Diálogos en torno a la conveniencia de aprovechar los aportes de Aristóteles y de los estudios retóricos contemporáneos en el campo de la comunicación

Abstract

what specific problem of the society of his time did the rhetorical theory elaborated and proposed by Aristotle respond to? What distinguishes what the stagirite identified as a rhetor with respect to what is known as a sophist? What were the three types of "audiences" (and their dispositions) that the macedonian philosopher identified? Did he clearly distinguish the difference between rhetorical persuasion (directed at emotions) and apodictic argumentation (directed exclusively at reason)? Doxic truth and apodictic truth contrast in the work of this great ancient philosopher? What is the difference that he established between the syllogism (logical proofs) and entinema (beliefs)? And after 25 centuries reflection on rhetoric in the West, what is the place that the study of Aristotle’s work occupies today in the current schools of communication in Mexico? Is the teaching of this philosophical tradition really in crisis today?, and if the latter is true, why can it be asserted anyway that rhetoric "is an epistemological foundation for the communication sciences"? The previous questions were just some of the questions with which the authors had several meetings to discuss the "rhetorical-persuasive" dimension implicit in all human communication processes and the convenience that in teaching and research communication processes take much more advantage of the knowledge generated by contemporary rhetorical studies.