Sidorenko Lyudmila Pavlovna, Candidate of philosophy, associate professor, sub-department of philosophy and humanities, Moscow State University of Economics, Statistics and Informatics (7 Nezhinskaya street, Moscow, Russia), MilaBelokon@yandex.ru
Background. If we consider the history of rhetoric, you can observe its repeated rises and falls. Since the beginning of XX century rhetoric, after the fall, has under-gone some changes and served as an effective tool for public opinion manipulation. Further formation of science has led to the fact that different areas of rhetoric have evolved, and therefore there began to appear new approaches to its subject. Classical rhetoric has been criticized. All this contributed to the fact that rhetoric has been op-posed to neorhetoric, the title of the discipline has been subject to change. The pur-pose of the article is to analyze the changes brought by the new research, subse-quently to identify the features of the new stage in development of this science, its subject, basic characteristics and features.
Materials and methods. Implementation of the research tasks was achieved on the basis of two lines of rhetoric. The general logic analysis and the synthesis me-thod of reasoning lead to the conclusion that in singling out two main directions in one should recognize the primacy of the logical direction, and the works by Belgian scientists H. Perelman and L. Olbreht-Tyteki – as quite significant in rhetoric. The methodological potential also included the comparative historical method, the use of which enables us to compare the classical rhetoric of Aristotle and the modern direc-tion of argumentative rhetoric. The author used the systematic approach as an essen-tial method and direction of methodology of scientific knowledge, based on the vision of the object – rhetoric as a discipline, its subject and the main directions – appears as a system, namely a set of interrelated elements that give the integrity of the entire science. Special attention is paid to the fundamental works in rhetoric, par-ticularly the «Treatise on the argument» by Perelman and L. H. Olbreht-Tyteki. To substantiate the significance of the evidence in the arguments of speakers, ex-ploring various classes of arguments Perelman and his associate took as a model the proccess of litigation with usage of legal laws, the ability to reason logically and correctly, as well as various psychological, ethical and other factors affecting the audience‟s belief that led to creation of neorhetoric.
Results. The author investigated various approaches to understanding the subject of rhetoric as a science, rhetoric and sophistry relationships; titles of the discipline itself, a different perspective on significance of literary and logical directions in rhe-toric. The article considers characteristic features of the science at different stages of its development and characteristics of the modern understanding of rhetoric as a dis-cipline of the argumentative nature. The author noted the need to refer to rhetoric as the search for truth and the inability to consider rhetoric as an effective tool for pub-lic opinion manipulation. The change of consciousness occurs without forcing the audience, not by force, namely by means of persuasion. This is the essence of the argumentative rhetoric.
Conclusions. As a result of this analysis, it was impossible to avoid the conclu-sion that rhetoric is primarily related to the search of truth and ethics reasoning, which makes it one of the most important philosophical sciences, as well as that it is incompatible with sophistry that teaches how to manipulate public consciousness and to mislead people. It is impossible not to recognize that classical rhetoric can not contradict modern rhetoric, which is also linked to all the canons of the ancient, and the most important area is also a logical direction, so the new names like «neorheto-ric» or «general rhetoric» can be applied to modern rhetoric, but can not replace the title of the science in general. Rhetoric is a philosophical discipline that helps any-one to create a high-quality text of a speech, to pick the proper form and to correctly pronounce it.
subject of research of rhetoric as a science, rhetoric, neorhetoric, black rhetoric, argumentation, discourse.
1. Bezmenova N. A. Ocherki po teorii i istorii ritoriki [Essays on rhetoric history and theory]. Moscow: Nauka, 1991, 267 p.
2. Sidorenko L. P. Ritoricheskiy kanon [Rhetoric canon]. Moscow: Kolos, 2008, 248 p.
3. Dyubua Zh., Edelin F., Klinkenberg Zh.-M., Menge F., Pir F., Trinon A. Obshchaya ritorika: per. s fr. [General rhetoric: translation from French]. Moscow: Progress, 1986, 392 p.
4. Belinskiy V. G. Sposob k rasprostraneniyu shelkovodstva. Ya. Yuditskogo [Approach to dissemination of silkworm breeding. Ya. Yuditsky]. Available at: http://az.lib.ru/b/ belinskij_w_g/text_2590.shtml. 34 p.
5. Perelman Ch., Olbrehts-Tyteca L. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, London, 1969.