The paper aims at reconstructing the fundamentals of the sophistic anthropology. Contrary to the recognized view of the humanistic shift which took place in the sophistic thought, there is evidence that the sophists were continuously concerned with the problems of philosophy of nature. The difference between the sophists and their Presocratic predecessors was that their criticism of the philosophical tradition and the transformative answers given to the old questions were the basis and the starting point of the “ethical” and “rhetorical” part of their intellectual activity. This naturalistic perspective is reflected in their research in the field of medicine and biology, in the discussion about “the human nature”, and in their interest in the individual physiological and mental conditions, which determine the state of the human body and the behaviour of a man. The sophists pioneered in linguistic, rhetorical, and philological studies. To enhance the power of persuasion, they investigated how various mental conditions influenced cognitive processes and physiological reactions. Thus they started a thorough examination of the human psyche, initiating the field of psychology. Although the originality of the sophists in each of the aforementioned aspects is undeniable, a complete picture of the sophists can only be achieved by examining the sources of their thought: the Presocratic philosophical tradition, Hippocratic medicine, and earlier literary tradition.

In the context of reforming the legal system of Ukraine, the issue of judicial argumentation, which is developing in modern law schools, is necessary in current conditions of law enforcement process. In this regard, there is a need to outline the problematic aspects of the use of argumentation in the Ukrainian judicial system. This article is devoted to some features of the argumentation contained in decisions of Ukrainian courts. The article describes typical problems that occur during judicial argumentation, which hinder quality of justice. The author analyzes the logical approach to judicial argumentation, argumentation based on principles, the rhetorical approach and inductive as well as deductive argumentation during proceedings in Ukrainian courts. These are some of the most widely used approaches in judicial argumentation. The article provides some recommendations that can improve argumentation in Ukrainian judicial practice. These problems can be solved by improving the level of legal culture, increasing the education of litigants and by using other methods.

The discourse of reasons versus the discourse of emotions: storming of the US Capitol in the public media of Poland, Russia, and Germany

The article presents the results of the analysis of media coverage in European countries on the events of January 2021 in the United States. The US Congress was deliberating to approve the presidential election results when a crowd of Donald Trump supporters burst into the building. The authors compared television news services of public stations in three countries: Poland, Russia, and Germany. The content analysis in its quantitative and qualitative dimensions, qualitative methods (Critical Discourse Analysis) as well as comparative analysis were used. The research results allowed the authors to indicate the dominant types of discourse in the public media in January 2021. The authors have shown the varied nature of the narratives used (discourse instrumentalization versus the chronicle style of narration), language (emotional versus informational), and the contextualization of media reports (embedding in historical, social, or cultural contexts).

This paper aims to explore the correlation between rhetoric, political views, and actions and how the construction of utterances conveys ideological meaning. Specifically, I examine the nature of rhetoric, its structure, and its impact on the overall tone of an utterance. The analysis reveals that rhetorical devices can manipulate and create messages promoting segregation and discrimination. To illustrate this, I focus on D. Trump’s statements, particularly his use of Twitter to communicate. I analyze his selection of vocabulary and figures of speech, demonstrating his use of hate speech and misogynistic and racist thoughts. Drawing on the work of prominent linguists such as T. Van Dijk, R. Harris, and M. Reisigl, I examine the rhetorical devices used by Trump and their influence on the overall message conveyed. I support the analysis with press publications, articles, and books that provide further insight into Trump’s language use. The conclusions summarize my findings and emphasize the link between rhetoric and political actions and views.