Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions. Enlarge cover. Error rating book.
|Published (Last):||2 January 2005|
|PDF File Size:||10.62 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.68 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read.
Other editions. Enlarge cover. Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Details if other :. Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Noch nie war Philosophie so praktisch. Ein Standardwerk. Get A Copy. Hardcover , 87 pages. More Details Other Editions Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Eristische Dialektik oder Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten , please sign up.
Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Community Reviews. Showing Average rating 3. Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Herr Schopenhauer is the master of understanding a conflict; its- versions, progression and the knack of its decimation. This book makes a wonderful complement for his other book The art of always being Right.
If you are sort of a being who would consider yourself philosophically inclined, you should not let go of the wisdom in both these books. They would, if understood rightly and applied aptly, come most handy in feverish University debates to Boardroom meetings than any other self help nonse Herr Schopenhauer is the master of understanding a conflict; its- versions, progression and the knack of its decimation. They would, if understood rightly and applied aptly, come most handy in feverish University debates to Boardroom meetings than any other self help nonsense that would be found floating around out there.
The only drawback being, most of it has to be used when people are reasonable; unfortunately in most disagreements, people become unreasonable. PS- Philosophically inclined would presuppose basic understanding of premises and schools; not Bachs, Coelho, Pirsigs. Bemerkenswert unterhaltsam wie gnadenlos trocken Schopenhauer den Disput in seine Einzelteile zerlegt.
Doch liefert er auch immerhin die eine oder andere Konterstrategie. If you enjoy debating or you're one of those types who gets into all types of arguments after 5 bottles of beer, this "Book of Tricks" can be useful for you. Even if the book lacks comparisons and some of the tricks shown are obsolete or already very well-known, it still can make you even a better debater.
This was actually kind of entertaining, sarcastic, and funny. This is something approximating a modern text in the Sophist tradition, as it has mainly to do with rhetoric and persuasion at the expense of truth. That isn't to say that Schopenhauer abandoned concern for the truth when he wrote this, only that he felt that for the purpose of debate there was an element rhetoric, style, persuasion which was just as important as truth but which tended to be ignored by philosophers in favor of reaso This was actually kind of entertaining, sarcastic, and funny.
That isn't to say that Schopenhauer abandoned concern for the truth when he wrote this, only that he felt that for the purpose of debate there was an element rhetoric, style, persuasion which was just as important as truth but which tended to be ignored by philosophers in favor of reason, probably because of the mistaken assumption that people during philosophical conversations are rational and hold or abandon positions on a rational basis.
He still believed that people were rational, or had the capacity to reason, but that the act of reasoning was separate from the action of discourse or dialectic. When you are talking with someone you surely notice how irrational both you and your partner are. If there is a disagreement your default assumption is that your partner is wrong and that you haven't made a mistake.
If you are pierced by a solid argument you'll assume that you are probably still right but you just couldn't think of the counterpoint which would be your salvation at the time. You'll notice your opponent issuing forth the most obvious fallacies seemingly unaware of how transparently illogical they are, and if you have an audience you might also notice them being swayed by these fallacies.
During debate, people are not really seeking truth. They are trying to preserve their vanity. There are many occasions when a proposition may even seem wrong to ourselves at some point, yet we will persist in defending it. This is the realm of intellectual combat which this book was written for. The book is a taxonomy of sophistic tricks. None of this has anything to do with truth, which requires careful, solitary, dispassionate contemplation and analysis.
It only has to do with appearing as though you've won a debate. It might appear a little sleazy that Schopenhauer even wrote this, but a sage of equal vision can see that it is simply a guidebook to a natural part of human intellectual life which has its proper station under heaven.
It would be absurd to give in too easily in a debate, because you are imperfect and it may well be that your opponent is more loquacious than you, or that you haven't remembered all the crucial arguments for this particular situation.
It behoves you to throw as many wrenches as possible into the opposing argument to try to get them to expose a contradiction or a flaw, even if the wrenches you throw are ad hominem attacks. If you have blind faith in the validity of your own vanity and the hopelessness of your opponent's position, you may well come off the better for it, at least dialectically. Schopehauer doesn't go this far and even I hesitate to, but the following is the only relationship which dialectic has with truth: that in the process of dialectic each position is exploded I use the explosion analogy rather than the dissection analogy, because of the disorder and clumsiness of the former so that each party can see its innards, and later on in the shelter of a quiet study room can parse truth from falsehood in what was spoken.
The critical introduction, on which Olavo de Carvalho links the ideas of dialectic, logic and eristic between Aristotle and Schopenhauer wasn't that thrilling for me since I am not really on track of this discussion, but to those with more knowledge of Aristotle and Philosophy in general it might be a helpful guide. Actually, Olavo's footnotes and comments are, overall, helpful and very thorough; providing good examples and expanding the framework and sometimes pointing flaws of Schopenhauer The critical introduction, on which Olavo de Carvalho links the ideas of dialectic, logic and eristic between Aristotle and Schopenhauer wasn't that thrilling for me since I am not really on track of this discussion, but to those with more knowledge of Aristotle and Philosophy in general it might be a helpful guide.
Actually, Olavo's footnotes and comments are, overall, helpful and very thorough; providing good examples and expanding the framework and sometimes pointing flaws of Schopenhauer's unfinished work which is here published and translated to portuguese a good translation, it seems to me.
The original Schopenhauer text is, in my opinion, the most thrilling part of the book and fairly acessible as well. If you're somewhat interested in Philosophy or in understanding a bit more of how discussions work and perhaps illicit ways to win a discussion, as the title in portuguese suggests , pick this up.
This is more like a very long essay than a short book but I liked it a lot. Basically Schopenhauer lists 30 odd 'Stratagems' used in arguing that are somewhere between perversions of logic or downright dishonesty.
Think something like "Logical Fallacy Referee" meme in essay form, but sketching various forms that dishonest argumentation takes. By sketching the forms that many of these maneuvers take I think it allows you to recognize the patterns when you see them in the wild.
They say that "know This is more like a very long essay than a short book but I liked it a lot. They say that "knowing is half the battle" and if that's true then this book gets you halfway to winning any argument with someone who isn't exactly honest. I wish I'd read this book a month ago, or 10 years ago, but I'm very glad I have finally read it and I will read it again.
Jun 12, Fr. Read via Librivox recording Interesting book on dialectic. He goes about it the wrong way, inasmuch as the dialectic itself is more important for him than actually finding out the truth. Ridiculous premise for a philosopher in my opinion. View 2 comments. Quite interesting I especulate this is not his finest work, but still it's quite enjoyable. I dislike his insistence in "winning" arguments rather than the pursue of truth.
A quick and fun read about the tactics many humans employ in discussions. I intuitively thought much that Schopenhauer said to be very true and corresponding to my prior experiences. This little book will teach you to defend your position and recognize and avoid mischievous attempts to discredit you and your statements.
One of my favourite parts was in the introduction, where Schopenhauer made clear that the objective truth of the discussed statements won't matter most of the time - what does is A quick and fun read about the tactics many humans employ in discussions.
One of my favourite parts was in the introduction, where Schopenhauer made clear that the objective truth of the discussed statements won't matter most of the time - what does is if the opponents and the listeners of the discussion acknowledge them.
In a discussion it is very urgent to not focus on objective truths in the first place, but to manipulate everyone's opinion - most of the time in a very subtle way. That was one of the things I recognized from former experiences as I read it here, but I shamefully never really thought about such a simple thing. Es un ensayo corto y basico para todas las personas. Schopenhauer nos da 36 tacticas para poder debatir mucho mejor, hay que admitir que algunas son muy desesperadas Ad Hominem e interrumpir a tu adversario.
Pero asimismo nos ayuda a entender como defendernos de estas mismas cuando nuestro adversario intente usarlas en nuestra contra. Another interesting classic that's in the public domain. A free electronic copy can be found here.
Wonderfully entertaining. Some of this - actually a lot of this - went over my head. Stratagems was the best part. This was amusing. I'm not sure how else to describe it this is coming from a debate junkie, so just leave it at that O livro ensina a reconhecer e desmontar as artimanhas de manipuladores.
Only read Essay 1 absolutely brilliant.
Eristische Dialektik oder Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten
He introduces his essay with the idea that philosophers have concentrated in ample measure on the rules of logic , but have not especially since the time of Immanuel Kant engaged with the darker art of the dialectic , of controversy. Whereas the purpose of logic is classically said to be a method of arriving at the truth, dialectic, says Schopenhauer, " The tricks, dodges, and chicanery, to which they [men] resort in order to be right in the end, are so numerous and manifold and yet recur so regularly that some years ago I made them the subject of my own reflection and directed my attention to their purely formal element after I had perceived that, however varied the subjects of discussion and the persons taking part therein, the same identical tricks and dodges always come back and were very easy to recognize. This led me at the time to the idea of clearly separating the merely formal part of these tricks and dodges from the material and of displaying it, so to speak, as a neat anatomical specimen. He "collected all the dishonest tricks so frequently occurring in argument and clearly presented each of them in its characteristic setting, illustrated by examples and given a name of its own. However, when he later revised his book, he found "that such a detailed and minute consideration of the crooked ways and tricks that are used by common human nature to cover up its shortcomings is no longer suited to my temperament and so I lay it aside.
Arthur Schopenhauer: Eristische Dialektik - eBook