Chaïm Perelman facts for kids
Quick facts for kids
Chaïm Perelman
|
|
|---|---|
Chaïm Perelman
|
|
| Born |
Henio Perelman
20 May 1912 Warsaw, Warsaw Governorate, Kingdom of Poland, Russian Empire
|
| Died | 22 January 1984 (aged 71) |
| Nationality | Belgian, Polish |
| Other names | (mistaken) Charles Perelman |
| Alma mater | Free University of Brussels |
|
Notable work
|
Traité de l'argumentation – la nouvelle rhétorique (1958), with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca |
| Institutions | Université Libre de Bruxelles Pennsylvania State University |
Chaïm Perelman (born Henio Perelman; sometimes called Charles Perelman by mistake) was an important Belgian philosopher. He was born in Warsaw on May 20, 1912, and passed away in Brussels on January 22, 1984. He is known as one of the most important thinkers about argumentation in the 20th century. His main work is Traité de l'argumentation – la nouvelle rhétorique (1958), which he wrote with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. It was later translated into English as The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation.
Contents
Who Was Chaïm Perelman?
Chaïm Perelman and his family moved from Warsaw to Antwerp, Belgium, in 1925. He started his university studies at the Université Libre de Bruxelles. He stayed there for his whole career.
He earned a doctorate degree in law in 1934. Then, he got a second doctorate in 1938 after writing about the philosopher and mathematician Gottlob Frege. In the same year, Perelman became a lecturer in Philosophy and Letters at Brussels. By the end of World War II, he was the youngest full professor at that university.
Perelman's friend, Mieczysław Maneli, described him as a "Belgian, a Jew, a Pole and an authentic cosmopolitan." This means Perelman connected with many cultures. He was a proud Belgian but also kept strong ties with Polish scholars and culture.
How Did Perelman's Ideas Change?
Perelman first studied law and philosophy using a method called logical positivism. This method focuses only on things that can be proven by logic or science.
In 1944, he studied justice and found a problem. He realized that applying laws always involves making value judgments. These are decisions based on what we think is right or wrong, good or bad. He concluded that values couldn't be proven by strict logic. This meant the basis of justice seemed to be random.
Perelman felt this conclusion was wrong. Value judgments are a big part of how we think and make decisions in law, politics, and ethics. If these judgments had no logical basis, it would mean these fields weren't based on reason.
Because of this, Perelman stopped believing in positivism. He started looking for philosophies that could explain why value judgments are important. In 1948, he met Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. They began working together. Their work eventually showed that ancient rhetoric could be the basis for understanding value judgments.
What is The New Rhetoric?
In 1958, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca published their big study called Traité de l'argumentation: la nouvelle rhétorique. They looked at many real-life arguments from philosophy, law, politics, ethics, and journalism.
Their work led to a new theory of argumentation. This theory focused on how values and the audience affect arguments. It also explained how arguments start and what techniques they use.
In 1962, Perelman was invited to teach at Pennsylvania State University. He worked with Henry Johnstone Jr., who started an important journal called Philosophy and Rhetoric. This helped Perelman become a leading expert on argumentation in the United States.
For the next two decades, Perelman kept writing about The New Rhetoric. He also helped study law as the director of the National Center for Research in Logic in Brussels. In 1973, he signed the Humanist Manifesto II, which supports human values and reason.
In 1983, the Belgian government honored Perelman by making him a baron. He also received the Francqui Prize for Human Sciences in 1962. He passed away from a heart attack in Brussels in 1984.
Why Did Perelman Create a New Philosophy?
After his early studies, Perelman realized that logical positivism was only useful for pure science. He also saw problems with other philosophies. Some philosophies, called metaphysics, tried to find absolute truths based on fixed rules. But if one rule was wrong, the whole system would fall apart.
Other philosophies, like relativism by Jean-Paul Sartre, went to the other extreme. They said everything was relative and there were no absolute truths. Perelman didn't like this either because it led to absolute doubt.
Perelman wanted a philosophy that avoided these extremes. He wanted one that wasn't too rigid or too uncertain.
How Did He Find His New Ideas?
Perelman found inspiration in ancient Greek and Roman ideas about argumentation. He learned that while there wasn't a specific logic for value judgments, the Greek philosopher Aristotle had some ideas.
Aristotle talked about two types of reasoning:
- Demonstration: This is like math, where conclusions are certain if the starting points are true.
- Dialectics: This is like everyday arguments, where ideas are based on what people generally accept in a certain situation. These ideas are not always certain.
Perelman realized that even though philosophers claimed to find absolute truths, they were often trying to persuade specific audiences. So, he believed a good philosophy should be based on what is probable and should consider how different audiences will receive ideas.
Perelman called his approach regressive philosophy. It meant that philosophy should include truths that are created by society. It should also be open to changing those truths if new ideas come along.
What is the Core Idea of The New Rhetoric?
Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca believed that arguments are not just about proving something true. They are about getting people to agree with you. They wrote that people "adhere to opinions of all sorts with a variable intensity." This means people believe things with different levels of certainty.
To understand how these beliefs work, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca used their regressive philosophy. This approach considers how different situations and values affect beliefs. Perelman used this same idea in his later work on law and justice.
How Does The New Rhetoric Work?
Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca started their research in 1948. They looked at many different types of writing, from academic papers to religious texts. They wanted to understand how people argue in real life.
They realized that the way an argument works depends on the audience and their values. These things affect how an argument is built, what ideas are used, and what appeals are made. Perelman also described many different techniques used in arguments.
The New Rhetoric book has three main parts:
The Framework of Argumentation
The main idea of The New Rhetoric is that arguments try to get people to agree. So, an argument always depends on the audience it's trying to reach.
Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca talk about two types of audiences:
- Particular audience: This is a specific person or group you are talking to.
- Universal audience: This is an ideal audience that represents all reasonable and competent people. A speaker tries to imagine what this ideal audience would agree with. This helps the speaker decide what information and approaches will be most convincing.
The audience's agreement also depends on the speaker's use of values. Values are what people consider important. Perelman believed that values are central to all arguments. For example, a speaker might try to create a shared feeling around certain values that the audience already believes in.
The Starting Points of Argumentation
Every argument needs a point of agreement to start from. You can't argue about something new until you agree on earlier or related issues. These starting points fall into two groups:
- Facts, truths, and presumptions: These are things that are generally accepted as true before the argument begins. For example, a fact might be "the sky is blue." Presumptions are things we assume to be true unless proven otherwise.
- Values, hierarchies, and loci of the preferable: Values are what people care about, like justice or freedom. They are not universal, meaning different people value different things. Values are often arranged in hierarchies, where some values are more important than others (e.g., justice might be more important than utility in some cases). Loci of the preferable are common ideas that help people decide which of two things is better. For example, health is usually preferred over beauty.
Speakers also create "presence" for certain ideas. They emphasize some points that are agreed upon and make others less important. Things that are close in time or space feel more real. But a speaker can use special language to make distant things (like past events or future goals) feel more present and important.
Argument Techniques
Since arguments aim to get an audience to agree, speakers use different techniques. Perelman describes two main ways to get this agreement:
- Associations: This involves linking ideas together.
* Quasi-logical arguments: These arguments look like formal logic or math. For example, a definition can be used not just to explain a word, but to highlight certain features to persuade. Other examples include arguments about division or probability. * Appeals to reality: These arguments connect ideas to how the world works. They can talk about causes and effects (e.g., if you do X, then Y will happen) or how a person's character relates to their actions. * Arguments that establish the real: These arguments use examples or analogies. An example might be using one situation to make a general point. An analogy compares two different things to explain one (e.g., "truth is to Socrates what gold is to a miser"). Metaphors are like short analogies.
- Dissociation of concepts: This technique is used when a speaker needs to deal with ideas that seem to conflict. For example, a speaker might separate "appearances" from "reality." If an oar looks bent in water but feels straight, we realize the appearance is misleading. This helps us understand what is "real." This idea can be used to separate "real democracy" from "apparent democracy," making "real democracy" seem more valuable.
What Did People Think of Perelman's Ideas?
The most common criticism of The New Rhetoric is about Perelman's idea of a universal audience. Critics like Jürgen Habermas and Henry Johnstone Jr. questioned if such an audience could really exist or be practical.
- Jürgen Habermas argued that a universal audience requires everyone to be equal in a discussion. This is not realistic in real life.
- Henry Johnstone Jr. pointed out that ideas and values change a lot over time and across cultures. So, an argument that works for one group might not work for a "universal" audience across history.
- John Ray said that the universal audience is too vague. It changes depending on the speaker's goals, making it hard to build a strong argument. He worried that speakers might have to use very general language, which would make their arguments less convincing in specific situations.
However, Perelman and others like James Crosswhite defended the idea of the universal audience. They said its purpose is to guide speakers towards being reasonable. It acts as a moral standard for speakers, helping them think about what would be acceptable to a wide range of people, while still allowing for specific and persuasive arguments.
The New Rhetoric has been translated into many languages and is considered a very important work in argumentation theory. It has influenced studies in law, justice, and even social psychology.
Other Important Information
The German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer said that Perelman's work on rhetoric influenced his own philosophy, which he wrote about in his book Truth and Method.
Perelman married Fela Perelman in 1935.
See also
- New rhetorics movement
- In Spanish: Chaïm Perelman para niños
