The Art Of Controversy Or The Art Of Being Right Paperback – November 16, 2022

As expected!

Great resource and easy to read. I have it 4 stars because translations are not readily available. Still worth a read.

If you're like me and were surprised at the theater that was the presidential debate you were probably thinking. How can someone be charismatic yet still regularly interrupt, digress, make personal attacks, blurt out memes yet still end up being elected president of the US.Truth is rhetoric is not the same as logic, its a unique art form that some are naturally good at. This tiny book (almost a pamphlet) has aged really well and it'll help you understand why seemingly dumb people can be so charismatic. The knowledge will help you protect yourself against but also equip you with the tools you need to convince someone of a thesis.Worth 10x its weight in gold

Very useful information, should be mandatory reading for all candidates for public office or holders to be able to recognize when they are being mislead and how to win debates and arguments. It is important to remember that Schopenhauer used one additional method in the manner of his presentation in the book to convince the reader he was correct, by using language intended to impress the reader with his "superior" intellect, influencing the reader to believe what he was saying was likely to be true. Brilliant philosopher, here you can get the gist of his work in this area without the collage course.

Arthur was a genius who studied and wrote and described this collection about dishonest behavior that we see on a daily basis, in the first half of the 19th century. Brilliant! Want to see how the wild-eyed crazies on TV can tell us not to believe our lying eyes? This reveals dishonest political strategy and tactics in 100 pages... so simple even the smooth brained High School dropouts could get it, if they'd been taught to read! [and yes.... this is the one to buy.] Not sure why my copy translated T. Bailey Saunders is not on here... got it from Amazon but not seeing it here... Cosimo Classics.

As long as it contains all his essays I'm good though!

"Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men."-Plato"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)That's right folks! Schopenhauer, one of the greatest minds in history, believed that the very rich and powerful use their control and influence over politicians, academics and media to exploit the masses through deception. And he never even got to see radio, television and movies. Was Schopenhauer crazy?In this essay, 'The Art of Controversy', published posthumously of course, Schopenhauer offers the reader a clear and honest explanation of basic classical logic and rhetoric like none other that you are likely read. (I suspect that many such works have been thrown down George Orwell's "memory hole" for obvious reasons.) Ironically, in what is humorously descibed as a "free society", the vast majority of the general population in the U.S. have virtually no knowledge of formal logic or rhetoric. Don't believe me? Ask some average U.S. high school graduates how to determine if an argument is sound or cogent; or the difference between a formal and informal logical fallacy. Not one in twenty will be able to answer those most basic of questions about formal logic. And this has been true in the U.S. for many generations. Is this just some sort of honest mistake by state controlled schools and media that the masses haven't been taught the ancient science of evaluating arguments in order to determine if they are correctly reasoned?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"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"For a true conclusion may follow from false premises, but not vice versa."-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of ControversyIf you would like to know why the masses can not be taught to properly reason, here's a good place to start.Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth9/11 Missing LinksDr Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the U.S.Army War CollegeOn YouTube