethical component in modern rhetoric has been preserved only in a reduced form, although some researchers are making attempts to restore its meaning. Other attempts are being made to define rhetoric by completely removing the value aspect from the definitions. There are, for example, definitions of rhetoric as the science of generating statements (this definition is given by A.K. Avelichev with reference to W. Eco - Dubois). Elimination of the value aspect of the study of speech and text leads to the loss of the specificity of rhetoric against the background of descriptive philological disciplines. If the task of the latter is to create a complete and consistent description of the subject, which allows for further applied use (for example, in teaching a foreign language, creating automatic translation systems), but in itself is neutral in relation to applied tasks, then in rhetoric the description itself is built with an orientation to the needs of speech practice. In this regard, just as important a role as scientific rhetoric in the system of rhetorical disciplines is played by educational (didactic) rhetoric, i.e. training in techniques for generating good speech and quality text.

Subject and tasks of rhetoric.

Differences in the definition of the subject and tasks of rhetoric throughout its history boiled down, in essence, to differences in the understanding of what kind of speech should be considered good And quality. Two main directions have emerged.

The first direction, coming from Aristotle, connected rhetoric with logic and proposed to consider good speech convincing, effective speech. At the same time, effectiveness also came down to persuasiveness, to the ability of speech to win recognition (consent, sympathy, sympathy) of listeners, to force them to act in a certain way. Aristotle defined rhetoric as “the faculty of finding possible modes of persuasion on any given subject.”

The second direction also arose in Ancient Greece. Its founders include Isocrates and some other rhetoricians. Representatives of this trend were inclined to consider good richly decorated, magnificent, built according to the canons aesthetics speech. Persuasiveness continued to matter, but was not the only or main criterion for assessing speech. Following F. van Eemeren, the direction in rhetoric originating from Aristotle can be called “logical”, and from Isocrates – “literary”.

During the Hellenistic era, the “literary” direction strengthened and displaced the “logical” to the periphery of didactic and scientific rhetoric. This happened, in particular, in connection with the decline in the role of political eloquence and the increase in the role of ceremonial, solemn eloquence after the fall of democratic forms of government in Greece and Rome. In the Middle Ages, this ratio continued to persist. Rhetoric began to be confined to the sphere of school and university education and turned into literary rhetoric. She was in a complex relationship with homiletics - the doctrine of Christian church preaching. Representatives of homiletics either turned to rhetoric in order to mobilize its tools for composing church sermons, or again fenced themselves off from it as a “pagan” science. The predominance of the “decorative-aesthetic” idea of ​​one’s own subject deepened the separation of rhetoric from speech practice. At a certain stage, proponents of “literary” rhetoric stopped caring altogether about whether their speeches were suitable for effectively persuading anyone. The development of the rhetorical paradigm in this direction ended with a crisis of rhetoric in the mid-18th century.

The balance of forces changed in favor of the “logical” direction in the second half of the 20th century, when neo-rhetoric, or new rhetoric, replaced the old rhetoric. Its creators were primarily logicians. They created a new discipline as the theory of practical discourse. The most significant part of the latter was the theory of argumentation. The area of ​​interest of neo-rhetoric was once again declared to be the effectiveness of influence and persuasiveness of speech and text. In this regard, neo-rhetoric is sometimes called the neo-Aristotelian direction, especially when it comes to the neo-rhetoric of H. Perelman and L. Olbrecht-Tyteki.

Neorhetorics did not reject the results obtained in line with the “literary” direction. Moreover, some rhetoric researchers to this day pay primary attention to the aesthetic qualities of speech (proponents of rhetoric as the science of artistic and expressive speech: to some extent, the authors General rhetoric, V.N. Toporov, etc.). Today we can talk about the peaceful coexistence and mutual enrichment of the “logical” and “literary” directions with the dominance of the first.

Most of the definitions given to rhetoric by its various researchers over the centuries place the discipline within one of two characterized directions. New ideas about the discipline are reflected in a number of modern definitions of rhetoric.

Definitions in line with the “logical” direction: the art of correct speech for the purpose of persuasion; the science of methods of persuasion, various forms of predominantly linguistic influence on the audience, provided taking into account the characteristics of the latter and in order to obtain the desired effect (A.K. Avelichev); the science of conditions and forms of effective communication (S.I. Gindin); persuasive communication (J. Kopperschmidt); the science of speech acts.

Definition in line with the “literary” direction: Philological discipline that studies the methods of constructing artistic and expressive speech, primarily prose and oral; comes into close contact with poetics and stylistics (V.N. Toporov).

Divisions of rhetoric.

Traditionally, there is a distinction between general and specific rhetoric. General rhetoric is the science of universal principles and rules for constructing good speech, independent of the specific sphere of speech communication. Private rhetoric examines the characteristics of certain types of speech communication in connection with the conditions of communication, the functions of speech and areas of human activity. In modern rhetoric, the term “general rhetoric” also has a second meaning – one of the areas of new rhetoric. The use of this term began with the publication of the book by Dubois J. et al. General rhetoric. Sometimes "general rhetoric" is used as a synonym for "non-rhetoric".

In ancient textbooks of rhetoric, three functional types of speech were distinguished: deliberative (inclining or rejecting), judicial (accusatory or defensive) and solemn, ceremonial or demonstrative (praising or blaming) speech. Deliberative speech was used in political eloquence. It had to be based on the value categories of useful and harmful. Judicial speech was based on the categories of just and unjust, and ceremonial speech was based on the categories of good and bad. In the Middle Ages, the predominant type of eloquence was church eloquence, based on the categories of what was pleasing and displeasing to God.

In modern times, the status of various spheres of social communication has become relatively equal. To the traditional types of eloquence - political, judicial, solemn and theological - new ones were added - academic, business and journalistic eloquence.

Nowadays it is possible to distinguish as many private rhetorics as there are spheres of communication, functional varieties of language, and in some cases smaller functional divisions (for example, the rhetoric of a television speech is a subsection of journalistic rhetoric).

The dominant types of speech communication have the greatest impact on public consciousness in every era. Therefore, the rhetorical disciplines that study them attract the greatest interest. Currently, this is the rhetoric of the media, political and business (commercial) rhetoric.

Other divisions of rhetoric include the division into theoretical, applied and thematic rhetoric. Theoretical rhetoric deals with the scientific study of the rules for constructing high-quality speech, and applied rhetoric uses the rules and patterns found, as well as the best examples of the most successful speeches, in the practice of teaching literature. Theoretical and applied rhetoric are identical to scientific and educational rhetoric. Thematic rhetoric considers the unification of different types of literature around one important topic, for example, presidential elections. It became widespread in the USA.

Parts (canons) of rhetorical development of speech. The parts, or canons, of the rhetorical development of speech were defined in antiquity. Their composition has not undergone significant changes over the centuries. In neo-rhetoric of the 20th century. What has changed is the amount of research attention paid to individual canons. Almost all non-rhetorical studies concern argumentation (one of the subsections of the canon of dispositio) and types of transformations of the plane of expression and the plane of content (one of the subsections of the canon of elocutio). In total, five canons are distinguished.

Finding or inventing speech or text material

(inventio). Finding covers the entire set of mental operations associated with planning the content of speech or text. The author needs to identify and clarify the topic (if it is not specified in advance), choose ways to disclose it, arguments in favor of the thesis being defended, and other elements of content.

The main criteria for selecting material are the author’s communicative intention (intention) and the nature of the audience to which the author intends to address.

In types of eloquence that serve an open competition of different points of view (primarily judicial and political), it is recommended to highlight the main point of contention and build a speech around it. This basic point must be tested by a number of so-called statuses: establishment status (the plaintiff claims that the defendant insulted him, and the defendant denies the fact of the insult - the task of the judges is to establish whether the insult took place); definition status (with one definition of insult, the defendant’s statement to the plaintiff can be considered an insult, but with another, it cannot), qualification status (for example, judges must determine whether the limits of necessary defense have been exceeded) and some others.

In the old rhetoric, material was divided into specific cases (causa) and general questions (quaestio). The derivation of the latter from the former was carried out by abstracting from the specific circumstances of the case. For example, from a specific case “candidate N was caught lying twice during the last election campaign,” one can derive the general question “Is it permissible to lie in the name of gaining power?” General questions, in turn, are divided into practical (as in the example given) and theoretical, for example, “what is the purpose of man?” In modern works on rhetoric, attempts are being made to clarify this division of material. It is proposed, in particular, to distinguish between encyclopedic, empirical, “based on data obtained by the author himself,” and comparative, “bringing empirical and encyclopedic into correspondence.”

Depending on the role of the material in the development of the topic and on the attitude of the listeners to it, old and new rhetoric determine the degrees of credibility that the material must meet. Material that is important for the development and explanation of the topic should have a high degree of credibility. This degree is achieved by selecting familiar material that meets the expectations of listeners or readers. The thesis itself and the strongest arguments in its favor should have the highest degree of credibility. The highest degree of credibility is achieved by using a paradox or a surprise question that presents a thesis as true and its opposite as a lie. A low degree of credibility may be characterized by material that is not of interest to listeners or readers, but which the author nevertheless includes in the text to achieve meaningful completeness. An indefinite degree of verisimilitude can distinguish material that is dangerous, inconvenient, indecent, etc., to present in front of a given audience. The author must say that he is not sure of the truth of this material. Finally, a hidden degree of verisimilitude is characteristic of material whose assessment goes beyond the intellectual capabilities of a given audience.

The ways of revealing the topic include, in particular, whether the topic will be presented in a problematic form or descriptively, in the form of dispassionate logical reasoning or emotionally. Old and new rhetoric traces these different methods to sources or modes of persuasion. There are three such modes: logos, ethos and pathos.

Logos is a conviction through an appeal to reason, a sequence of arguments built according to the laws of logic.

Ethos is persuasion through appeal to moral principles recognized by the audience. Since the general moral principles and values ​​are known (justice, honesty, respect for sacred things, devotion to the homeland, etc.), the author who wants to build a conviction in the ethos can only select the principles that are suitable for the occasion and closest to the audience.

Pathos means the arousal of emotion or passion, on the basis of which persuasion occurs. The doctrine of arousing passions was already developed in the old rhetoric. Emotions were described, success in arousing which also meant success in persuasion: joy, anger, hope, fear, sadness, enthusiasm, courage, pride, etc.

Rhetoric generally recommends selecting material in such a way as to activate all three modes of persuasion. The text must present a logical sequence of reasoning, arguments must be based on moral principles and appeal to the emotions of the audience. At the same time, the modes of persuasion must be brought into harmony with each other and with the topic. The emotions aroused must be relevant to the topic. Sharp jumps from rational belief to emotional speech are unacceptable - smooth transitions are needed.

The first canon of rhetorical development of speech also includes a subsection on the substantive sources of the invention of material, in particular, on the sources of the invention of arguments and arguments. These sources are arranged in a hierarchy - from the most abstract to the most concrete. At the highest level of abstraction are the so-called general conditions of the case, described by a sequence of questions: Who? What? Where? How? With the help of whom? Through what? When? For what? Why? Each of the questions sets an area for further substantive clarification. These clarifications are called rhetorical places or topoi (Greek: topoi, Latin: loci). In modern university rhetoric, they are also called “semantic models” or “schemes”, and the subsection itself is called a topic. Topoi represent particular standardized aspects of consideration of any topic. In rhetoric, over the period of its existence, a fairly large number of places have accumulated, which, nevertheless, can be reduced to a foreseeable number of groups. One possible grouping looks like this:

1) Conditions: Who? What?

Topoi: definition of the subject; genus and species; part and whole; identity, similarity and comparison - similarities and differences, etc.

An example of topic development: subject (what?) – computer; audience (for whom?) – for philologists; computer definition, internal architecture (central processor, read-only memory, etc.); peripheral devices, networks consisting of several computers, global network, etc. Comparison: computer and abacus, computer and TV, computer and mobile phone (general functions), etc.

2) Conditions: How? With the help of whom? Through what?

Topoi: methods, method and mode of action, interconnected subjects and objects, tools, etc.

Example: principles of computer operation (transmission of electrical signals, semiconductor matrices, optical signal, digital signal coding), the role of the human operator, software.

3) Conditions: Where? When?

Topoi: place – geographically, socially (in what strata of society); distance (near-far); time (morning-day-night), era (modern, classical), etc.

Example: the history of the emergence of the computer, the country where computers first appeared, social structures (at first - only production and official use). Time of origin: 20th century. Calculating machines of past centuries, etc.

4) Conditions: Why? Why?

Topoi: reasons, goals, intentions, consequences, etc.

Example: why computers arose, what they are used for today, what global computerization can lead to, consequences in the form of information wars, etc.

The compiler of a speech or text can fill each group of places depending on his own needs, excluding some topoi or adding new ones. It must also be borne in mind that the structure of passages is in no way identical to the structure of the speech or text itself. This is only an auxiliary structure that helps select content.

In modern didactic rhetoric one can find the identification of the concepts of “place” (loci) and “common places” (loci communes). Meanwhile, in theoretical rhetoric, starting from Aristotle, these concepts are not identical. “Commonplaces” do not mean standardized aspects of consideration of any topic, but meaningfully defined passages that served “to emotionally strengthen existing arguments... discussions about the need to honor the gods, laws, the state, the covenants of ancestors, as well as about the disastrous damage that threatens these strongholds of human society if the accused is not convicted (in the opinion of the prosecutor) or acquitted (in the opinion of the defense lawyer). Due to the abstractness of their content, these motives could develop equally in speeches on any occasion: hence their name” (M.L. Gasparov).

The technique of disseminating and enriching the content found using the technique of rhetorical passages is called rhetorical amplification.

Arrangement or composition of material

(dispositio). This part includes the teaching of the order of arrangement and the main blocks of the structure of text or speech. The basis of the canon of “disposition” was the doctrine of chria, or the composition of speech. On the basis of the doctrine of chria, such modern disciplines as the doctrine of literary composition and the theory of composition as part of the theory of the text arose.

The main blocks of the structure of a text or speech range from three (introduction – main part – conclusion) to seven (introduction – definition of the topic with its divisions – presentation – digression – argumentation or proof of one’s thesis – refutation – conclusion). You can add one more block to these blocks - the title of the text.

Detailed division is used for texts related to functional varieties of language (scientific and business speech, journalism). It is not always applicable to the analysis of works of art. To designate the structurally compositional parts of the latter, another series of terms is more often used in literary criticism: beginning - beginning - climax - denouement - ending.

1. Title. It did not stand out as a separate block in traditional rhetoric. The importance of titles has increased with the development of the rhetoric of mass communication. Here, the title (or the name of a television program) began to be considered as a means of attracting the addressee’s attention to the text of a newspaper publication or to a television program in conditions of an alternative choice associated with a constant increase in the number of messages received by the addressee.

2. Introduction. Its functions are to psychologically prepare the audience to perceive the topic. It is recommended to structure the introduction in such a way as to immediately interest listeners in the topic and create favorable psychological conditions for its presentation. To do this, you can justify the choice of topic, express respect for the audience and opponents, and show the general substantive background against which the topic will unfold. Depending on the type of audience, the nature of the topic and the communication situation, the author must choose one of the types of introductions: regular (for some types of texts there is a standard form of introductions), short, restrained, non-standard (paradoxical), solemn, etc.

It should be noted here that the introduction, like some other structural blocks (for example, argumentation), can be present in the text either only once, or accompany the introduction of each new subtopic.

3. Definition of the topic and its division. Here the author directly defines what he is going to talk or write about next, and lists the most important issues that he wants to cover (aspects of the topic). In a number of genres of special communication (educational lecture, scientific article), a plan for further communication can be proposed here. The topic division must meet a number of criteria: be logically appropriate; contain only essential, approximately equivalent aspects of the topic. If the main task is to persuade the audience, rhetoric recommends building the division in an incremental manner: from the least convincing to the most convincing aspects of the topic. The definition of the topic and thesis can follow both before and after the presentation, preceding the argument.

Direct naming of the topic is not necessary for philosophical and artistic works. Moreover, indicating the topic, especially at the very beginning, may negatively affect the effectiveness of the impact of such works on the audience.

4. Presentation. A consistent story about various aspects of the subject in accordance with the presented plan. There are two methods of presentation: (1) natural, plot, historical or chronological method, when the author presents selected facts in their chronological or other natural sequence (first the cause, then the consequence, etc.); (2) an artificial, plot or philosophical method, when the author deviates from the natural sequence and follows the logic of the theme development created by himself, wanting to increase the entertainment, conflict content of the message, and hold the attention of the audience using the effect of violated expectation. In this case, after a message about an event later in time, a message about an earlier event may follow, after a story about the consequences, a story about the causes, etc.

5. Retreat or digression, excursion. Here, a subject is briefly described that is related to the main topic only indirectly, but which the author considers necessary to tell the audience about. It is not a mandatory compositional part. The place of retreat in the composition is also not strictly fixed. Typically, the digression is located either along the course of the presentation, or after the presentation and before the argument. A digression can be used to relieve mental stress if the topic requires serious intellectual effort by the audience and the author, or emotional release if the author accidentally or intentionally touched upon a topic that is emotionally unsafe for the audience.

6. Argumentation and refutation. Argumentation is understood as a collection of arguments in favor of a thesis in its compositional unity and the process of presenting these arguments. Refutation is the same argumentation, but with the “opposite sign”, i.e. a collection of arguments against the antithesis defended by the opponent, or, if the main antithesis is not formulated, against possible doubts and objections regarding the thesis, as well as the process of presenting these arguments.

For both Aristotle and non-rhetorians, argumentation (including refutation) is considered the most important compositional block, since it plays the main role in persuading the audience, and, consequently, in achieving rhetorical goals as such. The doctrine of argumentation actively developed already in old rhetoric. In the new rhetoric, the theory of argumentation represents its main part.

The most important distinction in the theory of argumentation is the distinction between proof, demonstration, or logical argumentation on the one hand, and rhetorical, dialectical argumentation, or simply argumentation, on the other. The proof is carried out according to the formal rules of logic: the laws of logical inference, the rules for constructing a syllogism and general logical laws. The case when the author manages to deduce the truth of the thesis through formal proof is considered almost ideal. “Almost”, since rhetoricians and especially non-rhetorians recognize that logically rigorous proof is a necessary, but not always sufficient condition for the success of persuasion (if the audience, for example, is hostile and fundamentally does not want to agree, or if, due to its low intellectual level, it is not able understand that the thesis has already been proven). However, more often than not, formal proof of the thesis is impossible. In this case, the author has to resort to rhetorical argumentation. Thus, when convincing an audience of managers of chemical enterprises of the need to implement environmental protection measures, it is not enough to simply prove (based on data from chemical and biological sciences) that the substances emitted by their enterprises are harmful to living organisms. This evidence must be supported by an illustration, for example, of how contact with such a substance can end for the children of a particular leader, as well as a mention of the sanctions that threaten those who do not take the necessary measures to neutralize emissions.

Rhetorical arguments differ primarily in the topoi (places) with the help of which they can be invented or selected. On this basis, we can first of all distinguish two large groups: arguments originating from “external” places (observation, illustration, example and evidence) and arguments originating from “internal” places (deductive, in particular, cause-and-effect, genus-species and other argumentation, comparison and contrast). In the modern theory of argumentation, the first group is otherwise called empirical, and the second – theoretical argumentation (A.A. Ivin). There are other general classes of rhetorical arguments: analogy, dilemma, induction, as well as contextual arguments: tradition and authority, intuition and faith, common sense and taste (A.A. Ivin).

From the point of view of the modern theory of argumentation (H. Perelman), the choice of one or another formal type of rhetorical argument directly depends on the content that the author wants to put into it.

As for the research interest of the modern theory of argumentation, it is aimed primarily at studying the most difficult cases, for example, the impossibility of formal proof of the truth of moral judgments or judgments about values. The study of this class of judgments is especially important for legal argumentation dealing with normative statements.

A refutation can use the same types of arguments, but with the opposite sign (for example, the head of a chemical enterprise declares that the benefits of his enterprise’s products for the country’s economy are immeasurably higher than the harm caused by polluting a local reservoir). The best refutation is considered when the inconsistency of the thesis is deduced formally and logically. Along with logical proof and the standard methods of rhetorical argumentation listed above, there is an extensive set of techniques used primarily to refute the antithesis (“argument to personality,” “argument to ignorance,” “argument to force,” misleading by long-winded empty reasoning, manipulation of ambiguity words, substitution of concepts for homonymous ones, etc.). Rhetoric does not recommend using them for ethical reasons, but you should know them in order to recognize them in your opponent. Similar techniques were used by the sophists in Ancient Greece. To study them, a special applied rhetorical discipline has emerged - eristics. The material accumulated by eristics has become the object of interest of the modern theory of argumentation. Since the sophists did not compile detailed lists of their techniques and tricks (otherwise the demand for their teaching services would have decreased), a detailed description and systematization of tricks belongs to later times. Among the famous works in this area is A. Schopenhauer’s brochure Eristic.

Along with the doctrine of techniques, the theory of argumentation also studies the logical errors of argumentation. The latter include, for example, a contradiction in the definition like an oxymoron ( living Dead), definition of the unknown through the unknown ( zhrugr is a Russian witsraor), negation instead of definition ( a cat is not a dog), tautology, etc.

7. Conclusion. In conclusion, the main content of the text is briefly repeated, the strongest arguments are reproduced, and the desired emotional state of the listeners and their positive attitude towards the thesis are reinforced. Depending on which of these tasks the author considers the most important, he can choose the appropriate type of conclusion: summative, typologizing or appealing.

Verbal expression or diction

(elocutio). The part of rhetoric most closely related to linguistic issues is the canon of “verbal expression,” since it is here that the organization of specific linguistic material is considered, down to the selection of words and the structure of individual sentences.

The verbal expression must meet four criteria: correctness (meet the rules of grammar, spelling and pronunciation), clarity (consist of generally understood words in generally accepted combinations, and, if possible, not include abstract, borrowed and other words that may not be clear to the audience), grace or ornamentation (to be more aesthetic than everyday speech) and appropriateness. Relevance in traditional rhetoric came down to the harmony of the topic and the choice of linguistic means, especially vocabulary. From the requirement of appropriateness arose the theory of three styles, according to which low objects should be spoken in words of low style, high objects in high style, and neutral objects in words of medium style.

These components of the “verbal expression” canon formed the basis of the modern science of speech culture.

The most voluminous part of the old, especially medieval rhetoric was one subsection of the canon “verbal expression” - the doctrine of figures. The opinion was expressed that all “verbal expression” and, in general, all rhetoric without a trace can be reduced to the doctrine of figures.

The figures themselves number about a hundred, but the simultaneous use of Latin and Greek names, to which names from new languages ​​were added, led to the fact that over the centuries a significantly larger number of doublet or synonymous terms began to be used to designate these figures.

Even in antiquity, attempts were made repeatedly to classify figures.

First of all, figures of thought were separated, which later became isolated under the name of tropes (metaphor, metonymy, etc.), and figures of speech. The latter were divided, according to Quintilian, into figures based on the form of speech (grammatical figures) and figures based on the principles of word placement. Other common classifications included the division into word figures (alliteration, assonance) and sentence figures (parcellation, ellipsis, polyunion, non-union, etc.). Some of the sentence figures later began to be considered in two ways, depending on the characteristics of a particular language, the nature and purpose of use: on the one hand, as rhetorical figures, and on the other, as a means of structural syntax. Of the modern classifications, the most promising are the classifications of figures according to the corresponding procedures for each of them for transforming the plane of expression and the plane of content. Authors General rhetoric propose to distinguish between figures based on reduction, addition, reduction with addition and permutations (J. Dubois). V.N. Toporov gives the following classification of transformation methods: repetition of aaa... (for example, polyunion), alternation of abab... (parallel syntactic constructions), addition of abc with ab (expletion), abbreviation of ab with abc (ellipsis), symmetry ab/ba (chiasmus), unfolding a > a 1 a 2 a 3 , folding a 1 a 2 a 3 > a, etc.

The “verbal expression” canon ended with the doctrine of amplification of linguistic expression (amplification of the content plan related to the topic), in particular, through the joint use of figures, and the doctrine of the rhetorical period.

Memory, remembering

(memory This canon was intended for speakers who needed to memorize their prepared speeches for subsequent public reproduction, and was more psychological than philological in nature. It contained a list of techniques that made it possible to remember relatively large volumes of text information, mainly relying on complex visual images.

Performance, pronunciation

(actio). Speaker's appearance. The section on performance included information and skills that today belong to the theory of acting: mastery of the voice - its accent and intonation richness, facial expressions, the art of posture and gesture. Complex requirements for the behavior of the speaker were formulated: to demonstrate charm, artistry, self-confidence, friendliness, sincerity, objectivity, interest, passion, etc.

Rhetoric and related disciplines.

Rhetoric, like linguistics, belongs to the circle of semiotic sciences (see the works of V.N. Toprov, Yu.M. Lotman). Stylistics and speech culture are isolated and independently developing subsections of old rhetoric. The problems of a number of other disciplines, philological and non-philological, intersect with the problems of rhetoric. These are: the syntax of superphrasal unities and text linguistics, linguistic theory of expressiveness, linguistic theory of prose, but also logical sciences, especially modern non-classical logics, psycholinguistics, psychology of memory and emotions, etc.

The range of traditional rhetorical disciplines includes eristics, dialectics and sophistry. The disciplines of the non-rhetorical cycle include linguistic theory of argumentation, communication research, general semantics, structural poetics, literary text analysis within the framework of new criticism, etc.

Brief historical sketch and personalities.

Rhetoric as a systematic discipline developed in Ancient Greece during the era of Athenian democracy. During this period, the ability to speak in public was considered a necessary quality of every full citizen. As a result, Athenian democracy can be called the first rhetorical republic. Certain elements of rhetoric (for example, fragments of the doctrine of figures, forms of argumentation) arose even earlier in Ancient India and Ancient China, but they were not combined into a single system and did not play such an important role in society.

The beginning of rhetoric is usually traced back to the 460s BC. and connect with the activities of the senior sophists Corax, Tisias, Protagoras and Gorgias. Corax allegedly wrote a textbook that has not reached us The Art of Persuasion, and Tisias opened one of the first schools of eloquence.

Protagoras

(c. 481–411 BC) is considered one of the first to study the derivation of a conclusion from premises. He was also one of the first to use a form of dialogue in which interlocutors defend opposing points of view. Protagoras owns works that have not reached us The Art of Argument, About sciences etc. It was he who introduced into use the formula “The measure of all things is man” (the beginning of his work True).

Gorgias

(c. 480–380 BC) was a student of Corax and Tisias. He is considered the founder, or at least the discoverer, of figures as one of the main objects of rhetoric. He himself actively used figures of speech (parallelism, homeoteleuton, i.e. uniform endings, etc.), tropes (metaphors and comparisons), as well as rhythmically constructed phrases. Gorgias narrowed the subject of rhetoric, which was too vague for him: unlike other sophists, he claimed that he did not teach virtue and wisdom, but only oratory. Gorgias was the first to teach rhetoric in Athens. His writings have survived About non-existence or about nature and speeches Praise to Elena And Acquittal of Palamedes.

Fox

(c. 415–380 BC) is considered the creator of judicial speech as a special type of eloquence. His presentation was distinguished by brevity, simplicity, logic and expressiveness, and symmetrical construction of phrases. Of his approximately 400 speeches, 34 survive, but the authorship of Lysias for some of them is considered controversial.

Isocrates

(c. 436–388 BC) is considered the founder of “literary” rhetoric - the first rhetorician who paid primary attention to written speech. He was one of the first to introduce the concept of composition of an oratorical work. His school adopted the distinction of four compositional blocks. The features of his style are complex periods, which, however, have a clear and distinct structure and are therefore easily understandable, rhythmic division of speech and an abundance of decorative elements. The rich decoration made Isocrates' speeches somewhat ponderous for listening comprehension. However, as literary reading they were popular, as evidenced by the large number of lists on papyri.

Plato

(427–347 BC) rejected the value relativism of the sophists and noted that the main thing for a rhetorician is not copying other people’s thoughts, but his own comprehension of the truth, finding his own path in oratory. His main dialogues devoted to issues of rhetoric are Phaedrus And Gorgias. In them, Plato noted that the main task of oratory is persuasion, meaning primarily emotional persuasion. He emphasized the importance of a harmonious composition of speech, the speaker’s ability to separate the paramount from the unimportant and take this into account in the speech. Moving on to the analysis of the practice of judicial rhetoric, Plato noted that here the speaker should not seek the truth (which interests no one in the courts), but strive for maximum credibility of his arguments.

Aristotle

(384–322 BC) completed the transformation of rhetoric into a scientific discipline. He established an inextricable connection between rhetoric, logic and dialectics, and among the most important features of rhetoric he singled out its “special dynamic expressiveness and approach to the reality of the possible and probabilistic” (A.F. Losev). In the main works devoted to rhetoric ( Rhetoric, Topeka And On sophistical refutations), Aristotle indicated the place of rhetoric in the system of sciences of antiquity and described in detail everything that formed the core of rhetorical teaching over the following centuries (types of arguments, categories of listeners, types of rhetorical speeches and their communicative purposes, ethos, logos and pathos, requirements for style, tropes, synonyms and homonyms, compositional blocks of speech, methods of proof and refutation, rules of dispute, etc.). Some of the listed questions after Aristotle were either perceived dogmatically or were completely removed from rhetorical teaching. Their development was continued only by representatives of the new rhetoric starting from the mid-20th century.

In addition to theorists, an important role in antiquity was played by practicing orators who did not write theoretical works on rhetoric, but whose exemplary speeches were actively used in teaching. The most famous orator was Demosthenes (c. 384–322 BC).

In Greece, two styles of oratory developed - the richly decorated and flowery Asianism and the simple and restrained Atticism, which arose as a reaction to the abuse of embellishment.

In the pre-Christian Latin oratory tradition, the most famous theorists of oratory are Cicero and Quintilian.

Cicero

(106–43 BC).Cicero's theory of rhetoric is presented mainly in five of his works: About finding, Topeka– application of Aristotle’s work of the same name to Roman oratory practice, Speaker, Brutus And About the speaker. In them, Cicero discusses the structure and content of speech, the choice of one of the styles in accordance with the content of the speech, the period and the sources of persuasion.

Quintilian

(c. 35–100 AD) belongs to the most complete ancient textbook on eloquence Institutio oratoria or Rhetorical Instructions in 12 books. In it, Quintilian systematizes all the knowledge accumulated by his time on the art of oratory. He defines rhetoric, characterizes its goals and objectives, writes about the communicative tasks of message and persuasion, on the basis of which he considers three types of rhetorical organization of a message. Then he examines the main compositional blocks of the message, paying special attention to the analysis of argumentation and refutation, writes about ways to arouse emotions and create the desired mood, and touches on issues of style and stylistic processing of the message. He devotes one of his books to the technique of pronunciation and memorization.

Aurelius Augustine

(354–430), one of the church fathers, taught rhetoric, among other things, before his conversion to Christianity. Having become a Christian, St. Augustine substantiated the importance of eloquence for the interpretation of biblical provisions and for Christian preaching. His discussions on the role of rhetoric for the interpretation and explanation of Christian teaching are contained, in particular, in the treatise De doctrina christiana (About Christian teaching). In many ways, it is his merit that rhetoric was not rejected by Christians and continued to be developed in the Christian era.

In the Middle Ages, rhetoric became one of the “seven liberal sciences” in Varro’s system of sciences, taught in schools and universities. These seven sciences were divided into two groups: the trivium (grammar, rhetoric and dialectics) and the quadrivium (arithmetic, music, geometry, astronomy). The teaching of the trivium sciences continued in theological and secular schools until the 19th century.

Pierre Ramus

(1515–1572) tried to revise the ancient doctrine of three styles. He argued that any subject can be written in each of the three styles (which was rejected by the ancient tradition). He used the term "rhetoric" for the three components of communication (diction, memory and action), the purpose of which is persuasion. His followers defined rhetoric as ars ornandi, i.e. the art of decorated speech. As a consequence, after Ramus, rhetoric began to be reduced to the study of literary form and expression. Ramu, being a logician himself, nevertheless believed that figures of speech are only ornamental and cannot be characterized as models of reasoning. The dissemination of his point of view led to the final dissociation of rhetoric from logic and philosophy for that period.

From the beginning of the 17th century. The first written Russian rhetorical manuals appear. The first Russian rhetoric (1620) is a translation from Latin of the rhetoric of one of the leaders of the Reformation, F. Melanchthon (1497–1560). Another important textbook on eloquence was Rhetoric, attributed to Metropolitan Macarius.

The original concept of Russian rhetoric was proposed by M.V. Lomonosov (1711–1765) in A Brief Guide to Rhetoric(1743) and A Brief Guide to Eloquence(1747). These books finally consolidated the Russian scientific terminology of rhetoric. From the second half of the 18th to the mid-19th centuries. Many (according to the bibliography of V.I. Annushkin - over a hundred titles, not counting reprints) textbooks, manuals and theoretical works on rhetoric were published. The following works have undergone the greatest number of reprints: An Experience in Rhetoric, Composed and Taught at the St. Petersburg Mining School(1st ed. – 1796) by I.S. Rizhsky (1759–1811); General rhetoric(1829) and Private rhetoric(1832) by N.F. Koshansky (1784 or 1785–1831), later republished with the participation of K.P. Zelenetsky, known for his own rhetorical works, and Brief rhetoric(1809) A.F. Merzlyakova (1778–1830). Other theoretically important works of Russian rhetoricians were also known: Theory of eloquence for all types of prose writings(1830) by A.I. Galich, who included “psychological, aesthetic and ethical principles in the consideration of rhetoric”, Rules of Higher Eloquence(manuscript 1792, published in 1844) M.M. Speransky, Foundations of Russian literature(1792) A.S. Nikolsky (1755–1834) and Readings about literature(1837) I.I. Davydova (1794–1863).

In the West, the Age of Enlightenment became an era of rhetorical decline. Rhetoric acquired the reputation of a dogmatic discipline that had no practical significance, and if it was used, it was only to mislead listeners. Interest in rhetoric was lost. The situation changed only in the first half of the 20th century, under the influence of radical economic and political changes in the life of society, which put forward new requirements for speech practice.

Revival of rhetoric in the 20th century. started in the USA. He is associated primarily with the activities of I.A. Richards and K. Burke. Work by I.A.Richards Philosophy of rhetoric(1936) showed the relevance and social significance of “persuasive” rhetoric, and the work of C. Burke (in particular, Rhetoric of motives) emphasized the importance of literary rhetoric.

The problems of new rhetoric were developed in the works of American propaganda theorists G. Laswell, W. Lippmann, P. Lazarsfeld, K. Hovland and the founders of the management discipline of “public relations” A. Lee, E. Bernays, S. Black and F. Jeffkins. From the very beginning of the rhetorical revival in the United States, the emphasis was on the rhetoric of mass media (since rhetoric was seen as an effective tool for manipulating public opinion, i.e., an instrument of social power) and business rhetoric (negotiating, persuading a partner, etc.). In terms of the level of penetration of practical rhetoric into public life, the United States can be called a rhetorical superpower.

However, the emergence of new rhetoric is associated with Europe - with the publication in France of the treatise by H. Perelman and L. Olbrecht-Tyteka New rhetoric. Treatise on Argumentation(1958). In it, at the modern level of scientific knowledge, primarily logical, Aristotle’s rhetorical system received further critical development. H. Perelman and L. Olbrecht-Tyteka examined the connection between logic and argumentation, the concept of audience, dialogue, ambiguity, presumptions, topoi, normativity, errors in argumentation, categorized arguments and analyzed in detail their individual categories.

An important role in modern argumentation theory (also broadly called the theory of practical discourse) is occupied by the analysis of value judgments. In addition to H. Perelman and L. Olbrecht-Tyteki, R. L. Stevenson, R. Hare, S. Toulmin, K. Bayer devoted their works to this. These and other aspects of the theory of argumentation are also developed by A. Näss, F. van Eemeren, V. Brocready and others.

They enjoy authority among researchers A Guide to Literary Rhetoric(1960) by G. Lausberg and methodologically important work General rhetoric(1970) of the Liège group “mu” (J. Dubois and colleagues). After the publication of the work of the Lièges, the new rhetoric is often called “general rhetoric.”

In Russia, the crisis of rhetoric turned out to be shifted in time. Starting approximately in the middle of the 19th century, it ended in the late 70s - early 80s of the 20th century. Despite this, in the 20s of the 20th century. In Russia, attempts were made to revive the theory of oratory. The world's first Institute of the Living Word was created with the participation of S.M. Bondi, V.E. Meyerhold, A.V. Lunacharsky, N.A. Engelhardt, L.V. Shcherba, L.P. Yakubinsky and others, functioned laboratory of public speech by K.A. Sunneberg. The rhetorical initiative did not receive support from official circles. A strange opposition has formed in the official theory of oratory. Rhetoric as a bearer of bad qualities began to be contrasted with Soviet oratory as a bearer of good qualities: “In our time, rhetoric is a condemning definition of a pompous, outwardly beautiful, but lacking in substance work, speech, etc.” ( Dictionary of literary terms. M., 1974, p. 324). At the same time, objective and detailed analysis of even Soviet oratory was not encouraged.

The harbingers of a way out of the “rhetorical crisis” were certain important theoretical works on rhetoric in the 1960–1970s (S.S. Averintsev, G.Z. Apresyan, V.P. Vompersky, etc.). In modern Russia, a significant number of works on didactic and theoretical rhetoric appear, which allows us to talk about a rhetorical renaissance. The authors of these works can be divided into five groups. The division is distinguished by a certain degree of convention, in particular because different works of one researcher sometimes allow him to be classified into different groups at the same time.

1. Supporters of the revival of traditional rhetoric as “the art of speaking eloquently”, taking into account new scientific achievements. This is a significant part of scientists involved in teaching rhetoric (V.I. Annushkin, S.F. Ivanova, T.A. Ladyzhenskaya, A.K. Mikhalskaya and many others). 2. Developers of the modern theory of argumentation, cognitive linguistics and the theory of speech influence (A.N. Baranov, P.B. Parshin, N.A. Bezmenova, G.G. Pocheptsov, V.Z. Demyankov, E.F. Tarasov and etc.). 3. Developers of certain rhetorical directions - the theory of figures, tropes, the theory of expressiveness (N.A. Kupina, T.V. Matveeva, A.P. Skovorodnikov, T.G. Khazagerov, etc.). 4. Methodologists of rhetoric (S.I. Gindin, Yu.V. Rozhdestvensky, E.A. Yunina, etc.). 5. Researchers of “literary rhetoric” - poetic language (M.L. Gasparov, V.P. Grigoriev, S.S. Averintsev, V.N. Toporov, etc.).

Perspectives on rhetoric.

In the future, apparently, we should expect the transformation of rhetoric as a modern semiotic discipline into a more “exact” science, to the extent that the criterion of accuracy is applicable to the humanities. This should be achieved through a detailed quantitative and qualitative description of the patterns of structure of all existing types of text and speech genres. It is possible to create detailed catalogs of types of transformations of the expression plan and content plan, a description of all possible structural types of natural language arguments. It is also interesting to study the predictive potential of rhetoric - to what extent, based on the capabilities of the discipline, it is possible to predict the qualities of new speech genres and types of texts emerging in connection with the emergence of new spheres of social practice.

Ethical aspect: rhetoric, when used correctly, is an effective tool in the fight against linguistic aggression, demagoguery, and manipulation. Here, didactic rhetoric plays an important role. Knowledge of the basics of the disciplines of the rhetorical cycle will allow you to recognize demagogic and manipulative propaganda techniques in the media and in private communications, and, therefore, effectively defend against them.

Leon Ivanov

Literature:

Ancient rhetoric. M., 1978
Dubois J. et al. General rhetoric. M., 1986
Perelman H., Olbrecht-Tyteka. L. From book « The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation" – In the book: Language and modeling of social interaction. M., 1987
Graudina L.K., Miskevich G.I. Theory and practice of Russian eloquence. M., 1989
Toporov V.N. Rhetoric. Paths. Figures of speech. – In the book: Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. M., 1990
Gasparov M.L. Cicero and ancient rhetoric. – In the book: Cicero Marcus Tullius. Three treatises on the art of oratory. M., 1994
Zaretskaya E.N. Rhetoric. Theory and practice of linguistic communication. M., 1998
Ivin A.A. Basics of Argumentation Theory. M., 1997
Annushkin V.I. History of Russian rhetoric: Reader. M., 1998
Klyuev E.V. Rhetoric (Invention. Disposition. Elocution). M., 1999
Rozhdestvensky Yu.V. Theory of rhetoric. M., 1999
Lotman Yu.M. Rhetoric - a mechanism for generating meaning(section of the book “Inside Thinking Worlds”). – In the book: Lotman Yu.M. Semiosphere. St. Petersburg, 2000

It is important for every person to be able to communicate, since such a skill is a good assistant in many life situations. Almost all successes in school, work, and personal life are built on communication skills. If the information is presented by the speaker concisely and structured, then it will reach the listeners in the best possible way. The science that studies all the details of oratory is called rhetoric. It is thanks to her that you can make your speech clear and convincing. Rhetoric – what is it? Science or academic discipline?

What does the word "rhetoric" mean? Translated from Greek, the word rhetoric looks like “rhetorike” and means “oratory.” Initially, this definition implied the ability to speak beautifully and express one’s thoughts in front of other people.

Over time, the concept of rhetoric changed several times, which was influenced by changing periods of people’s cultural development. Therefore, this science, from antiquity to the present time, was perceived differently.

It was founded by the sophists, who said that rhetoric is a discipline that can teach a speaker to prove his position, manipulate and dominate discussions. In modern times, the basis of such a science is harmonizing speech, the search for truth, and stimulation of thought.

Now the word rhetoric is understood as a discipline that allows you to study methods of forming speech, characterized by expediency, harmony, and the ability to influence. In this regard, the subject of rhetoric acts as a mental-speech action.
Rhetoric combines the teachings of philosophy, sociology, and psychology, which helps to achieve effective verbal interaction with any public.

Thus, modern rhetoric is considered from three sides:

• This is a science that examines the art of speech, which has specific standards for public speaking in front of people, allowing one to achieve a good result when influencing listeners.
• This is the highest level of skill in delivering a speech in front of an audience, mastery of words at a professional level and excellent oratory.
• An academic discipline that helps students instill the rules of public speaking.

Thus, general rhetoric studies the rules for constructing expedient and persuasive speech, which helps make the speech vivid and memorable.

What does science study?

The subject of rhetoric, as a science, includes methods of forming useful oral and written speech, as well as the process by which thoughts are transformed into speech.

In order to determine the tasks of rhetoric, it is necessary to know about its main directions. There are two of them:

1. Logical, in which the main aspects are the ability to convince the listener and effectively present information.
2. Literary, in which the most important elements are the richness and attractiveness of words.

Taking into account the fact that in this science these directions are combined, real rhetoric sets itself the task of making speech correct, convincing and expedient.
Having defined what rhetoric is and why it is needed, there is no doubt about its necessity in the life of a person, especially those engaged in public activities.

Rhetoric in ancient times

The origin of rhetoric began in ancient Greece. Due to the fact that democracy was being formed in this state, the ability to persuade gained considerable popularity in society.

Every resident of the city had the opportunity to undergo training in oratory, which was taught by the sophists. These sages considered rhetoric to be the science of persuasion, which studies ways of verbally defeating an opponent. Because of this, the word “sophism” subsequently caused a negative reaction. After all, under them, rhetoric was considered as a trick, an invention, but earlier this science was considered the highest skill, skill.

In Ancient Greece, many works were created that revealed rhetoric. Who is the author of the classic Greek treatise on this science? This is the well-known thinker Aristotle. This work, called “Rhetoric,” distinguished oratory from all other sciences. It defined the principles on which speech should be based and indicated the methods used as evidence. Thanks to this treatise, Aristotle became the founder of rhetoric as a science.

In Ancient Rome, Marcus Tullius Cicero, who was involved in politics, philosophy and oratory, contributed to the development of rhetoric. He created a work called "Brutus or on the Famous Orators", describing the development of science in the names of popular speakers. He also wrote a work “On the Speaker,” in which he talked about what kind of speech behavior a worthy speaker should have. Then he created the book “Orator”, revealing the basics of eloquence.

Cicero considered rhetoric the most complex science, unlike others. He argued that in order to become a worthy speaker, a person must have deep knowledge in all areas of life. Otherwise, he simply will not be able to maintain a dialogue with another person.

Development of rhetoric in Russia

Rhetoric in Russia arose on the basis of Roman science. Unfortunately, it was not always in such demand. Over time, when political and social regimes changed, the need for it was perceived differently.

Development of Russian rhetoric in stages:

• Ancient Rus' (XII–XVII centuries). During this period, the term “rhetoric” and educational books on it did not yet exist. But some of its rules were already applied. People at that time called the ethics of speech eloquence, piety or rhetoric. Teaching the art of the word was carried out on the basis of liturgical texts created by preachers. For example, one of these collections is “The Bee,” written in the 13th century.
• First half of the 17th century. During this period, a characteristic event was that the first Russian textbook was published, revealing the basics of rhetoric.
• The end of the 17th – the beginning and middle of the 18th century. At this stage, the book “Rhetoric”, written by Mikhail Usachev, was published. Many works were also created, such as “Old Believer Rhetoric”, works “Poetics”, “Ethics”, several lectures on the rhetorical art of Feofan Prokopovich.
• XVIII century. At this time, the formation of rhetoric as a Russian science took place, to which Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov made a huge contribution. He wrote several works dedicated to it, of which the book “Rhetoric” became the basis for the development of this science.
• Beginning and mid-19th century. This period is characterized by the fact that there was a rhetorical boom in the country. Famous authors published a large number of textbooks. These include the works of I.S. Rizhsky, N.F. Koshansky, A.F. Merzlyakova, A.I. Galich, K.P. Zelensky, M.M. Speransky.

However, starting from the second half of the century, this science begins to actively supplant literature. Soviet people studied stylistics, linguistics, speech culture, and criticized rhetoric.

Laws of word art

Rhetoric at any time had its ultimate goal - to influence listeners. A special role in achieving this is played by expressive speech, as well as visual and expressive means.

Scientists divide this science into two types - general and particular. The subject of general rhetoric includes general methods of behavior when pronouncing speech and the practical possibilities of their application in order to make speech effective.

This variety includes the following sections:

• rhetorical canon;
• speaking in front of an audience;
• rules on how to argue;
• conversation norms;
• teachings about everyday communication;
• communication between different nations.

By studying these sections, the speaker gains knowledge about the main features of speech use, which are the basis for every master of words.

General rhetoric studies ways to achieve mutual understanding between the speaker and the audience. For this purpose the following laws were developed:

• The law of harmonizing dialogue. The speaker must awaken the feelings and thoughts of the listeners, turning the monologue into a dialogue. It is possible to build harmonious communication only through dialogue between all people participating in the discussion. The essence of this rule is more accurately revealed by the following laws.
• The law of listener orientation and advancement. The person at whom the orator's influence is directed should have the feeling as if he, together with the speaker, is moving towards the intended goal. To achieve this effect, the speaker must use words in speech that determine the order of events, connect sentences and summarize expressions.
• The law of emotional speech. A person speaking in front of an audience must himself experience the feelings that he is trying to evoke in the audience, and also be able to convey them through speech.
• Law of pleasure. It implies the ability to present speech in such a way that it brings pleasure to listeners. This effect is easy to achieve if the speech is expressive and rich.

A particular type of rhetoric is based on a general type and involves the specific use of general provisions in certain areas of life.

Thus, science studies what rules of speech pronunciation and behavior a speaker needs to apply depending on the situation.

1. There are a lot of private rhetorics, but they all fall into two main groups:
2. Homiletics.

The first group implies the speaker’s ability to repeatedly influence the audience. This includes church and academic types of eloquence. In modern rhetoric, this group includes propaganda that is carried out in the media.

Thus, with academic eloquence, a speaker, giving several lectures, should not speak anew each time about the purposes of their conduct, their necessity, and so on. It is enough for him to talk about this in the first lecture, and in all the rest the general task will be expanded through the study of a new topic.

Oratory is not capable of influencing people many times over. In this regard, the speaker must be able to correctly conclude each speech. This group includes judicial, everyday, socio-political and other types of eloquence.

Currently, oratory has grown quite widely, so a specific type of rhetoric has already begun to be divided into its own subspecies. For example, administrative, diplomatic, parliamentary and other rhetoric were distinguished from socio-political eloquence.

Varieties of speaker speech

There are several types of oratory, depending on who needs to be convinced, where the speech takes place, and what purpose it pursues. These include the following eloquences:

• Social and political. This is when they read reports touching on social, political and economic topics, speak at rallies, and conduct campaigning.
• Academic. This includes reading lectures, scientific reports or communications.
• Judicial. This type of eloquence is used by the prosecutor and defense attorney when speaking in court. With their speech, they must convince of the guilt or innocence of the accused person.
• Social and everyday life. It is used by all people when making speeches at anniversaries, feasts or funerals. This also includes small talk, which does not require disputes or discussions, but is characterized by ease and simplicity of perception.
• Bogoslovskoe. This eloquence is used in churches, for example, when believers give a sermon or other speech in a cathedral.
• Diplomatic. This type involves compliance with ethical standards in business speech. This is necessary during business negotiations, correspondence, when drawing up official documents, as well as during translation.
• Military. This type of eloquence is used when calling for battle, issuing orders, regulations, and transmitting information via radio communications.
• Pedagogical. This includes presentations by teachers and students, both oral and written. This also includes giving lectures, which is considered a complex act of pedagogical communication.
• Internal, or imaginary. This is the name of the dialogue that every person conducts with himself. This type involves mental preparation for oral presentation to the public, as well as for written transmission of information, when a person reads what is written to himself, remembers something, reflects on something, and so on.

Based on the above, we can conclude what rhetoric is and why society needs it. Rhetoric as the science of oratory involves the study of the correct pronunciation of speech in front of an audience in order to somehow influence the people listening to it.

Refers to “On adventurers, forgers and swindlers”

Rhetoric

This article is not intended to explore rhetoric itself in all its manifestations and techniques of use. It is important to understand the tasks and characteristic techniques of rhetoric - as a means of persuasion that is not based on strict and reliable evidence, to learn to recognize it and promptly counteract it in those discussions where justified opinions are needed, and not rhetorical techniques of influence. This clearly delineates the scope of the use of rhetoric in works of art and texts intended to convey reliable information.R history

Dahl and. . Greek rhetoric , the science of eloquence, elegance. Rhetor, -rka, teacher of eloquence; eloquent, eloquent person, eloquent speaker, artificially -an elegant writer. Rhetorical, related to rhetoric and rhetoric., Ritorsky characteristic of rhetoricians. Rhetorical paths, figures, artificial embellishments of speech given in the rules. Rhetoric rhetoric, teacher of eloquence; eloquent, eloquent person, eloquent speaker, speak or write eloquently, eloquently, flowerily, skillfully and , diligently imitate elegant writers, and therefore speak pompously and Cold., Riot promotion rhetoric, action according to verb. In his speeches No, souls This is just rote rhetoric. Rhetoric, which contains a lot of rhetoric.

Rhetoric Rhetoric, yes cloying.

rhetoric (Greek rhetorike), the science of oratory and, more broadly, of artistic prose in general. Originated in Greece in the 5th century. BC e., developed into a system in the 3rd-2nd centuries, in Rome from the 1st century. BC e. The largest theorists of ancient R. ethics are Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian. Classical speech was divided into 5 parts: 1) finding - systematization of the content of speeches and the evidence used in them; 2) arrangement - dividing the speech into introduction, presentation, development (evidence of one’s view and refutation of the contrary) and conclusion; 3) verbal expression - the doctrine of the selection of words, the combination of words, tropes and rhetorical figures (see. Stylistic figures), and depending on the use of these means - about simple, medium and high style of speech; 4) memorization; 5) pronunciation. Ancient literature, focused primarily on judicial and ceremonial speeches, was reworked in the Middle Ages with a view primarily to writing letters and sermons, and in the Renaissance and classicism - in relation to all artistic prose; in Russia, the classical development of such a speech was given by M. V. Lomonosov (“A Brief Guide to Eloquence,” 1748). In this form, literature remained a part of humanities education until the 19th century; then its main part - the doctrine of verbal expression - dissolved in stylistics as part of the theory of literature, and the remaining sections lost their practical significance; the word “R” itself acquired an odious connotation of pompous idle talk.

Rhetoric Wikipedia (fragments)

From the texts of Aristotle himself and from other sources, it is known that the first treatise on rhetoric belonged to Empedocles' student Corax, a favorite of the Syracusan tyrant Heron, a political orator and lawyer (court orator).

He formulated a definition of eloquence that is not devoid of interest: “eloquence is the worker of persuasion (ancient Greek πειθοῦ ς δημιουργός)". He is the first to attempt to establish a clear division of oratorical speech into parts: introduction (προοίμιον), proposal (κατάστασις), presentation (διήγησις), proof or struggle (ἀ γ ῶ ν), fall (παρέκβασις) and conclusion. He also expressed the position that the main goal of the speaker is not to reveal the truth, but clarity and persuasiveness using probable (εἰ κός), why all sorts of sophisms are extremely useful.

... From his school came Gorgias of Leontius, famous in his time, who, according to Plato, “ discovered that the probable is more important than the true, and knew how in his speeches to present the small as great, and the great as small, to pass off the old as new and recognize the new as old, to express contradictory opinions about the same subject.” Gorgias' teaching method also consisted of studying patterns; each of his students had to know excerpts from the works of the best speakers in order to be able to answer the most frequently raised objections.

Aristotle defines rhetoric as ability to find possible ways to persuade regarding each given subject. From the definition of rhetoric, the goal that Aristotle pursued in his treatise becomes clear: he wanted, based on observation, to give general forms oratory, indicate what should guide the speaker or in general anyone who wants to convince someone of something.

During the era of the struggle of Christianity with ancient paganism, the science of Christian oratory was created, which reached brilliant development in the 4th and 5th centuries AD. e.. An outstanding representative of this oratory is John Chrysostom. In a theoretical sense, medieval rhetoric adds almost nothing to ancient developments; it adheres to the rules of Aristotle and later theorists (in the West - Cicero) and only processes them with a view primarily to composing letters (epistles) and sermons.

It can be shown that, depending on the specifics and objectives of various forms of social communication, rhetorical techniques may or may not be completely appropriate.

So there is artistic creativity- creation of ethical symbols of communication in a given culture (see: Ethical symbols of communication). This type of creativity is based on subjective reality - on real manifestations of the people’s psyche. It does not require a mandatory and exact correlation with objective reality, although this gives rise to misunderstandings and inadequacies (inconsistency between what is expected and what actually happens) whenever these ethical symbols begin to be used outside their subjective area of ​​use, with a claim to objectivity .

The use of rhetorical influence techniques here too can serve the purpose of subordinating some to others, but this is a natural follow-up to the formation of a hierarchy of leadership in society. In the article Stages of Mental Development this is shown and justified. Sermons, commandments, calls, everything generated by the social bodies of the dominant power in a culture or part of it - directly relates to the division of leader-follower roles and appeals to faith, and not to the personal conviction of the led.

Eat scientific creativity, which has the goal of a formalized description of what is independent of subjective assessment and should be outside such assessment. Such creativity uses the subjective mechanisms of the psyche for the prognostic creation of close extrapolations - hypotheses for subsequent strict testing for compliance with objective reality. This creativity is based on scientific methodology that ensures optimal achievement of the goal (see Optimal methods of understanding the world) and is not compatible with any subjective assessments of perception and the effects on such assessments - including the rhetorical impact on confidence.

Eat opinion exchange for the purpose of knowledge, the formation of one’s worldview adequate to objective reality. This is a special case of scientific creativity, the initial stage of collective creativity in the formation of socially shared personal concepts and personal worldviews among bearers of scientific formalizations (not only scientists).

Eat discussions, developing according to the mechanism of collective dreams: attention shifts to the most new and significant thing, which had previously been postponed for future comprehension, but has not yet been comprehended, for example, with the help of interlocutors. This deferral is consciously compared with the existing prognostic options not for just one person, but for all the speakers, which were previously formed by the personal life experiences of the interlocutors, until the topic is exhausted along with its novelty. In such cases, the possible usefulness of rhetoric seems not only controversial, but it is specifically dangerous both for individual dreams and collective ones - distorting the function of predictive processing of what is deferred for comprehension, when the goal is to develop a variant of possible behavior that is as adequate as possible to objective reality. Rhetoric directly harms this process by creating inadequacy.

The website Ritorika.ru (paid trainings, of course) provides advice for those who want to learn how to influence others:

When acting in speech, you must strive to affirm your views and beliefs and influence people. However, you cannot impose your speech or your views, you must “be relevant” and convince only the audience that is ready to listen to your speech.

Sounds quite contradictory:you must strive to affirm your views and beliefsand at the same time You cannot impose your speech or your views..:)

In the materials of the work of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Philosophy G.I. Ruzavin Methodological problems of argumentation (saved copy 218 kb):

Process beliefs constitutes that part of communicative activity that has a pronounced intentional character, aimed at influencing changes in the views, opinions and behavior of people. But this change in people’s views and actions is achieved not by coercion associated with violence, restriction of freedom and strict control of people’s actions and actions, but rather by their persuasion. The latter presupposes an influence in which people have the opportunity to act at their own discretion, have free will, and can consciously and practically evaluate the proposed solutions and arguments in their defense.

Argumentation,unlike other forms of persuasion, it constitutes its rational and logical component, which influences the minds of people and therefore has a stronger and more lasting impact on the consciousness and behavior of people. From the very beginning, it is focused, firstly, on the logical analysis of the relationship between conclusions and arguments, or reasons, used for this reasoning. Secondly, argumentation is based on rational analysis and evaluation of data, with the help of which its conclusions are confirmed and justified. If a conclusion is derived from arguments according to the rules of logical inference (deduction), then it is called demonstrative, demonstrative or deductive argumentation. In many other cases, the arguments or reasons given only to some extent confirm or make plausible or probable the conclusions. Therefore, such argumentation is called non-demonstrative, plausible or probable.

In our literature, especially in textbooks on logic, there is a widespread opinion that argumentation comes down to demonstrative reasoning. Apparently, this view is explained primarily by the fact that demonstrative, evidentiary argumentation is the most convincing form of substantiating statements, opinions and positions, because it leads to reliable conclusions. In contrast, with non-demonstrative argumentation, conclusions are always only plausible or probable and therefore have a partially justified and uncertain character. The most important thing is that such argumentation essentially depends on relevant data, and therefore their result cannot be assessed without reference to them. Nevertheless, such argumentation cannot be dispensed with either in humanitarian research or in making practical decisions on many important issues of socio-political and socio-economic activity. That is why argumentation cannot be limited to demonstrative reasoning, but includes various forms of non-demonstrative reasoning (induction, analogy, statistical generalizations, etc.).

In fact, only information or statements that are not very important can be accepted without evidence or by methods of subjective argumentation. and then only until the time when objective verification becomes possible. Only conditions of lack of time and pressing urgency in action can justify using the untested objectively. However, the work provides such a superficially vulgar justification for the admissibility of subjective argumentation - in fact, a justification of rhetoric. In this case, further it is said about "non-demonstrative reasoning" - as an instrument for knowing the truth (though without saying what is meant by the word truth).

It's obvious that in some situations and circumstances it is impossible to do without coercion, but in the vast majority of cases, persuasion methods based on non-rigid methods of controlling people’s views and behavior are more effective. The most convincing methods in this regard are the methods of argumentation, because they are based on rational means of influencing consciousness using arguments of reason and logic, which a person can support with relevant facts, data from experience and practice.

However, it is possible without evidence, i.e. no reason to argue :)

Carsten Bredemeier - trainer No. 1 in the field of communication techniques for

throughout German-speaking Europe.

The book provides techniques for both rhetoric and defense against it. As usually happens in such cases, the weapon serves the “good” in whose hands it is :)

Black rhetoric consists of using all rhetorical and dialectical filth in speech for one’s benefit; with its help, situations are hierarchized that exclude any hierarchy; are defined, and then the substantive-argumentative boundaries are violated, problems are artificially created, and logical chains are destroyed and restored again at breakneck speed.
Black rhetoric is continuous requests to offer a constructive solution and the nerve-wracking denial of any such proposals using all means of sophisticated destruction.
Black rhetoric is also the miraculous art of manipulating words, using the entire kaleidoscope of language and the speaker's abilities, often with the goal of disrupting the interlocutor's train of thought.
...Anyone who is only concerned with refuting the opponent’s arguments leaves him with plenty of opportunities to avoid defeat. To force your opponent to speak, to embarrass him - this is what you need to achieve by objecting to him. And then success is guaranteed.
With seeming efficiency and emotional excitement, rule breakers invite their colleagues to play, turn them into players or, even worse, into balls for exchanging passes with other players, disorient everyone with skillful demarches, set rules, then break them... and in the end win thanks to their own superiority, based on provoked calls for help emanating from defenseless partners: game - game - victory of one of the parties.
... Black rhetoric is a specially designed and periodically recurring sequence of games in the form of communicative transactions ... if necessary, rule breakers interrupt complex mental structures and constructive conversations with witty “killer phrases.” The fact that this is a blow below the belt does not bother them at all.

Basic rules of black rhetoric:

Blurring the boundaries between truth and lies, information and

deliberately concealing it gives an advantage.

"Tell the truth!" means: you should always tell the truth, but you shouldn’t always tell the truth. Anyone who disputes individual arguments point by point, or even everything they hear, confuses their interlocutors. But only the one who plunges the knife into the most vulnerable place achieves success. An overly complex and detailed explanation dilutes the strength of the argument. An example of simplicity and clarity is shown to us by one of the well-known dogmas of the church: “I believe, therefore there is a God” - even if you believe that this is not so.

Repetition of the most important provisions fixes them in the mind of the interlocutor .

“Once again...”, “As I already said...”, “So: besides me, many more in our company are confident that...”, “We, employees of department N, agree , that...”, “Our client also repeatedly emphasized that...”

“Apologize as much as you want” is the calculation of skillful repentance.

Cascade technique for interrupting unconstructive deviations from the main topic.

Don't answer all questions.

A typical technique of rhetoric in discussions is to react only to what has an effective answer and simply not notice, hush up the inconvenient. On the other hand, the question itself can be a tool of rhetoric (not just a rhetorical question:) You should not answer a question that is not on the substance of the topic. But if this is a valid question on the topic, it must be heard and you must express your opinion on it. The correctness of the question implies the certainty of the concepts used. If this is not the case, you should insist on it. Without certainty, the essence of the discussion is lost.

Never expect politeness from your interlocutor and consistently stop rudeness!

Transform negative language into positive language.

You should not cut off the conversation, but make it more emotional, unbalance your partner, in order to gain a tactical advantage as a result.

“Why not throw a bucket of slop at your competitor?”

Bluff if circumstances require it.

Different forms of questions Bredemeier devoted an entire section of the book. The following is a part of his classification related to black rhetoric so that one can then distinguish these types of issues in discussions based on these characteristics and, accordingly, respond with an understanding of what they are aimed at. for now you can skim through them :) in order to get a general idea of ​​the characteristic features.

black rhetoric consistently uses a differentiated technique of asking questions that has been repeatedly tested by experience.... a question mark is not an absolute sign of intelligence, as is stated over and over again, more often it is a sign that raises doubts about the depth of intelligence.
Example: Why should a voter not vote for your opponent's party?
What are your arguments against other parties?

The use of black rhetoric in these questions is clear at first glance: leading Viennese politicians were directly asked to express a negative opinion about their rivals, and the questions were formulated in such a way that there was no need to express their position - it was enough to simply criticize others.
Question forms:

Silly questions- these are questions to which you know the answers from the very beginning (“So you think I’m incompetent?”)

..smart question- this is a question when asking which you know from the very beginning what the answer will be or what direction the interlocutor’s reasoning will take. With the help of smart questions, you dominate the conversation, moreover, it discusses the topics that you yourself have chosen. (“Let’s go back once again to the moment when you decided to change your profession. You then defended your dissertation in theology, but then started working in a consulting company. Why?”)

Open questions , pursuing negative goals, are aimed at forcing the interlocutor to justify himself even more actively...
Closed questions Black rhetoric starts the conversation with closed questions.
Known information about the interlocutors is deliberately used to obtain the desired answers to closed questions. (“Tell me, why did you suddenly stop working on your dissertation?”) Questions requiring a “yes” or “no” answer This type of question puts demands on the interlocutor and encourages him to unambiguously and clearly indicate his position and make a decision , stated the facts and proved a certain state of affairs.
...inappropriate questions, asked to cast the interlocutor in an unfavorable light or to conduct a kind of “interview”, the answers to the questions of which are known in advance.
Direct and indirect questions Alternative questions With the help of alternative questions, we put the interlocutor in a situation of limited but voluntary choice from two possibilities, aspects or facts in the form of “either-or” or ask him to make a choice between two or more objects, objects, things. (“Did you not understand the latest information about the status of the project or did you just ignore it?”) Leading questions are designed to convey an idea to the interlocutor or deliberately instill something in him, moreover, without him having time to realize it. (“Do you really believe this?”)

Trick Questions- disguised questions about signs, messages, links or circumstances that are very likely associated with certain compromising facts about the interlocutor, which is revealed as a result of the conversation.
Rhetorical questions formulated according to the laws of rhetoric, but in fact do not require an answer. Such questions are easy to find out. Their area of ​​application is rhetoric in its purest form; they are meaningless and often sound flattering and exaggerated.
Counter questions- when they answer a question with a question. - a subtype of stupid questions. (“I hope now we really don’t have any unresolved questions, or...” - The contract remains unsigned, the order is disrupted. Those who ask inappropriately disorientate the interlocutor and can lead to confusion.) ...Counter questions are stupid if they require an answer that you don't want to hear, or they force you to give detailed explanations.
Questions that increase motivation- incentives expressed in the form of a question and influencing the actions of the person to whom they are addressed (“Since your last project was a failure, I ask you now to explain to us how you are going to succeed this time”).
Shocking and provocative questions contain some kind of requirement, incentive, reason or something annoying that causes sudden and thoughtless reactions from the interlocutor. Provocations, flavored with humor, serve as an important therapeutic tool. (“You admire the technical capabilities of computers, but can you do anything yourself other than plug a plug into a socket?”) Socratic questions(“green street” for affirmative answers) Socrates asked his students a series of sequential questions and thus led the students to an important conclusion, which they made on their own. Example:

“Do you know that Mr. Müller has completely lost his mind intellectually?” "Yes".
“Do you know that he sometimes acts just like a child?” "Yes".
“Did you notice that it happened gradually?”

"Yes!"

“It began for him between the ages of forty and fifty, but he did not feel it himself. Have you noticed this too? "Yes".
“Then you probably know that people who are over forty gradually deteriorate mentally without noticing it. You’re 43 now, but you feel fine, don’t you?” "-".
Scenario questions With the help of scenario questions, the interlocutor using them builds a hypothetical sequence of fictitious events. A hypothetical situation is set that is not connected with reality” in which the one who answers the questions supposedly acts. (“Suppose you had the opportunity to “take everything from life” and not limit yourself to anything; what would you do?”)

Bridge questionsAn outstanding journalistic technique: in addition to the question itself, it also contains some kind of statement - a statement of facts or even an insult, and this detailed statement determines the content of the interlocutor's answer. Thus, the conversation is fixed on certain topics, and the discussion is conducted around the content of the question asked.
The further the question is in meaning from the statement preceding it, the more difficult it is for us to first verify and accept (or reject) it, and then answer it. (“Communication, unfortunately, is not your topic; do you like to cook?”) Psychological questions (“After you were kicked out of the door, how did your environment react to this?”)

Differentiating questions require the interlocutor to unambiguously and accurately indicate the differences between two or more similar, used in the same situations or interchangeable words, terms, concepts, expressions. (“Bet you don’t know about the three main criteria that distinguish paranoia from schizophrenia?”)

Linking questionsare built on the transfer of statements or conclusions from one thematic area to another. They reveal parallels in behavior or thinking and, create a new context or take the conversation to another level, logically following from what was previously said. (“How can you even lead if you’ve already been divorced three times?”)

Every conversation has a purpose other than just keeping the conversation going. Someone wants to influence the motives and behavior of the interlocutor, so he sends him a call to action...

The salesperson, "processing" the potential client using appeals, leads him to the final question: "Then there is no reason preventing you from adding this model to your collection, is there?" Often, in order to call and demand, we do not have the courage to go to confrontation, so we inform our interlocutor that we need something from him, in a soft, evasive form, covered with beautiful words.

(“The enemies of my enemies are my friends!”, “If you are not a pacifist, then you are a potential murderer,” “By helping them, we help ourselves”) An appeal is a more effective means than a question when it comes to an instruction to do something. or action. (“Mr. Müller, could you open the window?”, “Tell us your opinion!”, “Formulate your position!”, “Please bring your thought to the end!”, “Please explain.. .”, “Justify this!”, “Let’s still accept it”).

In addition, it is also worth keeping in mind special rhetorical devices: figures of speech, of which the most important in the context of the article’s objectives are:

• hyperbola
• inversion
• irony
• oxymoron
• parallelism
• paronomasia
• paraphrase
• prolepsis
• metaphor
• comparison
• default
• chiasmus
• metonymy

As usually happens, everything good can be used for evil and vice versa :) any object can be beneficial or harmful and it depends not on the object, but on who uses it and for what purpose. In the case of a discussion whose goal is not to win and impose one's opinion, but to express reasonable opinions so that others can use it in their belief system, it is quite possible to learn to highlight phrases that use rhetoric to the detriment of this goal.

Participants in a correct discussion, without coercion and zombies, have the right to have the opportunity to compare and, as a result, develop their own opinion from everything that has been said. For this, a correct exchange of opinions is needed, and its methodology is quite simple: you need to express yourself in such a way that it is absolutely clear: where, why this opinion arose and what could reliably confirm it. An erroneous opinion is not a vice, but it is a vice to try to hide the sources of such an opinion and to hide its fallacy with rhetorical devices.

To recognize destructive rhetoric, the following are: The main features of rhetoric in discussions. It is clear that highlighting them is just my opinion, the result of my generalization and understanding. Therefore, this should be approached precisely from the same position as declared in general about all materials and statements on this site.

Uncertainty of concepts used in statements (See Aristotle's Method).

Imposing your opinion in forms:

Repetitions of unfounded statements (for fixation outside of awareness),

using speech techniques designed to create the impression of evidence (plausible lies, effective aphorisms and comparisons, charisma)

Unnoticed arguments, inconvenient and therefore simply ignored.

Going off topic:

verbosity that confuses the thread of discussion,

questions that are outwardly relevant, but in fact designed to lead away from the topic,

spectacular examples and stories not specifically related to the topic, aphorisms, sayings, quotes,

discussion of personality and personal vices,

“polite” rudeness, provocations, “home preparations” with the aim of shocking, enraging oneself (under the guise of formal politeness, they actually resort to insults, condemnation, moralization, etc.)

K. Bredemeier, in his book Black Rhetoric, suggests following the following method for preventing deviations from the topic:

Level 1: immediately state that this topic is not the main one and its discussion does not lead to the intended goal. Name the main topic. Continue to develop the main topic in order to refocus your attention on it.
Level 2 (if the first one doesn’t work): Your actions: emotional “yellow card” Lean back and ask your interlocutor: “What exactly are you saying all this for?!” Usually, in response to such a question, a person makes excuses or tries to explain his actions, and in 90% of cases he finally begins to speak to the point.
A tougher option: “What exactly are you saying all this for?!”
This has nothing to do with our topic. Finally, return to the main question!” You can put it even more harshly: “Why, exactly, are you saying all this?! This has nothing to do with our topic. I’m just embarrassed to listen to you!” Level 3: "...Speak to the point, otherwise I will be forced to interrupt our conversation!...".

Ostentatious "unemotionality" "equilibrium":

however, many indirect signs indicate a certain personal interest. Usually the interlocutor’s excessive emotionality is openly announced, his aggressiveness and “negativity” are skeptically reproached, often quite provocatively.

It happens that such a reproach turns out to be quite sincere simply because the statement made strongly affects something very important and dear in one’s beliefs and therefore a negative attitude towards it involuntarily arises as a kind of “negative”. In these cases, aggression arises precisely in the head of the one whose important ideas were trampled upon.

It happens that this effect is complemented by a completely conscious provocation, an arrogant statement of aggressiveness and emotionality.

In fact, no mental phenomena exist outside of the emotional context, even if it is the context of “calm reasonableness.” This is understandable if you generally understand what emotions are and their purpose in the psyche (see Emotions). The emotional expression of one’s opinion can be polite and correct: “Eureka!! Dear sir! I made an extraordinary discovery that shocked me!”

Clear bluff.

Statements about some of your sacramental discoveries, abilities, possession of something decisive for the topic of discussion - all this requires an immediate suspension of the discussion in order to achieve a reliable demonstration of what was stated. This must be done in a harsh manner, leading to shame in case of non-compliance. After all, what was openly stated must also be openly and shown. Otherwise, what is said turns into stupid boasting and takes the interlocutor out of the framework of the correctness of the discussion. Moreover, the one who claims something must prove it himself or not. Attempts to say: “prove that I can’t do this” should be immediately rejected as completely incorrect in principle: it is impossible to prove the absence of something indefinite. You can only prove what exists and what can be reliably demonstrated.

Bluffing is intimidation with unpredictable consequences, emphasizing possible advantages, etc. things that have not yet happened and therefore are not suitable as reliable arguments for discussion. Correct is a reasonable assessment of the probability of what can happen, based on completely reliable initial data.

Deep thoughts, wise silence .

an opponent, whose arguments, when compared in the form of a discussion, have been exhausted, demonstratively falls silent, making this known, however, with a short symbolic turn of phrase (like: “well, with this understanding, I consider the conversation pointless”), making it known that he condescendingly considers the opponent not sufficiently prepared, so incompetent that there is no way to even show it to him.

This may be true, if in fact correctly constructed statements were used. Otherwise, this is a rhetorical provocation. Of course, those observers who are sufficiently prepared for this can judge this. It is important to be able to popularize the arguments used to the level expected by observers, or at least part of them.

Zombification:

Persistent repetition of the same statements without substantiating them. The use of authoritarian pressure, assurances of truth, methods of diverting attention to the subject of zombification (avoiding the topic for a more effective, meaningful one), methods of illusion and deception.

Violation of logic in the statement :

the use of underdefined concepts, techniques for hiding incorrect transitions in logical chains, simply clinical manifestations of inadequacy. Logic is a reflection of the laws of objective reality. The discrepancy between what is expected and what objective reality actually demonstrates is the inadequacy of ideas. If such ideas are used in reasoning with great force of conviction, this is a violation of logic. This often manifests itself in the use of analogies, in the form of subjective forecasts, subjective exaggerations, incorrect assessment of the accuracy and reliability of available materials or sources, in the form of references to authority or general acceptance.

Demagogy:

(Greek demagôgia, demos - people and ago - I lead), deception by false promises, deliberate distortion of facts.

K. Bredemeier in his book Black Rhetoric suggests recognizing demagoguery by the following criteria:

The message is distinguished by simplicity and clarity of presentation, gives precise orientation, serves as a clear guide to action and directs the recipient’s train of thought in a very specific direction.
The worldview system is polarized and comes down to the division of all humanity into “us” and “strangers,” and “strangers” are automatically branded as “enemies.”
The entire content is formulated in one single shock phrase, heralding the danger looming over “their own.”
“Ours” are characterized exclusively positively, “strangers” - exclusively negatively. For example: “modern people” are “corrupt officials”.
The world takes on a black and white coloring: “ours” are “good”, “strangers” are “swindlers” and “scoundrels”.
Neither “us” nor “strangers” are differentiated in any way.
Approval or condemnation is made indiscriminately, to all representatives of a particular group at once.
The classification of any individual as “us” or “outside” varies depending on the composition of the audience and the goals being pursued at the moment.
The personality of the demagogue or the party he represents is classified as a “super friend.”
The “super in-group” position is extolled as being under constant threat from brainwashers and corrupt propagandists willing to say anything for money.
There is no question of admitting one’s own mistakes; at best, the possibility of an incorrect interpretation of any statement is allowed.
To strengthen the statements, they introduce accusations against possible “scapegoats”: bureaucrats, die-hard lawyers, foreigners.
The stated point of view is supported by fictitious, unverifiable evidence.
Reliable facts are inventively refuted with the help of non-existent statistics and quantitative indicators taken out of thin air.
Propaganda techniques come down to the use of emotional and emotional theses, on which the entire argument is focused.
Specific topics are emotionalized, in particular, with the help of crude clarity and deliberately picturesque illustrations (“...and the bureaucrats will laugh loudly at you, clutching their stomachs”).
New words invented by the demagogue himself and figurative parallels (“the great migration of peoples”) are widely used.
“Aliens” sling mud and get personal (“Ferdinand the Clueless”).
In attacks on the enemy, his physical parameters are used (“the burgomaster, this obstinate old man of the sixties,” “the president, increasingly expanding in breadth, ... is symptomatic of this way of thinking”).
The opposing side is credited with a readiness to resort to violent action, if not at the moment, then in the near future.
Even such a feeling as compassion, in which the worst motives are found, is subject to reproach.

How can you easily recognize rhetoric? for the purpose of suppressing it in discussions? Is there one most important sign? Yes, rhetoric is never justified by factual, reliably documented data. It can use a surrogate justification with “ideas” or “logic,” but this logic of justification does not come from the axioms of atics (Aristotle’s logic) or even just a single factual material that has signs of reliability, which could serve as reliable information. Logic is a reflection of interactions in reality, in certain conditions, and not in any conditions, i.e. the correctness of justification is very similar to the correctness of definition: Symbols, definitions, terms.

In discussions with my participation, there were a huge number of clear examples of destructive rhetoric (destroying the correct discussion of the topic). Almost all bloated, multi-page topics contain attempts by apologists of various Ideas and Beliefs to impose their ideas without justification, using rhetoric. The bloat is a direct consequence of the incorrectness of the discussions, when in every possible way they avoided giving clear justification for what was said. This makes such discussions practically unreadable - not for everyone. It is very difficult to obtain ideas about what is reliably substantiated in them. A very typical example of such an endless discussion: An example of blissful reluctance to see and understand. As a rule, rude (vulgar), home-grown rhetoric is artlessly demonstrated here.

Here is a small example of the rhetoric of an EOH participant putting pressure on a Primus participant who is trying to move beyond the rhetorical framework into a pragmatic one:

"I'm trying to understand exactly what choice you made. Everything - attack."
--- So what? in Chikatila it means deed!!! should I attack? or attack :) with him everything is like with people, but with me everything is somehow wrong? :)
By the way, you’re also attacking me right now :) but in a chameleon style :) but the point is - you’re contradicting, looking for some points you don’t accept :)

"You completely reject views that do not coincide with yours . It turns out that you have the right to choose., the rest should adjust their views according to your standards?
--- Why?
You also disagree with me! so this is about you too? and brujos? :) So you think that because of tolerance I should accept both brujos and chikatilo?

"Those., You position yourself as a “warrior of light”, the rest are automatically... enemies. Did I understand something wrong?"
--- why enemies? why aren’t you a warrior of light... for example, you understand both chikatilo and brujos, but I’m not there :) maybe you’re a warrior of light :)

Here's how EOH responds to this:

"Bye your GOAL you choose to attack. How does a career end? an implacable fighter I already wrote to you. Having destroyed the enemies, you will lose the PURPOSE of the fight. I didn't attack you, I just I just couldn’t understand why you weren’t satisfied with Brujos’ worldview."

(Brujos's worldview, as follows from his statements, is an extreme expression of mystical inadequacy, which is demonstrated in the simulator example) Here it is - rhetoric:) and very poor quality, in style - simply not noticing what was said and not reacting as if nothing had happened said, but continue to bend your own. There are also other signs of rhetorical influence here.

More typical examples of rhetorical discussions:

In the latter case, rhetorical tricks for “winning the argument” are especially clearly demonstrated - everything was perceived by grateful observers as a game competition, but in fact, the issue of the topic was ideological and everyone had the right to form their own idea, and not be carried away by tricks arguing.

Such rhetorical provocations can only be stopped using the “third level”methods of suppressing deviation from the topic recommended by Bredemeier: harsh interruption of rhetorical verbiage by administrative means.

The most optimistic thing is that to ensure the correctness of discussions, it is enough to follow only one rule: any statement must be reliably substantiated sooner or later, but always if another participant asks for it. But it must be strictly observed; this is the discipline of discussion.

Accordingly, it becomes impossible to use underdefined concepts, avoidance of the topic, bluff, deliberate lies, psychological influence, i.e. everything that is based on subjectivity, and not on the authentically real.