The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer; the Art of Controversy eBook Arthur Schopenhauer T Bailey Thomas Bailey Saunders
Download As PDF : The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer; the Art of Controversy eBook Arthur Schopenhauer T Bailey Thomas Bailey Saunders 
This book was converted from its physical edition to the digital format by a community of volunteers. You may find it for free on the web. Purchase of the edition includes wireless delivery.
The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer; the Art of Controversy eBook Arthur Schopenhauer T Bailey Thomas Bailey Saunders
"Logic, therefore, as the science thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori."-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy ("a priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises)
Schopenhauer's essay on the subjects of classical logic and rhetoric, 'The Art of Controversy' was published posthumously. It is one of those works that should not exist, but does; rather like '1984' by George Orwell, or 'The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion'. With this essay Schopenhauer invites his audience to pull away the blinders and see the world as it truly is.
Here are a few quotes from 'The Art of Controversy' that I hope you will find useful.
"This is the argumentum ad verecundiam. It consists in making an appeal to authority rather than reason, and in using such an authority as may suit the degree of knowledge possessed by your opponent.
Every man prefers belief to the exercise of judgment, says Seneca; and it is therefore an easy matter if you have an authority on your side which your opponent respects. The more limited his capacity and knowledge, the greater is the number of authorities who weigh with him. But if his capacity and knowledge are of a high order, there are very few; indeed, hardly any at all. He may, perhaps, admit the authority of professional men versed in science or an art or a handicraft of which he knows little or nothing; but even so he will regard it with suspicion. Contrarily, ordinary folk have a deep respect for professional men of every kind. They are unaware that a man who makes a profession of a thing loves it not for the thing itself, but for the money he makes by it; or that it is rare for a man who teaches to know his subject thoroughly; for if he studies it as he ought, he has in most cases no time left in which to teach it...
There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted. Example effects their thought just as it affects their action. They are like sheep following the bell-wether just as he leads them. They will sooner die than think. It is very curious that the universality of an opinion should have so much weight with people, as their own experience might tell them that it's acceptance is an entirely thoughtless and merely imitative process. But it tells them nothing of the kind, because they possess no self-knowledge whatever...
When we come to look into the matter, so-called universal opinion is the opinion of two or three persons; and we should be persuaded of this if we could see the way in which it really arises.
We should find that it is two or three persons who, in the first instance, accepted it, or advanced and maintained it; and of whom people were so good as to believe that they had thoroughly tested it. Then a few other persons, persuaded beforehand that the first were men of the requisite capacity, also accepted the opinion. These, again, were trusted by many others, whose laziness suggested to them that it was better to
believe at once, than to go through the troublesome task of testing the matter for themselves. Thus the number of these lazy and credulous adherents grew from day to day; for the opinion had no sooner obtained a fair measure of support than its further supporters attributed this to the fact that the opinion could only have obtained it by the cogency of its arguments. The remainder were then compelled to grant what was universally granted, so as not to pass for unruly persons who resisted opinions which everyone accepted, or pert fellows who thought themselves cleverer than any one else.
When opinion reaches this stage, adhesion becomes a duty; and henceforward the few who are capable of forming a judgment hold their peace. Those who venture to speak are such as are entirely incapable of forming any opinion or any judgment of their own, being merely the echo of others' opinions; and, nevertheless, they defend them with all the greater zeal and intolerance. For what they hate in people who think differently is not so much the different opinions which they profess, as the presumption of wanting to form their own judgment; a presumption of which they themselves are never guilty, as they are very well aware. In short, there are very few who can think, but every man wants to have an opinion; and what remains but to take it ready-made from others, instead of forming opinions for himself?
Since this is what happens, where is the value of the opinion even of a hundred millions? It is no more established than an historical fact reported by a hundred chroniclers who can be proved to have plagiarised it from one another; the opinion in the end being traceable to a single individual."-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy
"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 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 devides 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 premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy
"To some extent every man is armed against such a procedure by his own cunning and villainy. He learns by daily experience, and thus comes to have his own natural Dialectic, just as he has his own natural Logic. But his Dialectic is by no means as safe a guide as his Logic. It is not so easy for any one to think or draw an inference contrary to the laws of Logic; false judgments are frequent, false conclusions are rare. A man cannot easily be deficient in natural Logic, but he may easily be deficient in natural Dialectic, which is a gift apportioned in unequal measure. In so far natural Dialectic resembles the faculty of judgment, which differs in degree with every man; while reason, strictly speaking, is the same."-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy
"It is clear, then, that Logic deals with a subject of a purely a 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 left to itself and not hindered." -The Arthur Shopenhauer, The Art of Controversy
"For a true conclusion may follow from false premises, but not vice versa."-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy
"It would be a very good thing if every trick could receive some short and obvious appropriate name, so that when a man used this or that particular trick, he could be at once approached for it."-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy
Schopenhauer understood that the masses are deliberately lied to and manipulated by the wise and powerful.
Herded like sheep from one illegal war to the next, we go to our graves, actually believing that we are free.
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
9/11 Missing Links
Dr Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the U.S.Army War College
On youtube
Product details
|
Tags : Amazon.com: The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer; the Art of Controversy eBook: Arthur Schopenhauer, T. Bailey (Thomas Bailey) Saunders: Kindle Store,ebook,Arthur Schopenhauer, T. Bailey (Thomas Bailey) Saunders,The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer; the Art of Controversy,LITERARY CRITICISM European General,General
People also read other books :
- Loyalty The Chronicles of Trust Penn Williams 9781482758368 Books
- The Cloud of Unknowing Paraclete Essentials edition by Anonymous Bernard Bangley Robert Benson Religion Spirituality eBooks
- Die Leiden des jungen Werthers Diderot German Edition Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Wilma Baltus 9781481103701 Books
- Soul Compost Transforming Adversity into Spiritual Growth Woman Awake Series Book 1 edition by Licia Berry Religion Spirituality eBooks
- Roots of Indifference Terri Ragsdale 9781439203545 Books
The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer; the Art of Controversy eBook Arthur Schopenhauer T Bailey Thomas Bailey Saunders Reviews
This is a fine translation by T. Bailey Saunders, completed back about 1900, but still using language ringing clear in 2013. The book contains essays on art, psychology, genius, virtue and the wisdom of life, but for the purposes of this review, I will focus on Schopenhauer's essay on how we should go about winning a debate or argument.
Schopenhauer finished his major work, The World as Will and Idea, as a young man and then spent the majority of his adult philosophic life writing a second volume supplementing this work as well as writing many essays and aphorisms. Although I read his major 2 volume work and many essays back in college, I recently became aware of Schopenhauer's essay on how to engage in what Schopenhauer called dialectics or what we today would call debate or argument when watching a video course entitled `The Philosopher's Toolkit' on how to use philosophy to reason and live in the 21st century. The lecturer, Patrick Grim, noted how we could take Schopenhauer as being ironic in his presentation on this subject since the points he makes amount to what could be considered cheap shots or dirty tricks.
Perhaps Schopenhauer is being ironic. However, he does say that dialectic is separate from logic and we must recognize how people are too vain to admit they are wrong and are too intellectually weak and too perverse of will to be concerned with seeking the truth. Rather, people simply want to stand behind their words and opinions, no matter how wrongheaded or ridiculous, as if they are the facts of life and nothing but the truth. With this in mind, Schopenhauer states we are wise to debate with people as if engaged in the art of intellectual fencing, doing anything we can to score a victory.
Schopenhauer gives us 38 dialectic strategies. To better aid my memory, I compressed each strategy into a quick one-liner. Here are 21 of my one-liners
Exaggerate the strength of your position and the weakness of your opponent's position - play word games -- apply one level of meaning to another level of meaning - get your opponent shaking their head `yes' to what you say - attack your opponent's associations - attack your opponent's general point rather than his specific point - ask lots of questions to confuse the issue - twist your opponent's answers so as to arrive at different or even opposite conclusions - get your opponent to admit a specific weakness in their view - use colorful language to discount or belittle your opponent - present two false alternatives (for example `you are either with me or against me') - ignore any objections; rather simply state your conclusions as true - if you are having trouble with your position, simply put forth a smaller case - insist your opponent immediately act upon his words - fall back on subtle distinctions - interrupt and change the subject - if you can't make a good objection, then simply make a general statement - state your conclusions even without evidence - when all else fails, be rude and insult your opponent.
Schopenhauer is one of the world's greatest philosophers and his essays are true gems. Do yourself a favor a pick up a copy of this wonderful little book. And please don't try to argue against me on this point. I wouldn't want to resort to being insulting or rude.
"Logic, therefore, as the science thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy ("a priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises)
Schopenhauer's essay on the subjects of classical logic and rhetoric, 'The Art of Controversy' was published posthumously. It is one of those works that should not exist, but does; rather like '1984' by George Orwell, or 'The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion'. With this essay Schopenhauer invites his audience to pull away the blinders and see the world as it truly is.
Here are a few quotes from 'The Art of Controversy' that I hope you will find useful.
"This is the argumentum ad verecundiam. It consists in making an appeal to authority rather than reason, and in using such an authority as may suit the degree of knowledge possessed by your opponent.
Every man prefers belief to the exercise of judgment, says Seneca; and it is therefore an easy matter if you have an authority on your side which your opponent respects. The more limited his capacity and knowledge, the greater is the number of authorities who weigh with him. But if his capacity and knowledge are of a high order, there are very few; indeed, hardly any at all. He may, perhaps, admit the authority of professional men versed in science or an art or a handicraft of which he knows little or nothing; but even so he will regard it with suspicion. Contrarily, ordinary folk have a deep respect for professional men of every kind. They are unaware that a man who makes a profession of a thing loves it not for the thing itself, but for the money he makes by it; or that it is rare for a man who teaches to know his subject thoroughly; for if he studies it as he ought, he has in most cases no time left in which to teach it...
There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted. Example effects their thought just as it affects their action. They are like sheep following the bell-wether just as he leads them. They will sooner die than think. It is very curious that the universality of an opinion should have so much weight with people, as their own experience might tell them that it's acceptance is an entirely thoughtless and merely imitative process. But it tells them nothing of the kind, because they possess no self-knowledge whatever...
When we come to look into the matter, so-called universal opinion is the opinion of two or three persons; and we should be persuaded of this if we could see the way in which it really arises.
We should find that it is two or three persons who, in the first instance, accepted it, or advanced and maintained it; and of whom people were so good as to believe that they had thoroughly tested it. Then a few other persons, persuaded beforehand that the first were men of the requisite capacity, also accepted the opinion. These, again, were trusted by many others, whose laziness suggested to them that it was better to
believe at once, than to go through the troublesome task of testing the matter for themselves. Thus the number of these lazy and credulous adherents grew from day to day; for the opinion had no sooner obtained a fair measure of support than its further supporters attributed this to the fact that the opinion could only have obtained it by the cogency of its arguments. The remainder were then compelled to grant what was universally granted, so as not to pass for unruly persons who resisted opinions which everyone accepted, or pert fellows who thought themselves cleverer than any one else.
When opinion reaches this stage, adhesion becomes a duty; and henceforward the few who are capable of forming a judgment hold their peace. Those who venture to speak are such as are entirely incapable of forming any opinion or any judgment of their own, being merely the echo of others' opinions; and, nevertheless, they defend them with all the greater zeal and intolerance. For what they hate in people who think differently is not so much the different opinions which they profess, as the presumption of wanting to form their own judgment; a presumption of which they themselves are never guilty, as they are very well aware. In short, there are very few who can think, but every man wants to have an opinion; and what remains but to take it ready-made from others, instead of forming opinions for himself?
Since this is what happens, where is the value of the opinion even of a hundred millions? It is no more established than an historical fact reported by a hundred chroniclers who can be proved to have plagiarised it from one another; the opinion in the end being traceable to a single individual."-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy
"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 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 devides 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 premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy
"To some extent every man is armed against such a procedure by his own cunning and villainy. He learns by daily experience, and thus comes to have his own natural Dialectic, just as he has his own natural Logic. But his Dialectic is by no means as safe a guide as his Logic. It is not so easy for any one to think or draw an inference contrary to the laws of Logic; false judgments are frequent, false conclusions are rare. A man cannot easily be deficient in natural Logic, but he may easily be deficient in natural Dialectic, which is a gift apportioned in unequal measure. In so far natural Dialectic resembles the faculty of judgment, which differs in degree with every man; while reason, strictly speaking, is the same."-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy
"It is clear, then, that Logic deals with a subject of a purely a priori character, separable in definition from experience, namely, the laws of thought, the process of reason or the [GreekLogos], the laws, that is, which reason follows when left to itself and not hindered." -The Arthur Shopenhauer, The Art of Controversy
"For a true conclusion may follow from false premises, but not vice versa."-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy
"It would be a very good thing if every trick could receive some short and obvious appropriate name, so that when a man used this or that particular trick, he could be at once approached for it."-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy
Schopenhauer understood that the masses are deliberately lied to and manipulated by the wise and powerful.
Herded like sheep from one illegal war to the next, we go to our graves, actually believing that we are free.
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
9/11 Missing Links
Dr Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the U.S.Army War College
On youtube
0 Response to "⋙ Libro Free The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer; the Art of Controversy eBook Arthur Schopenhauer T Bailey Thomas Bailey Saunders"
Post a Comment