Comparative Linguistic Research

Comparative Linguistic Research

Introduction to the Problematological Rhetoric Starting from Meyer’s Concept of the “Rhetorical Human”

Document Type : Research Paper

Author
Maziar Mohaymeni
French Language and Literature Department, Faculty of Humanities, Bu Ali Sina University, Hamadan, IRAN
10.22084/rjhll.2026.32588.2434
Abstract
The text examines Michel Meyer’s theory of problematological rhetoric and shows how it grounds the contemporary revival of rhetoric in a profound transformation of the modern paradigm of thought. According to Meyer, Western philosophy long marginalized rhetoric by privileging a propositional model of reason founded on stable truths, definitive propositions, and answers intended to put an end to questioning. Problematology seeks to reverse this hierarchy by restoring the primacy of the question. Rather than beginning with propositions and their truth-value, it starts from problems, differences, and the negotiation between divergent positions. Rhetoric thus ceases to be a secondary technique of persuasion and becomes a fundamental dimension of thought and communication.
An important aspect of Meyer’s philosophy is his rethinking of the Cartesian conception of the subject. Since René Descartes, modern philosophy had been grounded in the idea of a self-certain subject, encapsulated in the formula “I think, therefore I am.” For Meyer, this quest for certainty performs an anti-rhetorical function insofar as it seeks to eliminate the uncertainty and unresolved questions that characterized the intellectual landscape inherited from the Renaissance. Knowledge is thereby conceived as a system of indubitable propositions modeled on mathematical truth.
This framework is progressively undermined by the “deconstruction of the subject” in the nineteenth century. The philosophies of Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud play a decisive role in this transformation. Marx situates consciousness within historical and material conditions, Nietzsche challenges the notion of absolute truth, and Freud reveals the determining role of the unconscious. The subject can no longer be understood as a transparent foundation of knowledge; it becomes historically situated, fragmented, and problematic.
For Meyer, this transformation reopens the space of rhetoric. Once neither truth nor the subject can function as unquestionable foundations, propositions lose their absolute status and become subject to debate, interpretation, and justification. Every proposition encounters alternatives and enters into a relation of question and answer. The propositional paradigm therefore gives way to a problematological one, in which rhetoric becomes the privileged mode through which human beings negotiate meaning and difference.
Problematology is founded on the idea that philosophy begins not with answers but with questions. Its task is not to terminate questioning but to investigate the conditions that make questioning possible. Meyer acknowledges that thinkers such as Martin Heidegger and Ludwig Wittgenstein recognized aspects of this crisis of foundational reason, yet he argues that neither developed a systematic philosophy of questioning. Problematology seeks to accomplish precisely this task by making the question–answer relation the basic structure of philosophical inquiry.
This shift has important consequences for rhetoric. If questioning precedes all propositions, rhetoric is no longer an external supplement to reason, but one of its constitutive dimensions. Every discourse presupposes a problem, a difference, or a distance between interlocutors. Rhetoric therefore becomes inseparable from rationality itself.
Meyer rereads the history of philosophy from this perspective, particularly the works of Plato and Aristotle. In Plato’s case, this rereading is inseparable from his opposition to the Sophists and to rhetoric, which he regarded as a practice detached from truth. Although questioning in the dialogues frequently culminates in aporia, the absence of a definitive answer, Plato ultimately sought to overcome this condition by elevating geometrical certainty into the model of philosophical knowledge. Philosophy thus became the search for truth rather than the exploration of problems.
The case of Aristotle is more complex. Unlike Plato, Aristotle explicitly recognizes the legitimacy of rhetoric and devotes a major treatise to it. Nevertheless, Meyer argues that Aristotelian thought remains partially tied to a propositional conception of reason, particularly through the principle of non-contradiction. For Meyer, rhetoric obeys a different logic. It does not eliminate opposing positions but organizes their confrontation through argumentation and negotiation. He therefore defines rhetoric as “the negotiation between individuals concerning a question that separates them.” Rhetoric emerges wherever no definitive answer is available and where divergent positions must coexist.
The text nevertheless underlines the limits of Meyer’s criticism of Aristotle. Aristotelian rhetoric itself begins when opposing theses confront one another and seeks to identify the available means of persuasion in each case. From this perspective, the distance between Aristotelian rhetoric and problematological rhetoric may not be as great as Meyer suggests.
The anthropological dimension of rhetoric constitutes another central aspect of Meyer’s philosophy. Although Aristotle never developed an explicit rhetorical anthropology, Book II of the Rhetoric contains extensive analyses of passions, emotions, desires, character types, and social relations. Meyer makes explicit what remains largely implicit in Aristotle’s work by developing the notion of the “rhetorical human.” In doing so, he reveals an anthropological dimension of rhetoric that had often gone unnoticed.
Human beings are fundamentally rhetorical because they inhabit a problematic world. They are constantly confronted with differences, contradictions, and unforeseen events that destabilize both their identities and their understanding of reality. To preserve continuity, they engage in rhetorical operations that transform difference into resemblance and render the unfamiliar intelligible. Rhetoric is therefore not merely a technique of persuasion but a basic feature of human existence.
This perspective leads Meyer to redefine the subject. The self is no longer a stable entity but an identity in perpetual reconstruction. It is shaped by history and traversed by the unconscious: two dimensions that contribute to what Meyer calls the “rhetoricization” of the human being.
History is understood as a process of differentiation through which things cease to be what they previously were. As historical change accelerates, identities become increasingly unstable and metaphorical. Meyer speaks of a “metaphorization” of identities: they lose their fixed meaning and become open, shifting, and problematic. Human beings must therefore constantly renegotiate their relation to themselves and to the world.
The unconscious participates in this same rhetorical dynamic. Drawing on Freud, Meyer describes it as a domain in which unresolved problems are transformed into rhetorical figures such as metaphor and metonymy. The subject is thus divided between consciousness and unconsciousness, producing an internal distance within the self. Rhetoric does not merely structure communication between individuals; it also shapes the inner life of the subject.
The contemporary revival of rhetoric follows directly from these historical and anthropological transformations. In a world characterized by pluralism, democratic debate, media expansion, and the decline of absolute certainties, individuals can no longer rely on universally accepted truths. They must negotiate, argue, justify, and persuade. Rhetoric therefore recovers a central place in both public life and philosophical reflection.
Meyer insists that modern rhetoric can only be a “problematological rhetoric”. A purely propositional rhetoric would be a contradiction in terms, since rhetoric presupposes open questions, alternative answers, and unresolved differences. Its function is not to eliminate problems but to manage the distance separating individuals through discourse and negotiation.
The text concludes with a critical reflection on Meyer’s relationship to Aristotle. Despite the conceptual power of problematology, certain questions remain unresolved. One may wonder whether Meyer occasionally accentuates the propositional dimension of Aristotelian thought in order to sharpen the contrast with his own theory. Aristotle’s rhetoric, after all, begins where opposing theses confront one another and enter into argumentation, suggesting a degree of continuity between the two approaches. Nevertheless, Meyer’s contribution remains significant. By introducing concepts such as the “rhetorical human” and “rhetorical anthropology,” he reveals dimensions of rhetoric that had often remained implicit. More fundamentally, he shifts attention from propositions to the question–answer relation itself. Through problematology, rhetoric becomes a theory of questioning and of the negotiation between competing yet plausible answers to the same problem.


Bibliographie
Œuvres de Michel Meyer
- (1986/1). « Y a-t-il une modernité rhétorique ? », in De la métaphysique à la rhétorique, 7-13, dir. M. Meyer, Bruxelles : Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
- (1986/2). « Pour une anthropologie rhétorique », in De la métaphysique à la rhétorique, 119-142, dir. M. Meyer, Bruxelles : Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
- (1988). « Présentation », in Langue Française, n˚ 79, 3-4.
- (1999). « Pourquoi une histoire raisonnée de la rhétorique ? » in Histoire de la rhétorique des Grecs à nos jours, 5-16, dir. M. Meyer, Paris : Le Livre de Poche.
- (2005/1). Qu’est-ce que l’argumentation ? Paris : Vrin, coll. « Chemins philosophiques ».
- (2005/2). « Qu’est-ce que la problématologie ? » in Argumentum, n˚ 4, 7-14.
- (2008). Principia rhetorica. Une théorie générale de l’argumentation (pdf), Paris : Fayard.
- (2009). De la problématologie. Philosophie, science et langage, Paris : PUF, coll. Quadrige, « Grands Textes » ; éd. orig. Bruxelles : Mardaga, 1986.
- (2011/1). « La rhétorique dans l’histoire, d’Aristote à Perelman. Le renouveau contemporain de la rhétorique » (conf. 3 mars), Paris : Collège de France.
- (2011/2). La rhétorique, 3e édition (ebook), Paris : PUF, coll. « Que sais-je ? » ; éd. orig. 2004.
- (2012). Qu’est-ce que le refoulement ? Paris : L’Herne.
- (2013). Qu’est-ce que l’Histoire ? Progrès ou déclin ? Paris : PUF.
- (2017). Qu’est-ce que le questionnement ? Paris : Vrin, coll. « Chemins philosophiques ».

D’autres références
- Agamben, Giorgio (2002). Enfance et histoire. Destruction de l’expérience et origine de l’histoire, tr. fr. Y. Hersant, Paris : Payot & Rivages ; éd. orig. 1978.
- Aristote (2014). Rhétorique, in Œuvres Complètes, tr. fr. ; dir. Pierre Pellegrin, Paris : Flammarion.
- Aristote (2014). Métaphysique, in Œuvres Complètes, tr. fr. ; dir. Pierre Pellegrin, Paris : Flammarion.
- Fabre, Michel (2011). « Présentation », in Revue Internationale de Philosophie, vol. 65, n˚ 257 (3), 5–15.
- Foucault, Michel (1966). Les Mots et les choses, Paris : Gallimard (tel).
- Kundera, Milan (1993). Les Testaments trahis, Paris : Gallimard (folio).
- Perelman, Chaïm et L. Olbrechts-Tyteca (1958). La Nouvelle Rhétorique. Traité de l’argumentation, Paris : PUF.
- Schopenhauer, Arthur (1913). Le Monde comme volonté et comme représentation, tr. fr. A. Burdeau, 6e édition, Paris : Félix Alcan ; éd. orig. 1819, Leipzig : Brockhaus.

Sitographie
Meyer, Michel (les 3, 10, 17 et 24 mars 2011). La rhétorique, l’argumentation et les sciences humaines ; cycle de conférences au Collège de France dans le cadre de la chaire « Anthropologie de la nature », dirigée par Philippe Descola :
- « La rhétorique dans l'histoire, d'Aristote à Perelman. Le renouveau contemporain de la rhétorique » (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOlZzxMvnAo).
- « Rhétorique, langage et raisonnement : l'équivalence entre figures de rhétorique et types d'arguments » (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcqwUIfypXQ).
- « La rhétorique comme logique culturelle dans les sociétés démocratiques : logique des valeurs, logique des passions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SjOBPUpHyc).
- «Appliquer la rhétorique: la rhétorique et l'argumentation en éthique» (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBO71FrcuNU).
Keywords
Rhetoric
Rhetorical Antropology
Problematolgy
Problematological Theory of Rhetoric
Michel Meyer
Subjects
- مه‌یر، میشل (1400). «مسئله‌شناسی چیست؟»، ترجمۀ م. مهیمنی، تهران: فرهنگ‌بان، سال سوم، ش 9 و 10.
- مهیمنی، مازیار (1/1397). «پرسش‌گری چیست؟ راهی به مسئله‌شناسی میشل مه‌یر»، تهران:  نقدنامۀ زبان‌های خارجی، دورۀ اول، ش 1.
- مهیمنی، مازیار (2/1397). «مسئله‌شناسی امر تاریخی، در گذار به کتاب تاریخ چیست؟ اثر میشل مه‌یر»، تهران: نقدنامۀ زبان‌های خارجی، دورۀ اول، ش 2.
- مهیمنی، مازیار (1402). «زبان versus گزاره؟ میشل مه‌یر و ادراک مسئله‌شناختی از زبان»، همدان: پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی تطبیقی، دورۀ سیزدهم، ش 25.
 
 
Œuvres de Michel Meyer
- (1986/1). « Y a-t-il une modernité rhétorique ? », in De la métaphysique à la rhétorique, 7-13, dir. M. Meyer, Bruxelles : Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
- (1986/2). « Pour une anthropologie rhétorique », in De la métaphysique à la rhétorique, 119-142, dir. M. Meyer, Bruxelles : Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
- (1988). « Présentation », in Langue Française, n˚ 79, 3-4.
- (1999). « Pourquoi une histoire raisonnée de la rhétorique ? » in Histoire de la rhétorique des Grecs à nos jours, 5-16, dir. M. Meyer, Paris : Le Livre de Poche.
- (2005/1). Qu’est-ce que l’argumentation ? Paris : Vrin, coll. « Chemins philosophiques ».
- (2005/2). « Qu’est-ce que la problématologie ? » in Argumentum, n˚ 4, 7-14.
- (2008). Principia rhetorica. Une théorie générale de l’argumentation (pdf), Paris : Fayard.
- (2009). De la problématologie. Philosophie, science et langage, Paris : PUF, coll. Quadrige, « Grands Textes » ; éd. orig. Bruxelles : Mardaga, 1986.
- (2011/1). « La rhétorique dans l’histoire, d’Aristote à Perelman. Le renouveau contemporain de la rhétorique » (conf. 3 mars), Paris : Collège de France.
- (2011/2). La rhétorique, 3e édition (ebook), Paris : PUF, coll. « Que sais-je ? » ; éd. orig. 2004.
- (2012). Qu’est-ce que le refoulement ? Paris : L’Herne.
- (2013). Qu’est-ce que l’Histoire ? Progrès ou déclin ? Paris : PUF.
- (2017). Qu’est-ce que le questionnement ? Paris : Vrin, coll. « Chemins philosophiques ».
 
D’autres références
- Agamben, Giorgio (2002). Enfance et histoire. Destruction de l’expérience et origine de l’histoire, tr. fr. Y. Hersant, Paris : Payot & Rivages ; éd. orig. 1978.  
- Aristote (2014). Rhétorique, in Œuvres Complètes, tr. fr. ; dir. Pierre Pellegrin, Paris : Flammarion.
- Aristote (2014). Métaphysique, in Œuvres Complètes, tr. fr. ; dir. Pierre Pellegrin, Paris : Flammarion.
- Fabre, Michel (2011). « Présentation », in Revue Internationale de Philosophie, vol. 65, n˚ 257 (3), 5–15.
- Foucault, Michel (1966). Les Mots et les choses, Paris : Gallimard (tel).   
- Kundera, Milan (1993). Les Testaments trahis, Paris : Gallimard (folio).
- Perelman, Chaïm et L. Olbrechts-Tyteca (1958). La Nouvelle Rhétorique. Traité de l’argumentation, Paris : PUF.
- Schopenhauer, Arthur (1913). Le Monde comme volonté et comme représentation, tr. fr. A. Burdeau, 6e édition, Paris : Félix Alcan ; éd. orig. 1819, Leipzig : Brockhaus.
 
Sitographie
Meyer, Michel (les 3, 10, 17 et 24 mars 2011). La rhétorique, l’argumentation et les sciences humaines ; cycle de conférences au Collège de France dans le cadre de la chaire « Anthropologie de la nature », dirigée par Philippe Descola :
- « La rhétorique dans l'histoire, d'Aristote à Perelman. Le renouveau contemporain de la rhétorique » (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOlZzxMvnAo).
- « Rhétorique, langage et raisonnement : l'équivalence entre figures de rhétorique et types d'arguments » (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcqwUIfypXQ).
- « La rhétorique comme logique culturelle dans les sociétés démocratiques : logique des valeurs, logique des passions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SjOBPUpHyc).
- «Appliquer la rhétorique: la rhétorique et l'argumentation en éthique» (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBO71FrcuNU).