Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    The Art of Controversy
    The Art of Controversy
    The Art of Controversy
    Ebook73 pages43 minutes

    The Art of Controversy

    By Arthur Schopenhauer

    ()

    Switch to audiobook
    Read preview

    About this ebook

    * This ebook has been aesthetically optimized for digital reading *

    Published posthumously, The Art of Controversy is one of the most popular books written by Arthur Schopenhauer. It provides us with invaluable advice on how we should go about winning a debate or argument.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherAlicia Editions
    Release dateMar 21, 2019
    ISBN9782357282223
    Author

    Arthur Schopenhauer

    Nació en Danzig en 1788. Hijo de un próspero comerciante, la muerte prematura de su padre le liberó de dedicarse a la actividad comercial y le procuró un patrimonio que le permitió vivir de las rentas, pudiéndose consagrar de lleno a la filosofía. Fue un hombre solitario y metódico, de carácter irascible y de una acentuada misoginia. Enemigo personal y filosófico de Hegel, despreció siempre el idealismo alemán y se consideró a sí mismo como el verdadero continuador de Kant, en cuya filosofía encontró la clave para su metafísica de la voluntad. Su pensamiento no conoció la fama hasta pocos años después de su muerte, acaecida en Fráncfort en 1860. En esta misma Editorial han sido publicadas sus obras Metafísica de las costumbres (2001), El mundo como voluntad y representación I (4.ª ed., 2022) y II (5.ª ed., 2022), Parerga y paralipómena I (5.ª ed.,2023) y II (4.ª ed., 2023), Dialéctica erística, o El arte de tener razón en 38 artimañanas (2023), Diarios de viaje. Los Diarios de viaje de los años 1800 y 1803-1804 (2012) y Sobre la visión y los colores (2.ª ed., 2024).

    Read more from Arthur Schopenhauer

    Related to The Art of Controversy

    Related ebooks

    Philosophy For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      The Charmed Life of Frank Wilczek

      Mar 17, 2021

      Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek’s new book, Fundamentals: Ten Keys to Reality, is both a way of thinking about the abundance that characterizes our exterior and interior worlds, and a kind of alternative to traditional religion, a way of being “born aga

      13 min read

    • Article

      A Perception Of Something

      Nov 7, 2020

      A Perception Of Something
      9 min read

    • Article

      From BR Ambedkar’s preface to The Untouchables: Who Were They and Why They Became Untouchables?

      Nov 9, 2019

      … what annoys one is the intolerance of the Brahmin scholar towards any attempt to expose the Brahmanic literature. He himself would not play the part of an iconoclast even where it is necessary. And he would not allow such non-Brahmins as have the c

      4 min read

    • Article

      The Self In Time

      Apr 22, 2019

      The Self In Time
      6 min read

    • Article

      Why Science Should Stay Clear of Metaphysics: Meet the philosopher who revived anti-realism.

      Sep 8, 2016

      Philosophers of science are not known for agreeing with each other—contrariness is part of the job description. But for thousands of years, from Aristotle to Thomas Kuhn, those who study what science is have roughly categorized themselves into two ba

      11 min read

    • Article

      This Essentially Meaningless Conflict

      Sep 22, 2017

      MARILYNNE ROBINSON’S accomplishments are impressive by any standard: she has won the National Book Critics Circle Award for Fiction, the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, and the National Humanities Medal, among other honors. But perhaps a better measure o

      8 min read

    • Article

      Uncertainty

      Jun 6, 2022

      Until philosophers are Kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to

      2 min read

    • Article

      Our Library

      Jun 6, 2022

      The concept of superstition has been with us for millennia, and yet today it has no agreed-upon meaning. We tend to know it when we see it – as in the examples above. If it carries a single enduring connotation, it is one of disapproval. From almost

      2 min read

    • Article

      We Have to Talk About Doubt: How to tell the difference between scientific and conspiratorial skepticism.

      Sep 1, 2021

      What is the role of reasonable doubt in advancing science? And how should we contrast scientific doubt with the cavilling doubt of conspiracy theories which play little part in advancing understanding? Over the last year we have seen the scientific m

      5 min read

    • Article

      Critical Thinker

      Apr 16, 2023

      ANAXIMANDER AND THE NATURE OF SCIENCE, by Carlo Rovelli (Allen Lane, $40) Most scientists know what science is until someone asks them to define it, and then they don’t. It’s something to do with precision and accuracy, so you’d think there was a pre

      3 min read

    • Article

      In Defense of Third Person

      Oct 18, 2017

      I believe third-person narration is the greatest artistic tool humans have devised to tell the story of what it means to be human. The post In Defense of Third Person appeared first on The Millions.

      9 min read

    • Article

      Freud the Essayist

      Jun 1, 2023

      Freud the Essayist
      15 min read

    • Article

      SETI Dreams

      Aug 13, 2020

      Wade Roush MIT Press 2020 Pb, 221pp, £12.99, ISBN 9780262538435 If for some reason or another you feel the need to consume a history of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) – the effort to contact aliens over vast cosmic distances via

      8 min read

    • Article

      Thomas Kuhn Threw an Ashtray at Me

      Aug 23, 2018

      Errol Morris feels that Thomas Kuhn saved him from a career he was not suited for—by having him thrown out of Princeton. In 1972, Kuhn was a professor of philosophy and the history of science at Princeton, and author of The Structure of Scientific Re

      11 min read

    • Article

      Is Knowledge Power?

      Jul 30, 2018

      Is Knowledge Power?
      4 min read

    • Article

      An Interview With Bianca Stone

      May 1, 2023

      An Interview With Bianca Stone
      11 min read

    • Article

      Angst And The Empty Set

      Sep 19, 2019

      Suppose you open your handbag one day expecting to find your wallet there, but don’t. Do you literally see the absence of your wallet in your handbag? If you do, it means something important: Absences have a positive presence in your perception that

      4 min read

    • Article

      Creating Wider, Deeper, Better Realities: The Millions Interviews Patrick Madden

      May 20, 2020

      I came to the conclusion that what I loved more than anything, and what I wanted to do for the rest of my life, was to think. Period. The post Creating Wider, Deeper, Better Realities: The Millions Interviews Patrick Madden appeared first on The Mill

      10 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for The Art of Controversy

    0 ratings

    0 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      The Art of Controversy - Arthur Schopenhauer

      1896

      PRELIMINARY : LOGIC AND DIALECTIC

      By the ancients, Logic and Dialectic were used as synonymous terms; although [Greek: logizesthai], to think over, to consider, to calculate, and [Greek: dialegesthai], to converse, are two very different things.

      The name Dialectic was, as we are informed by Diogenes Laertius, first used by Plato; and in the Phaedrus, Sophist, Republic, bk. vii., and elsewhere, we find that by Dialectic he means the regular employment of the reason, and skill in the practice of it. Aristotle also uses the word in this sense; but, according to Laurentius Valla, he was the first to use Logic too in a similar way. Dialectic, therefore, seems to be an older word than Logic. Cicero and Quintilian use the words in the same general signification.

      This use of the words and synonymous terms lasted through the Middle Ages into modern times; in fact, until the present day. But more recently, and in particular by Kant, Dialectic has often been employed in a bad sense, as meaning the art of sophistical controversy; and hence Logic has been preferred, as of the two the more innocent designation. Nevertheless, both originally meant the same thing; and in the last few years they have again been recognised as synonymous.

      It is a pity that the words have thus been used from of old, and that I am not quite at liberty to distinguish their meanings. Otherwise, I should have preferred to define Logic (from [Greek: logos], word and reason, which are inseparable) as the science of the laws of thought, that is, of the method of reason; and Dialectic (from [Greek: dialegesthai], to converse— and every conversation communicates either facts or opinions, that is to say, it is historical or deliberative) as the art of disputation, in the modern sense of the word. It it clear, then, that Logic deals with a subject of a purely à 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 it is left to itself and not hindered, as in the case of solitary thought on the part of a rational being who is in no way misled. Dialectic, 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. Regarded as purely rational beings, the individuals would, I say, necessarily be in agreement, and their variation springs from the difference essential to individuality; in other words, it is drawn from experience.

      Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed à priori. Dialectic, for the most part, can be constructed only à posteriori; that is to say, we may learn its rules by an experiential knowledge of the disturbance which pure thought suffers through the difference of individuality manifested in the intercourse between two rational beings, and also by acquaintance with the means which disputants adopt in order to make good against one another their own individual thought, and to show that it is pure and objective. For human nature is such that if A. and B. are engaged in thinking in common, and are communicating their opinions to one another on any subject, so long as it is not a mere fact of history, and A. perceives that B.‘s thoughts on one and the same subject are not the same as his own,

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1