theory of the Brussels school. The authors proceed from the premise that the doctrine
created by Ch. Perelman was not a one-step act, but was the result of a change in the
scientific and philosophical paradigm of the first half of the twentieth century. Despite
the fact that persuasiveness as the main core of the theory of argumentation was not
known to scientists, in their writings they actively promoted ideas related to the role of
intuition in learning scientific truths, widely using analogy techniques and metaphors
borrowed from natural languages. The main actor in the article is H. Poincaré, a famous
physicist, one of the creators of the special theory of relativity, and a popularizer of science,
who went down in history of its formation as an active fighter with logocentrism.
The article discusses the prerequisites for the creation of a neo-rhetorical
theory of the Brussels school. The authors proceed from the premise that the doctrine
created by Ch. Perelman was not a one-step act, but was the result of a change in the
scientific and philosophical paradigm of the first half of the twentieth century. Despite
the fact that persuasiveness as the main core of the theory of argumentation was not
known to scientists, in their writings they actively promoted ideas related to the role of
intuition in learning scientific truths, widely using analogy techniques and metaphors
borrowed from natural languages. The main actor in the article is H. Poincaré, a famous
physicist, one of the creators of the special theory of relativity, and a popularizer of science,
who went down in history of its formation as an active fighter with logocentrism.
Список литературы
Annenkova I. V. Mesto ritoriki v zarubezhnoj i otechestvennoj filologii. Filologiya:
nauchnye issledovaniya, 2012, no. 2. (in Russ.)
Bengtson E., Rosengren M. Filosofsko-antropologicheskij podhod v ritorike. Sluchaj
Kassirera. Filosofiya i kul'tura, 2019, no. 1, p. 27–41. (in Russ.)
Eemeren F. van, Grootendorst. Rechevye akty v argumentirovannykh strukturakh.
St. Petersburg, 1994. (in Russ.)
Kant I. Kritika sposobnosti suzhdeniya. In: Kant I. Sochineniya. In 5 vols. Moscow,
1966, vol. 5. (in Russ.)
Laguta O. N. Metaforologiya: teoreticheskie aspekty. Novosibirsk, 2003, pt. 1–2.
(in Russ.)
Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metafory, kotorymi my zhivem. In: Yazyk i modelirovanie
social'nogo vzaimodejstviya. Moscow, 1987.
Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metafory, kotorymi my zhivem. Moscow, 2004.
Mishankina N. A. Metafora v nauke: paradoks ili norma? Tomsk, 2010. (in Russ.)
Panov M. I., Tyapkin A. A., Shibanov A. S. Anri Puankare i nauka nachala XX
veka. In: Poincaré A. O nauke. Moscow, 1983. (in Russ.)
Perelman Ch., Olbrechts-Tyteca L. The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation.
London, 1971.
Poincaré A. O nauke. Moscow, 1983. (in Russ.)
Silantev I. V. Syuzhet i smysl. Moscow, 2018. (in Russ.)
Stepanov Yu. S. Yazyk i metod. K sovremennoj filosofii yazyka. Moscow, 1998.
(in Russ.)
Teoriya metafory. Moscow, 1990. (in Russ.)
The New Rhetoric of Ch. Perelman and the Method Ways of Rhetoric Argumentation
in H. Poincaré Works С. 392–401. DOI 10.25205/2307-1737-2019-2-392-401