This article analyzes the argumentative mechanism of the phenomenon of consciousness manipulation from the perspectives of the paradigms of formal and informal logic. First of all, the concepts aimed at explaining the possibilities of persuasion and proof—considered necessary elements of the structure of the phenomenon of consciousness manipulation—within the paradigms of formal and informal logic are comparatively analyzed. It is also scientifically substantiated that the criteria for classifying arguments are an important factor in distinguishing argumentation from manipulation. Furthermore, special attention is paid to the idea that the intentional aspect of errors committed in the process of argumentation may determine their functions as manipulative mechanisms.

Manipulation, formal logic, informal logic, paralogisms, sophisms, relevant arguments, irrelevant arguments, logical tricks, psychological tricks, universal audience.

Fahnestock J., Secor M. A rhetoric of argument. 3rd ed. New York, 2003. P. 19.

Ивин А. А., Никифоров А. Л. Словарь по логике. M., 1998. C. 356; Johnson R. H. Manifest rationality. A pragmatic theory of argument. New Jersey, 2000. P142 (гл. 5 «Informal logic: an alternative theory of argument»).

Лейбниц Г. В. Новые опыты о человеческом разумении. 1703-1704. Соч. в 4 т. Т. 2. М., 1983. С. 493.

Hilbert D. The foundations of mathematics // From Frege to Godel. Cambridge, 1927. P. 464.

Имеется в виду необходимость исследования особенностей аргументации в письменной форме речи, в частности в современной печати (modern printing press). - В. М.

Perelman Ch., Olbrechts-Tyteca L. The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Univ, of Notre Dame Press, 1969. P. 6.

Имеются в виду работы: Thouless R. H. Straight and crooked thinking. Cambridge, 1930; Copi I. Introduction to logic. New York, 1957; Kahane H. Logic and contemporary rhetoric. The use of reason in everyday life. Belmont, 1971 и др.

Johnson R. H. Manifest rationality. A pragmatic theory of argument. New Jersey, 2000. P. 111.

Whately R. Elements of rhetoric comprising an analysis of the laws of moral evidence and persuasion with rules for argumentative composition and elocution. Kessinger Publishing, 2005. P. 281.

Govier T. Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht & Berlin, 1987. P. 14-15.

Панкратов В. Н. Манипуляции в общении и их нейтрализация. М., 2001. С. 16.

Култышева И. В. Уловки в доказательстве как способ аргументации в предвыбор¬ных листовках // Политическая лингвистика. 2010. № 2. С. 115.

Renaissance debates on rhetoric / ed. W. A. Rebhorn. Cornell Univ. Press, 1999. P. 88.

Encyclopedia of rhetoric / ed. Th. О. Sloane. Oxford Univ. Press, 2001. P. 61 & 173; Кассен Б. Эффект софистики. СПб, 2000. С. 179.

Foss S., Foss К., Trapp R. Contemporary perspectives on rhetoric. 2nd ed. Waveland press, P. 138-139.

Ивин А. А. Теория аргументации. M., 2000. С. 365.

Walton D. Ethical argumentation. Lexington Books, 2003. P. 195. Автор называет свой (новый ли? подход «новой диалектикой (new dialectic)» — вероятно, по ана¬логии с «новой риторикой» и «новой софистикой», для которых он как раз характе¬рен. См. также: Walton D. The new dialectic. Conversational contexts of argument. Univ, of Toronto Press, 1998.