The New Rhetoric and Informal Reasoning : Through the Ch. Perelman''s ‘The New Rhetoric’ in restoring Aristotle''s ‘dialectical reasoning’ and raising sophistical diversity

This thesis try to point out the mistake that the Aristotle''s reasoning have provided too much emphasis on analytical reasoning more than dialectical reasoning through Ch. Perelman''s researching for the Aristotle''s reasoning, and also the thesis is going to focus on the restoration of the Aristotle''s reasoning. So that, I want to say that the reasoning is not only the formal reasoning, but also the informal reasoning, and at the same time that Perelman''s ''The New Rhetoric'' is the new method for raising sophistical diversity. In order to achieve my goal, the thesis is unfolded by the three philosophers, that is to say Ch. Perelman, Aristotle, and Descartes. Of course, it Ch. Perelman who is the most importance person of the three philosophers.
Through them, the thesis have the four points including the additory issue under discussion. The first, it is what mean the nine words, in other words from ''reasoning'' to ''begging the question'' on which they penetrate the scope both Aristotle and Descartes. It deal with widely the Ⅱ and Ⅲ of the main subject. The second issue is how the Aufhebung of Hegel''s dialectic apply to Perelman''s ''The New Rhetoric''. I say the second issue through the first chapter of the Ⅲ and the fourth chapter of the Ⅳ in the main subject. The third, it is the rise of sophistical diversity implying the variety in Rhetoric. What say the rise of sophistical diversity here is to criticize the monism which is the philosophical view that a variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance. The last point as the additory issue is M. Meyer''s problematology. It seems that we understand how Perelman''s ''The New Rhetoric'' hand over to next posterity by his pupil, M. Meyer.
The approaching goal by the four points could make us find the answer for what is the Perelman''s ''The New Rhetoric'' and the Informal Reasoning. Because the Rhetoric is to search for how to play learn for the science. So, the process as in the subtitle says is the restoration of Aristotle''s dialectical reasoning and the rise of sophistical thinking. Here, there are two meanings of the restoration. One is the consequence of the talking points that they have been studied from the view on what it consider the positive relation between Perelman''s reasoning and Aristotle through Organon. The other is the meaning which re-adjust Aristotle''s dialectical reasoning distorted and destroyed by Ramus, Kant, and Descartes for the viewpoint of the conversation and border. It is the universal audience that play a central role on the process of the restoration. Meanwhile, the rise of the sophistical thinking reflect the Perelman''s research attitude for aiming the choice rather than the compulsion in the study of Protagoras and Gorgias.
In the last thesis, presenting the rhetoric as the new philosophy in the twenty-first century, we will know that the New Rhetoric can have the greatest strength in the philosophical methode over which we cross and re-cross the philosophical scope, and not falling the fanaticism as the monism. Because the Rhetoric is the integrated science blending and harmonizing the various scope of a field of study. And if then so, not falling the nihilism and the science for the sake of science as I said in an introduction, we can acquire the new method overcoming the obstacle on the front of philosophy.
In philosophy, the movement is well along. It is the opinion on which we live in crossing and re-crossing the four space, that is to say the world of transcendence, the world of science, and the world of virtuality along the center of the actual world. Because we can''t constantly live on staying the only one world. What is living in crossing and re-crossing means that we live on the ambiguous border. And so, the Being is not having the steady position for a world on which the Being is located. The Being should always be the liberal interpreter opening for the four world. The situation floundering in only a world do not need to us in the philosophy of the twenty-first century. When crossing and re-crossing the border of the four world, we are likely to need the wisdom for the method that we should correspond something which is both under the border and above the border. The New Rhetoric can satisfy the complementary demand for the method of which the western tradition of philosophy is void in the history of western philosophy.