Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    From $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    The Art of Controversy
    The Art of Controversy
    The Art of Controversy
    Ebook114 pages1 hour

    The Art of Controversy

    By Arthur Schopenhauer

    ()

    Switch to audiobook
    Read preview

    About this ebook

    First of all, we must consider the essential nature of every dispute: what it is that really takes place in it.
    Our opponent has stated a thesis, or we ourselves, it is all one. There are two modes of refuting it, and two courses that we may pursue.
    I. The modes are (1) ad rem, (2) ad hominem or ex concessis. That is to say: We may show either that the proposition is not in accordance with the nature of things, i.e., with absolute, objective truth; or that it is inconsistent with other statements or admissions of our opponent, i.e., with truth as it appears to him. The latter mode of arguing a question produces only a relative conviction, and makes no difference whatever to the objective truth of the matter.
    II. The two courses that we may pursue are (1) the direct, and (2) the indirect refutation. The direct attacks the reason for the thesis; the indirect, its results. The direct refutation shows that the thesis is not true; the indirect, that it cannot be true.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherBooks on Demand
    Release dateOct 5, 2018
    ISBN9783748128434
    Author

    Arthur Schopenhauer

    Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) entwickelte eine Philosophie, die zeitgenössische Annahmen der Erkenntnistheorie, Metaphysik, Ästhetik und Ethik richtungsweisend und vorgreifend mit empiristischen, hermeneutischen und phänomenologischen Elementen verbindet. Sein Denken wirkt weit über die Philosophie hinaus in Literatur, Musik und Bildender Kunst.

    Read more from Arthur Schopenhauer

    Related to The Art of Controversy

    Related ebooks

    Philosophy For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • UNLIMITED

      Churchill’s World Crisis

      Nov 5, 2018

      Churchill’s World Crisis
      8 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Fragile Freedom

      Mar 6, 2022

      Fragile Freedom
      2 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      10 Greatest Kingmakers

      Oct 8, 2020

      10 Greatest Kingmakers
      9 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Learning Nothing from Yesterday

      Jun 18, 2019

      Learning Nothing from Yesterday
      4 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Bernard-Henri Lévy

      Oct 31, 2024

      Bernard-Henri Lévy
      4 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Nozick on Taxation: The Necessity of Funding the Legitimate State

      Sep 21, 2024

      In his inimitably provocative style, the libertarian Robert Nozick in 1974 declared that “taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor” (169). A bold claim for a Harvard professor. Nozick’s line stands alongside other famous tax quot

      22 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Misunderstanding Asia

      Nov 8, 2017

      Misunderstanding Asia
      3 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Your National Identity

      Jun 19, 2023

      Your National Identity
      4 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The Naked Emperor: Politics without Romance in The Calculus of Consent

      Jan 1, 2020

      Published more than a half-century ago, The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy (Buchanan and Tullock 1962) is one of a handful of pathbreaking contributions to the then contemporary literatures of economics and polit

      19 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Biden’s Stretch on Intellectual Property Theft

      Jul 10, 2019

      Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden says the Trump administration has not been fighting China on "stealing intellectual secrets," claiming that instead it has been "fighting in trade." But intellectual property issues have been part of ongoin

      5 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The Fallacy Of Soft Power

      Feb 29, 2024

      YOU MAY HAVE MISSED IT, BUT BRITISH STATECRAFT recently scored a triumph. The United Kingdom ranked second in Brand Finance’s Global Soft Power Index, trailing only the United States. For the Senior Communications Officer of the UK Foreign and Common

      7 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Tesla Raises the Roof

      Aug 1, 2017

      Tesla Raises the Roof
      25 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Modern Times

      Oct 11, 2019

      Modern Times
      16 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Hayek: A Life, 1899–1950

      Feb 2, 2024

      By Bruce Caldwell and Hansjoerg Klausinger Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2022. Pp. vi, 804. $50 hardcover. Biographies of economists are still rare, especially compared with monographs about them. For F. A. Hayek we could already rely on Cald

      12 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      New Problems in Nozick’s Derivation of the Minimal State

      Sep 21, 2024

      Robert Nozick’s starting point is an individualist anarchist one. His state of nature is like Murray Rothbard’s anarchism. Nozick says: His project is to show how a state might justifiably arise from this starting point, and to understand this projec

      7 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      First AMONG EQUALS

      Dec 4, 2020

      First AMONG EQUALS
      4 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Adam Smith’s Rebuke of the Slave Trade, 1759

      Jul 1, 2020

      Interest in Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS, Smith [1759] 1976b) has soared during the past thirty-five years. Long eclipsed by The Wealth of Nations (WN, Smith [1776] 1976a), TMS now has a popular estimation more in line with Smith’

      13 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Construction Picks Up Pace

      Nov 25, 2021

      BUY SELL HOLD Back in May, I recommended construction firm Raubex as a buy – it has gained about 20% since then. The company released solid results for the six months through 31 August on 8 November. Revenue jumped 52% compared to the same period a y

      1 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Global Pursuit

      Dec 6, 2022

      Global Pursuit
      3 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for The Art of Controversy

    0 ratings

    0 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      The Art of Controversy - Arthur Schopenhauer

      VIRTUE.

      TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.

      The volume now before the reader is a tardy addition to a series in which I have endeavoured to present Schopenhauer's minor writings in an adequate form.

      Its contents are drawn entirely from his posthumous papers. A selection of them was given to the world some three of four years after his death by his friend and literary executor, Julius Frauenstädt, who for this and other offices of piety, has received less recognition than he deserves. The papers then published have recently been issued afresh, with considerable additions and corrections, by Dr. Eduard Grisebach, who is also entitled to gratitude for the care with which he has followed the text of the manuscripts, now in the Royal Library at Berlin, and for having drawn attention—although in terms that are unnecessarily severe—to a number of faults and failings on the part of the previous editor.

      The fact that all Schopenhauer's works, together with a volume of his correspondence, may now be obtained in a certain cheap collection of the best national and foreign literature displayed in almost every bookshop in Germany, is sufficient evidence that in his own country the writer's popularity is still very great; nor does the demand for translations indicate that his fame has at all diminished abroad. The favour with which the new edition of his posthumous papers has been received induces me, therefore, to resume a task which I thought, five years ago, that I had finally completed; and it is my intention to bring out one more volume, selected partly from these papers and partly from his Parerga .

      A small part of the essay on The Art of Controversy was published in Schopenhauer's lifetime, in the chapter of the Parerga headed Zur Logik und Dialektik . The intelligent reader will discover that a good deal of its contents is of an ironical character. As regards the last three essays I must observe that I have omitted such passages as appear to be no longer of any general interest or otherwise unsuitable. I must also confess to having taken one or two liberties with the titles, in order that they may the more effectively fulfil the purpose for which titles exist. In other respects I have adhered to the original with the kind of fidelity which aims at producing an impression as nearly as possible similar to that produced by the original.

      PRELIMINARY: LOGIC AND DIALECTIC.

      By the ancients, Logic and Dialectic were used as synonymous terms; although [Greek: logizesthai], to think over, to consider, to calculate, and [Greek: dialegesthai], to converse, are two very different things.

      The name Dialectic was, as we are informed by Diogenes Laertius, first used by Plato; and in the Phaedrus, Sophist, Republic , bk. vii., and elsewhere, we find that by Dialectic he means the regular employment of the reason, and skill in the practice of it. Aristotle also uses the word in this sense; but, according to Laurentius Valla, he was the first to use Logic too in a similar way.[1] Dialectic, therefore, seems to be an older word than Logic. Cicero and Quintilian use the words in the same general signification.[2]

      [Footnote 1: He speaks of [Greek: dyscherelai logicai], that is, difficult points, [Greek: protasis logicae aporia logicae]]

      [Footnote 2: Cic. in Lucullo: Dialecticam inventam esse, veri et falsi quasi disceptatricem. Topica , c. 2: Stoici enim judicandi vias diligenter persecuti sunt, ea scientia, quam Dialecticen appellant . Quint., lib. ii., 12: Itaque haec pars dialecticae, sive illam disputatricem dicere malimus ; and with him this latter word appears to be the Latin equivalent for Dialectic. (So far according to Petri Rami dialectica, Audomari Talaei praelectionibus illustrata. 1569.)]

      This use of the words and synonymous terms lasted through the Middle Ages into modern times; in fact, until the present day. But more recently, and in particular by Kant, Dialectic has often been employed in a bad sense, as meaning the art of sophistical controversy; and hence Logic has been preferred, as of the two the more innocent designation. Nevertheless, both originally meant the same thing; and in the last few years they have again been recognised as synonymous.

      It is a pity that the words have thus been used from of old, and that I am not quite at liberty to distinguish their meanings. Otherwise, I should have preferred to define Logic (from [Greek: logos], word and reason, which are inseparable) as the science of the laws of thought, that is, of the method of reason; and Dialectic (from [Greek: dialegesthai], to converse—and every conversation communicates either facts or opinions, that is to say, it is historical or deliberative) as the art of disputation, in the modern sense of the word. It it clear, then, that Logic deals with a subject of a purely à priori character, separable in definition from experience, namely, the laws of thought, the process of reason or the [Greek: logos], the laws, that is, which reason follows when it is left to itself and not hindered, as in the case of solitary thought on the part of a rational being who is in no way misled. Dialectic, on the other hand, would treat of the intercourse between two rational beings who, because they are rational, ought to think in common, but who, as soon as they cease to agree like two clocks keeping exactly the same time, create a disputation, or intellectual contest. Regarded as purely rational beings, the individuals would, I say, necessarily be in agreement, and their variation springs from the difference essential to individuality; in other words, it is drawn from experience.

      Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed à priori . Dialectic, for the most part, can be constructed only à posteriori ; that is to say, we may learn its rules by an experiential knowledge of the disturbance which pure thought suffers through the difference of individuality manifested in the intercourse between two rational beings, and also by acquaintance with the means which disputants adopt in order to make good against one another their own individual thought, and to show that it is pure and objective. For human nature is such that if A. and B. are engaged in thinking in common, and are communicating their opinions to one another on any subject, so long as it is not a mere fact of history, and A. perceives that B.'s thoughts on one and the same subject are not the same as his own, he does not begin by revising his own process of thinking, so as to discover any mistake which he may have made, but he assumes that the mistake has occurred in B.'s. In other words, man is naturally obstinate; and this quality in him is attended with certain results, treated of in the branch of knowledge which I should like to call Dialectic, but which, in order to avoid misunderstanding, I shall call Controversial or Eristical Dialectic. Accordingly, it is the branch of knowledge which treats of the obstinacy natural to man. Eristic is only a harsher name for the same thing.

      Controversial Dialectic is the art of disputing, and of disputing in such a way as to hold one's own, whether one is in the right or the wrong— per fas et nefas .[1] A man may be objectively in the right, and nevertheless in the eyes of bystanders, and sometimes in his own, he may come off worst. For example, I may advance a proof of some assertion, and my adversary may refute the proof, and thus appear to have refuted the assertion, for which there may, nevertheless, be other proofs. In this case, of course, my adversary and I change places: he comes off best, although, as a matter of fact, he is in the wrong.

      [Footnote 1: According to Diogenes Laertius, v., 28, Aristotle put Rhetoric and Dialectic together, as aiming at persuasion, [Greek: to pithanon]; and Analytic and Philosophy as aiming at truth. Aristotle does, indeed, distinguish between (1) Logic , or Analytic, as the theory or method of arriving at true or apodeictic conclusions; and (2) Dialectic as the method of arriving at conclusions that are accepted or pass current as true, [Greek: endoxa] probabilia ; conclusions in regard to which it is not taken for granted that they are false, and also not taken for granted that they are true in themselves, since that is not the point. What is this but the art of being in the right, whether one has any reason for being so or not, in other words, the art of attaining the appearance of truth, regardless of its substance? That is, then, as I put it above.

      Aristotle divides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premisses, the materials from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) Sophistic is the

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1