الحجاج بين المنظور البلاغي القديم و التحول البلاغي الجديد

Abstract EN

There is an immense difference between Aristotle's rhetoric and those of the sophists.

It is even huger than Perelman and Tyteca's new rhetoric.

Aristotle invented his rhetoric which is closer to mathematical logic than to the logic of discourse to oppose sophism.

This rhetoric left his interlocutors speechless.

Aristotle's interlocutor was powerless and had to prostrate himself in front of the irrefutable statements provided by Aristotle.

None could contradict his words, and so, the interlocutor accepted his proofs in a way close to impotence and contempt.

On the other hand, sophist rhetoric has exercised another kind of contempt and oppression on the interlocutors.

Manipulation and falsehood are the watchwords of this aberration.

One could even say that it is beyond rhetoric.

It is linguistic charlatanism.

And at last, come the new rhetoric (argumentation) which represents the opening of the human thought, which has reached higher levels, the thought which accepts and respects the other.

It is primarily interested in content to the detriment of form and its seductions in order to convince the interlocutor and make of him a valiant defender of the idea, not a parrot.