/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17646501]

What do you guys think of Schopenhauer's 38 strategies to win an argument?
>Extension
>Homonymy
>Generalize Your Opponent's Specific Statements
>Conceal Your Game
>False Propositions
>Postulate What Has to Be Proved
>Yield Admissions Through Questions
>Make Your Opponent Angry
>Questions in Detouring Order
>Take Advantage of the Nay-Sayer
>Generalize Admissions of Specific Cases
>Choose Metaphors Favourable to Your Proposition
>Agree to Reject the Counter-Proposition
>Claim Victory Despite Defeat
>Use Seemingly Absurd Propositions
>Arguments Ad Hominem
>Defense Through Subtle Distinction
>Interrupt, Break, Divert the Dispute
>Generalize the Matter, Then Argue Against it
>Draw Conclusions Yourself
>Meet Him With a Counter-Argument as Bad as His
>Petitio principii
>Make Him Exaggerate His Statement
>State a False Syllogism
>Find One Instance to the Contrary
>Turn the Tables
>Anger Indicates a Weak Point
>Persuade the Audience, Not the Opponent
>Diversion
>Appeal to Authority Rather Than Reason
>"This Is Beyond Me"
>Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category
>It Applies in Theory, but Not in Practice
>Don't Let Him Off the Hook
>Will Is More Effective Than Insight
>Bewilder Your opponent by Mere Bombast
>A Faulty Proof Refutes His Whole Position
>Become Personal, Insulting, Rude

[Anonymous No.17646506]

My personal favorites are
>>Claim Victory Despite Defeat
>>Become Personal, Insulting, Rude

[Anonymous No.17646566]

>Homonymy
ok, #2 already doesn't make any sense.

[Anonymous No.17646591]

>>17646566
>The Homonymy. — This trick is to extend a proposition to something which has little or nothing in common with the matter in question but the similarity of the word; then to refute it triumphantly, and so claim credit for having refuted the original statement.
>Example: I condemned the principle involved in the word honour as a foolish one; for, according to it, a man loses his honour by receiving all insult, which he cannot wipe out unless he replies with a still greater insult, or by shedding his adversary's blood or his own. I contended that a man's true honour cannot be outraged by what he suffers, but only and alone by what he does; for there is no saying what may befall any one of us. My opponent immediately attacked the reason I had given, and triumphantly proved to me that when a tradesman was falsely accused of misrepresentation, dishonesty, or neglect in his business, it was an attack upon his honour, which in this case was outraged solely by what he suffered, and that he could only retrieve it by punishing his aggressor and making him retract.

[Anonymous No.17646592]

>>17646506
Nietzsche made good use of these

[Anonymous No.17646717]

>>17646501
His mother was right about him.

[Anonymous No.17646784]

>>17646717
Cope

[Anonymous No.17646819]

>>17646784
Yes, that he won arguments is how Schopenhauer coped with the fact he was an obnoxious ass that had to pay for female company if he ever wanted to have some.

[Anonymous No.17646823]

>>17646819
Seethe

[Anonymous No.17646830]

>>17646823
sneethe

[Anonymous No.17646848]

>>17646830
Dilate

[Anonymous No.17646852]

>>17646717
Is your mother right about you?

[Anonymous No.17646859]

>>17646852
My mother ran away from home cause my daddy kept sucking so much dick.

[Anonymous No.17646870]

>>17646501
>The tricks, dodges, and chicanery, to which they [men] resort in order to be right in the end, are so numerous and manifold and yet recur so regularly that some years ago I made them the subject of my own reflection and directed my attention to their purely formal element after I had perceived that, however varied the subjects of discussion and the persons taking part therein, the same identical tricks and dodges always come back and were very easy to recognize. This led me at the time to the idea of clearly separating the merely formal part of these tricks and dodges from the material and of displaying it, so to speak, as a neat anatomical specimen.

>He "collected all the dishonest tricks so frequently occurring in argument and clearly presented each of them in its characteristic setting, illustrated by examples and given a name of its own." As an additional service, Schopenhauer "added a means to be used against them, as a kind of guard against these thrusts…."

>However, when he later revised his book, he found "that such a detailed and minute consideration of the crooked ways and tricks that are used by common human nature to cover up its shortcomings is no longer suited to my temperament and so I lay it aside."

[Anonymous No.17646871]

>>17646852
Probably, but I don't write and I know how to be nice, so there is no potential damage done to others.

[Anonymous No.17646877]

>>17646859
Damn, I am sorry anon.

[Anonymous No.17646894]

>>17646871
If you read his biography, Schopenhauer also knew how to be nice. He was described as a very good conversationalist. So much so, that even before he got famous people visited the restaurant he dined in, just to listen to him speak. He did however, have a short temper on occasions, especially during the period he was depressed. He was human after all.

[Anonymous No.17646898]

>>17646877
He went to the gay clubs every week and he touched kids. It was no real loss.

[Anonymous No.17646904]

>>17646501
What strategy is it when you claim someone trannie and nigger?

[Anonymous No.17646916]

>>17646904

[Anonymous No.17646920]

>>17646501
I like the 48 laws of power better

[Anonymous No.17646921]

>>17646904
I think it's that last one, it's basically a strategy of people with no good counterargument.

[Anonymous No.17646922]

>"This Is Beyond Me"

[Anonymous No.17646923]

>>17646916
What is the context of this meme?

[Anonymous No.17646941]

>>17646501
There's lots of books on how to spread misinformation. I didn't feel Schopenhauer's was the most complete, the most effective, or even one of the easier ones to learn, some he can't figure out how to combine them to get fewer than 38 strategies.

[Anonymous No.17648343]

Kevin samuels does all of these techniques. I’ve watched him do every single one of these points live on YouTube and his following has exploded.

[Anonymous No.17648547]

I don’t know how anyone could use these, never mind write a book on how to use them, without feeling like a total charlatan. I’m a naturally charitable person so I always try to think of the strongest version of my opponent’s argument, even if they express it in a weak form, and I genuinely try to grapple with it. Maybe this isn’t effective from a rhetorical point of view but I’d rather get to the truth of the matter than convince a few howling sensationalist audience members.

[Anonymous No.17649618]

>>17646819
>had to pay for female company
Factually wrong

[Anonymous No.17649641]

>>17646894
>He was described as a very good conversationalist. So much so, that even before he got famous people visited the restaurant he dined in, just to listen to him speak.
Got a source for that, I am interested to read more about it.

[Anonymous No.17649667]

>>17646501
I think like several of those seem identical
>Postulate what has to be proved
>petitio principii
Or perhaps I misunderstood what he meant by the first one, but in any case it's unclear.

[Anonymous No.17649742]

>>17646501
>Make Him Exaggerate His Statement
This is a very underrated technique
>Persuade the Audience, Not the Opponent
aka why debates are rhetorical contests with zero intellectual value

[Anonymous No.17649813]

>>17646591
O cool danke

[Anonymous No.17650898]

>>17646501
holy based

[Anonymous No.17650931]

>>17649618
>Schopenhauer occasionally had sexual affairs, usually with women of lower social status, such as servants, actresses, and sometimes even paid prostitutes
With servant girls he might have gotten away without paying, but the other two categories definitely wanted either cash or jewels.