ANTIQUE DIALOGUE AND DIALECTICS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE

Аннотация

The article traces an organic connection between ancient dialogue, which is the art of people’s verbal relationships (exchange of opinions, dispute, discussion), and ancient dialectics, which arose in the depths of dialogue as a method of conceptual and categorical thinking, as something that presupposes it, “its own other”. On the basis of rich empirical material, it is proved that dialectics, as the highest form of human mental activity, is rooted in ancient dialogue and rhetoric as a theory of dialogue, oratorical discursive thinking. After getting acquainted with the subject parallels between dialogue, rhetoric (including sophistic) and dialectics, the reader understands Aristotle’s position on rhetoric as an "art corresponding to dialectics", as a certain part and similarity of dialectics. Philosophy has undergone a metamorphosis over the past 20 years. She seemed to have thrown out of herself that without which philosophy ceases to be philosophy. This is a dialectical method of thinking that arose in the era of antiquity and found its classical development in the systems of German classical philosophy, and then in the works of the classics of Marxism. The negation of dialectics is a manifestation of laziness of thought. Meanwhile, in the modern world, especially in our country, the dialogization of public life has reached a high degree of tension and has covered almost all areas of human activity. Hence the relevance of the problems associated with the theory of dialogue and the dialectical way (method) of thinking generated by it. Dialogue as an ancient type of speech relationship between people is closely connected with dialectics as something that presupposes it, “its own other”. If “man by nature is a political being” (sometimes translated as “social animal”1), and “in its reality, the essence of man is the totality of all social relations”, then dialogue in the mass of these social relations acts as one of the main (if not most important) moments, because it is through it that a person, unlike an animal, discovers his socially significant essence, achieves self-knowledge and self-improvement. Aristotle’s "Topic" is the first attempt in ancient philosophy to develop a methodological manual on ancient dialogue. It is no coincidence that in post-Aristotelian times this treatise was used as a kind of guide for those who argued. But, on the other hand, Aristotle himself considers this same work as dialectical. After all, dialectics, art in the original meaning of the word, is the art of conversation, dialogue – a term derived from the ancient Greek word – to talk, reason, talk. Therefore, "Topeka" can also be called the doctrine of "common places" or the doctrine of general points of view and positions, general logical methods of dialectical consideration of the issue, both for and against. The dialectician, rising above both sides of the alternative, is able not only to affirm, but also to deny, which is exactly what is achieved with the help of general points of view, general concepts and logical constructions considered by Aristotle in his Topic. "Dialectics," he writes, "is the science concerned with the general principles of scientific research, or, which is the same thing, with common places." Aristotle devotes much space to the dialectical problem of definition (definition). He considers this issue from different points of view. The definition, according to Aristotle, cannot be true if: 1) the concept of the subject is false; 2) the definition is not reduced to a generic difference; 3) the definition does not refer to the difference of the object being defined; 4) the definition does not express the essence of the object and phenomena; 5) the form of definitions is incorrectly expressed. The main goal of 67 a definition is to achieve clarity of knowledge, therefore, naturally, definitions should be formed through clear expressions. And, finally, in the eighth chapter, summing up the book of Topeka, Aristotle points out those general rules that guide both the objector and the defender in the dialogue. Here such methods of conducting a dispute are given, such as the order of posing questions, finding the main point of view, and other questions associated with logic and dialectics, which it is not possible to consider in more detail in this case. However, let's say that, generalizing all the basic techniques known in ancient dialogic practice, Aristotle in his dialogical writings gives more than 200 dialogical tops of logical- dialectical content, rules and features of their application, methodological recommendations. Thus, having carried out the most difficult work on the methodological search for the logical-dialectical structure of the dialogue, Aristotle appears before us as the founder of the theory of scientific dispute, dialogue, rhetoric, the significance of which he, although he does not dispute, nevertheless notes that “if the public consisted exclusively of reasonable and good people,