So, a while ago, while reading a particular philosopher, I came across a list of his that supposedly tells a person how to win an argument. I don't know if it is just me, but I think that this list isn't a list that helps someone win an argument through logic and reasoning, but through less honorable methods. Many of these arguments commit the informal fallacies that we discussed in the pamphlet, and these ways to win will make it so that you do not win by virtue of the argument, but through subtlety, deceit, and psychological warfare.
Unfortunately, I think that many people who engage in arguments and debates have the capacity to distinguish the difference between these two different kinds of victories. One is fulfilling and purposeful, the other, shallow and meaningless. When one is focused solely on winning, and not on exchanging knowledge and beliefs, the argument will become faulty.
You are quite right that Schoepenhauer's intention here was to catalogue rhetorical, rather than simply rational techniques. And as you say the aim of these methods is not truth as such, but victory.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this post. People are too quick to try and "win" a fight without realizing what they are actually fighting for.
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to simply "win" an argument. For two or more arguing parties to find the truth, however, there really is only one way: rational, respectful, insightful discourse.
ReplyDeleteThis would be a really good list for someone who hates Logic and Critical Reasoning, however.