web site hit counter The Art of Being Right: How to speak in public, argue and convince even using logical fallacies. Win all your debates! (Annotated) - Ebooks PDF Online
Hot Best Seller

The Art of Being Right: How to speak in public, argue and convince even using logical fallacies. Win all your debates! (Annotated)

Availability: Ready to download

Which are the logical tricks that will let you slip through the net when faced with awkward questions? How can you yourself use arguments to deflect difficult situations? Do you recognize all flaws in someone else's argument? This the book the BBC, Andrew Gilligan, Lord Hutton, Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell will not be able to ignore. This is an irresistible guide to cl Which are the logical tricks that will let you slip through the net when faced with awkward questions? How can you yourself use arguments to deflect difficult situations? Do you recognize all flaws in someone else's argument? This the book the BBC, Andrew Gilligan, Lord Hutton, Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell will not be able to ignore. This is an irresistible guide to clear thinking and understanding of the art of debate.


Compare

Which are the logical tricks that will let you slip through the net when faced with awkward questions? How can you yourself use arguments to deflect difficult situations? Do you recognize all flaws in someone else's argument? This the book the BBC, Andrew Gilligan, Lord Hutton, Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell will not be able to ignore. This is an irresistible guide to cl Which are the logical tricks that will let you slip through the net when faced with awkward questions? How can you yourself use arguments to deflect difficult situations? Do you recognize all flaws in someone else's argument? This the book the BBC, Andrew Gilligan, Lord Hutton, Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell will not be able to ignore. This is an irresistible guide to clear thinking and understanding of the art of debate.

30 review for The Art of Being Right: How to speak in public, argue and convince even using logical fallacies. Win all your debates! (Annotated)

  1. 5 out of 5

    Ahmad Sharabiani

    Die Kunst, Recht zu beleidigen = The art of always being right: thirty eight ways to win when ‭you are defeated ..., Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)‬ The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831) is an acidulous and sarcastic treatise written by the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer in sardonic deadpan. In it, Schopenhauer examines a total of thirty-eight methods of showing up one's opponent in a debate. He introduces his essay with the idea that philosophers have concentrated Die Kunst, Recht zu beleidigen = The art of always being right: thirty eight ways to win when ‭you are defeated ..., Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)‬ The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831) is an acidulous and sarcastic treatise written by the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer in sardonic deadpan. In it, Schopenhauer examines a total of thirty-eight methods of showing up one's opponent in a debate. 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, "...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." تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز سی ام ماه سپتامبر سال 2007میلادی عنوان: هنر همیشه بر حق بودن: 38 راه برای پیروزی در هنگامی که شکست خورده اید؛ اثر: آرتور شوپنهاور؛ مقدمه: ای.سی گریلینگ؛ مترجم: عرفان ثابتی؛ مشخصات نشر تهران، ققنوس، چاپ نخست 1385، در 136ص، شابک 9643116352، 9789643116354؛ چاپ هفتم 1392، موضوع دیالکتیک، منطق از نویسندگان آلمانی - سده 19م به گمانم بهترین راهنما برای مناظره کنندگان حرفه ای باشد، راههایی به خوانشگر میآموزد، تا راست را چگونه ناراست، جلوه دهند، و بیارایند، اما نوشتار حاصل اندیشه ای نیک و ناب است تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 03/08/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی

  2. 5 out of 5

    pearl

    Hilarious, insightful, and incredibly relevant. (And what of course is the Ultimate Stratagem to win 'em all? Become personal, insulting, and rude! Troll, my boys and girls, troll!) Hilarious, insightful, and incredibly relevant. (And what of course is the Ultimate Stratagem to win 'em all? Become personal, insulting, and rude! Troll, my boys and girls, troll!)

  3. 5 out of 5

    Jay Miklovic

    I am not sure if it was Schopenhauer's intention or not, but this quickly little read was humorous. Having just read a few books about logical fallacies in which the authors expressed disdain toward bad logic, this book came as a fresh treatise from the other side. Schopenhauer teaches you how to use logical fallacy to win your argument regardless of whether or not truth is on your side. Anyway, it was fun to read, and I highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys a good argument. However, be careful I am not sure if it was Schopenhauer's intention or not, but this quickly little read was humorous. Having just read a few books about logical fallacies in which the authors expressed disdain toward bad logic, this book came as a fresh treatise from the other side. Schopenhauer teaches you how to use logical fallacy to win your argument regardless of whether or not truth is on your side. Anyway, it was fun to read, and I highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys a good argument. However, be careful putting too much of this book into practice or you will quickly become one of the most annoying people on the face of the planet.

  4. 4 out of 5

    Benjamin

    I miss reading in Spanish, and I miss philosophy even more.

  5. 4 out of 5

    Ivonne Rovira

    One can discover things in the most unusual ways! While reading some comments on Paul Krugman's blog in The New York Times, one of those commenting mentioned this book and how prescient it's proved when it comes to arguments on Fox News and the right-wing blogs. Well, who could resist an invitation like that? German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer amused himself with jotting down the nasty argumentative techniques he observed and recounting them in a satirical fashion, presumably for his personal One can discover things in the most unusual ways! While reading some comments on Paul Krugman's blog in The New York Times, one of those commenting mentioned this book and how prescient it's proved when it comes to arguments on Fox News and the right-wing blogs. Well, who could resist an invitation like that? German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer amused himself with jotting down the nasty argumentative techniques he observed and recounting them in a satirical fashion, presumably for his personal enjoyment, as they weren't published in his lifetime. Thomas Bailey Saunders translated the work into English in February 1896. The work isn't laugh-out-loud funny -- although you wouldn't expect that from Schopenhauer anyway. It's worth a read, and it really does chronicle all of the techniques you've seen on The O'Reilly Factor and on whatever Sean Hannity is calling his show these days. At a mere 48 pages, it's certain worth a read. Amazing to discover that nothing is new under the sun -- not even 21st century bread and circuses.

  6. 4 out of 5

    Sunil

    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. 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 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. Thanks.

  7. 4 out of 5

    Sandro Mancuso

    This is the first time I’ve read Schopenhauer. Overall I enjoyed the book. The book is mostly about winning debates even if that means ignoring logic and reason. The book lists 38 tricks identified by the author that people use to defend their position or undermine other’s in order to win debates. The point of the book is not for you to use these tricks, but to identify when they are being used against you or are being used in any other debate you might be interested. Being aware of those tricks This is the first time I’ve read Schopenhauer. Overall I enjoyed the book. The book is mostly about winning debates even if that means ignoring logic and reason. The book lists 38 tricks identified by the author that people use to defend their position or undermine other’s in order to win debates. The point of the book is not for you to use these tricks, but to identify when they are being used against you or are being used in any other debate you might be interested. Being aware of those tricks allows you to deal with them in a way they don’t impact you on a debate. When people are committed to work together to discover the best possible outcome for a problem, non-confrontational discussions using logical arguments are the best approach. Unfortunately, that’s rarely the case. People are far more interested in being right than reaching a conclusion where logic and reason prevails. This book (written in 1831) describes many of the [bad] behaviours we see everyday in our increasingly polarised world. Certainly worth reading it.

  8. 5 out of 5

    Erica

    Thanks to the great explanatory notes in the edition I read, I was able to understand that this was a work of irony, sarcasm, and possibly vengeance. Even though I know almost nothing about Schopenhauer, I tried to imagine each point of advice he gave (in 1831?)as an example of a specific argument with an opponent. He apparently often "lost" arguments in the view of others (in articles reporting them, perhaps) when in his view, the accuracy and truth of his argument had not been assailed at all. Thanks to the great explanatory notes in the edition I read, I was able to understand that this was a work of irony, sarcasm, and possibly vengeance. Even though I know almost nothing about Schopenhauer, I tried to imagine each point of advice he gave (in 1831?)as an example of a specific argument with an opponent. He apparently often "lost" arguments in the view of others (in articles reporting them, perhaps) when in his view, the accuracy and truth of his argument had not been assailed at all. It made me a little sad, to imagine a person spending his entire life trying to talk to people who kept using these dirty tricks against him. I think it would be more interesting to people studying heuristics or debate.

  9. 4 out of 5

    Tehreem

    I haven't read any book particulary on this branch of philosophy i.e. Ethics. This was first for Ethics as well as for Schopenhauer. Quite a dangerous book it is. Jeopardizing thoughts, this books continously explicates logic, dialectic and eristic dialectic in specific. Dark sarcasm, and influential tone with numerous examples makes it even powerful. For art of debate this book contains 38 stratagems to win the argument. Schopenhauer says ' It would be a very good thing if every trick could rec I haven't read any book particulary on this branch of philosophy i.e. Ethics. This was first for Ethics as well as for Schopenhauer. Quite a dangerous book it is. Jeopardizing thoughts, this books continously explicates logic, dialectic and eristic dialectic in specific. Dark sarcasm, and influential tone with numerous examples makes it even powerful. For art of debate this book contains 38 stratagems to win the argument. Schopenhauer says ' It would be a very good thing if every trick could receive some short and obviously appropriate name, so that when a man used this or that particular trick, he could be at once reproached for it'. Very obviously there is a gargantuan range of winning ways to a losing debate.

  10. 5 out of 5

    M Pereira

    Rhetoric after Frege is pointless. However, for anyone without a mathematics and formal logic background, this is a pretty good and accessible guide to understanding the principles of argumentation and getting your point across. Who is the right audience for a work like this? Anyone who is trying to be a good lawyer or arguing a point in a board meeting or committee I suspect. I love Schopenhauer's lucid writing, which could be a little bit more concise, but its eloquence makes it readable all t Rhetoric after Frege is pointless. However, for anyone without a mathematics and formal logic background, this is a pretty good and accessible guide to understanding the principles of argumentation and getting your point across. Who is the right audience for a work like this? Anyone who is trying to be a good lawyer or arguing a point in a board meeting or committee I suspect. I love Schopenhauer's lucid writing, which could be a little bit more concise, but its eloquence makes it readable all the same.

  11. 4 out of 5

    Adam

    It's kind of amazing to think that Schopenhauer wrote a book about winning arguments on the Internet in 1831. A must read for any aspiring troll. It's kind of amazing to think that Schopenhauer wrote a book about winning arguments on the Internet in 1831. A must read for any aspiring troll.

  12. 5 out of 5

    Noura Eljerbi

    States the obvious, with persuasive techniques. The examples are also vague. Download at your own risk of a serious disappointment.

  13. 5 out of 5

    Nick

    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. 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 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. Some chapter headings include: "Generalize your Opponent's Specific Statements" "Interrupt, Break, Divert the Dispute" "Make Him Exaggerate his Statement" "Put His Thesis Into Some Odious Category" you get the idea. 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.

  14. 4 out of 5

    Yuri Cunha

    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.

  15. 4 out of 5

    John Igo

    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. 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 "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.

  16. 5 out of 5

    Rafael Bandeira

    I got this book as a recommendation from my boss, and I must say, it was a good recommendation. There are 38 tactics, mixing how to do it and how to protect from it, to be used in an argumentation and that will certainly help to put you on the right spot to win over any discussion. Some philosophy knowledge is required, at least to understand the basic idea of dialectics and the difference between terms like "subjective", "relative", "imperative", "objective", etc. This might seem straight forward I got this book as a recommendation from my boss, and I must say, it was a good recommendation. There are 38 tactics, mixing how to do it and how to protect from it, to be used in an argumentation and that will certainly help to put you on the right spot to win over any discussion. Some philosophy knowledge is required, at least to understand the basic idea of dialectics and the difference between terms like "subjective", "relative", "imperative", "objective", etc. This might seem straight forward, but I had to do some research before really understanding the book. Also, make sure you got a paper and pencil next to you. This is not simply reading, this book is for studying.

  17. 4 out of 5

    Diāna

    Interesting read on argumentation if you want to escape logic textbooks for philosophers and mathematicians. Based on dialectic method, Schopenhauer is suggesting building blocks for reasoned arguments escaping subjective experiences and using reasoning based on counter-arguments. This is practical book on attacking and maintaining an argument for the sake of an argument or an intellectual contest. When it comes to saying that proposition is valid, we actually mean that it is true and we shouldn’ Interesting read on argumentation if you want to escape logic textbooks for philosophers and mathematicians. Based on dialectic method, Schopenhauer is suggesting building blocks for reasoned arguments escaping subjective experiences and using reasoning based on counter-arguments. This is practical book on attacking and maintaining an argument for the sake of an argument or an intellectual contest. When it comes to saying that proposition is valid, we actually mean that it is true and we shouldn’t say that an argument is true when we mean that it’s valid. Truth usually lies somewhere in between the falsity and absolute so why not have lil fun with controversy.

  18. 4 out of 5

    Turkel Afandiyev

    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. 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.

  19. 5 out of 5

    Fr. Kyle

    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.

  20. 5 out of 5

    Iris

    Wish I had read it much earlier in life...

  21. 5 out of 5

    Teresa

    I mean, this is basically the single greatest self-help book ever written, so there's that. I mean, this is basically the single greatest self-help book ever written, so there's that.

  22. 5 out of 5

    Malola

    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. 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.

  23. 5 out of 5

    Hanieh Habibi

    Art of becoming an irritating asshole!

  24. 4 out of 5

    Daniel S

    "If you find that you are being worsted, you can make a diversion - that is, you can suddenly begin to talk of something else, as though it had a bearing on the matter in dispute, and afforded an argument against your opponent." "If you know that you have no reply to the arguments which your opponent advances, you may, by a fine stroke of irony, declare yourself to be an incompetent judge: "What you now say passes my poor powers of comprehension; it may be all very true, but I can't understand it "If you find that you are being worsted, you can make a diversion - that is, you can suddenly begin to talk of something else, as though it had a bearing on the matter in dispute, and afforded an argument against your opponent." "If you know that you have no reply to the arguments which your opponent advances, you may, by a fine stroke of irony, declare yourself to be an incompetent judge: "What you now say passes my poor powers of comprehension; it may be all very true, but I can't understand it, and I refrain from any expression of opinion on it". In this way you insinuate to the bystanders, with whom you are in good repute, that what your opponent says is nonsense." "A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and that you are going to come off worst. It consists in passing from the subject of dispute, as from a lost game, to the disputant himself, and in some way attacking his person." "For example, should he defend suicide, you may at once exclaim, "Why don't you hang yourself?" In other words, everything is beautiful in which an idea is revealed; for to be In other words, beautiful means no more than clearly to express an idea Thus we perceive that beauty is always an affair of knowledge, and that it appeals to the knowing subject, and not to the will; nay, it is a fact that the apprehension of beauty on the part of the subject involves a complete suppression of the will." "Our whole life is no more than a magnified present, and in itself as fleeting." "When we are on a journey, and all kinds of remarkable objects press themselves on our attention, the intellectual food which we receive is often so large in amount that we have no time for digestion; and we regret that the impressions which succeed one another so quickly leave no permanent trace. But at bottom it is the same with travelling as with reading. How often do we complain that we cannot remember one thousandth part of what we read! In both cases, however, we may console ourselves with the reflection that the things we see and read make an impression on the mind before they are forgotten, and so contribute to its formation and nurture." "All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players. Exactly! Independently of what a man really is in himself, he has a part to play, which fate has imposed upon him from without, by determining his rank, education, and circumstances. The most immediate application of this truth appears to me to be that in life, as on the stage, we must distinguish between the actor and his part."

  25. 5 out of 5

    Giannis Kafouros

    An absolute masterpiece of the dialectic and the management of controversies through the lens of rationalism. Arthur Schopenhauer, inspired by ancient Greek sophists, distinguishes the phenomenal reality from reality itself in order to explain simple tricks on how to convince your interlocutor about your point, having obviously a dose of irony in his rhetoric.

  26. 4 out of 5

    Jens

    Schopenhauer starts out by clearly distinguishing logic and dialectic, which has generally and historically not been done (clearly) before (he presents exerts of the work by Aristotle and Plato as examples) and then continues to present 38 "Kunstgriffe", i.e. tricks that can be used to outwit your opponent in a disputation on dialectic alone. The language used took me a while to get used to but then turned out to be rather precise and on the mark. All tricks discussed (and partially illustrated w Schopenhauer starts out by clearly distinguishing logic and dialectic, which has generally and historically not been done (clearly) before (he presents exerts of the work by Aristotle and Plato as examples) and then continues to present 38 "Kunstgriffe", i.e. tricks that can be used to outwit your opponent in a disputation on dialectic alone. The language used took me a while to get used to but then turned out to be rather precise and on the mark. All tricks discussed (and partially illustrated with examples) were rather intuitive and felt strangely familiar. I would not expect to become a master in public disputations just by reading through this book, but if you take it somewhat seriously you will be able to spot many of the tricks in popular events and disputations portrait especially in the media today. He closes his work with an old Arabic quote "the tree of silence bears the fruit of peace" and reminds the reader that there are only very few people who are actually worthy of a disputation. There are some tricks, which were discussed before in the book, that are only very difficult to 'attack' and after all, the dialectic as defined by Schopenhauer is not at all concerned with the logical and objective truth of the matter discussed but with making your 'opponent' look bad.

  27. 5 out of 5

    Awais Iqbal

    Schopenhauer was widely influenced by the ideas of Immanuel Kant, Plato and Goethe. Plato argued in The Republic, “you have to be familiar with the ways of the thieves and thugs if you desire to protect your people from the criminals”. Similarly, Kant argues that “the rightness or wrongness of an action cannot be judged by its consequences, rather by the criterion whether it serves the cause or not”. Schopenhauer accepts that debates should solely be in the pursuit of truth, knowledge and gainin Schopenhauer was widely influenced by the ideas of Immanuel Kant, Plato and Goethe. Plato argued in The Republic, “you have to be familiar with the ways of the thieves and thugs if you desire to protect your people from the criminals”. Similarly, Kant argues that “the rightness or wrongness of an action cannot be judged by its consequences, rather by the criterion whether it serves the cause or not”. Schopenhauer accepts that debates should solely be in the pursuit of truth, knowledge and gaining a new perspective. But in similar fashion to Kant and Plato he states that debating for the pursuit of truth is not applicable in most situations because of the dishonest and innately vain nature of the human being. Therefore he then comes up with the tricks to refute the claims of the opponent. There is a sense of humor that amuses the reader every now and then but overall this part lacks continuity, genuineness and style. The examples are vague and most of the tricks are well known to whoever listens to the politicians speak or watch the news anchors implant their version of the truth in the minds of the masses...

  28. 5 out of 5

    Andy

    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. 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 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.

  29. 5 out of 5

    Jacek Bartczak

    The great set of approaches about how we can win a discussion. Not each of them is ethical, but it is worth to know how we may be (even unconsciously) cheated. That book also shows how many aspects a discussion has and how loosely it may be connected with a logic and truth. I'm glad that book was written around 200 years ago - now probably it won't be published unless it has 300 pages instead of 65. Publishers would enrich essentials from the book with the scientific research or won't allow writ The great set of approaches about how we can win a discussion. Not each of them is ethical, but it is worth to know how we may be (even unconsciously) cheated. That book also shows how many aspects a discussion has and how loosely it may be connected with a logic and truth. I'm glad that book was written around 200 years ago - now probably it won't be published unless it has 300 pages instead of 65. Publishers would enrich essentials from the book with the scientific research or won't allow writing about some tip only once.

  30. 5 out of 5

    Stephen Ng

    Nowadays many of these argument tactics are being used in many places and many ways around us. People now will have to take more time with clear and unbiased mind to see through the fact before jump into a conclusion or will be fooled by those "sophists". So it would be better for us to know about those tricks and how to respond wisely and promptly, like martial art (Of course for self-defence purpose). Days is getting tough....... Nowadays many of these argument tactics are being used in many places and many ways around us. People now will have to take more time with clear and unbiased mind to see through the fact before jump into a conclusion or will be fooled by those "sophists". So it would be better for us to know about those tricks and how to respond wisely and promptly, like martial art (Of course for self-defence purpose). Days is getting tough.......

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.