Neo-sophistic rhetoric in view of the methodology of the history of philosophy
The rhetorical turn phenomenon is associated with a new understanding of classical rhetoric, which raised in the second half of XX century - neo-sophistic rhetoric. The term because of its ambiguity is difficult to understand, and gives rise to controversy and debate among the proponents of different philosophical fields. This situation is illustrated by the discussion of the term «Third sophistic» between V. Vitanza and A. Quiroga. In fact, this debate demonstrates the difference between two approaches in the methodology of the history of philosophy: contextualist and appropriationist approaches. This paper examines the basic principles, specific to each of these two approaches. Appro-priationist approach often receives negative feedback due to its intense modernization the ideas of the past. The paper gives some reasons for the point, that the most appropriate methodology for a correct historico-philosophical analysis of neo-sophistic rhetoric and the rhetorical turn bounded with it is appropriationist approach because of it gives the most accurate relation between the ideas, concepts and arguments of the past and present.
Keywords
contextualist approach, appropriationist approach, rhetoric, sophistic, third sophistic, methodology of the history of philosophy, neo-sophistic rhetoric, contextualist approach, appropriationist approach, rhetoric, sophistic, methodology of the history of philosophy, third sophistic, neo-sophistic rhetoric, контекстуализм, апроприационизм, риторика, софистика, третья софистика, методология истории философии, неософистическая риторикаAuthors
Name | Organization | |
Volf Marina N. | Institute of Philosophy and Law of the SB RAS | rina.volf@gmail.com |
Kosarev Andrey V. | Institute of Philosophy and Law of the SB RAS | andrkw@rambler.ru |
References

Neo-sophistic rhetoric in view of the methodology of the history of philosophy | Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. 2016. № 4(36). DOI: 10.17223/1998863X/36/23