Passed on by my friend, The Art of Controversy, by Arthur Schopenhauer.
Controversial Dialectic is the art of disputing, and of disputing in such a way as to hold one's own, whether one is in the right or the wrong - per fas et nefas. A man may be objectively in the right, and nevertheless in the eyes of bystanders, and sometimes in his own, he may come off worst. For example, I may advance a proof of some assertion, and my adversary may refute the proof, and thus appear to have refuted the assertion, for which there may, nevertheless, be other proofs. In this case, of course, my adversary and I change places: he comes off best, although, as a matter of fact, he is in the wrong.One of my favorite strategems:
Stratagem IThen there's always this classic:
The Extension. - This consists in carrying your opponent's proposition beyond its natural limits; in giving it as general a signification and as wide a sense as possible, so as to exaggerate it; and, on the other hand, in giving your own proposition as restricted a sense and as narrow limits as you can, because the more general a statement becomes, the more numerous are the objections to which it is open. The defence consists in an accurate statement of the point or essential question at issue.
Stratagem XIVThere's lots, lots more, and you know it has to be good because it's translated from German.
This, which is an impudent trick, is played as follows: When your opponent has answered several of your questions without the answers turning out favourable to the conclusion at which you are aiming, advance the desired conclusion, - although it does not in the least follow, - as though it had been proved, and proclaim it in a tone of triumph. If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the trick may easily succeed. It is akin to the fallacy non causae ut causae.
I do not agree with Schopenhauer's characterization of human nature: "If human nature were not base, but thoroughly honourable, we should in every debate have no other aim than the discovery of truth; we should not in the least care whether the truth proved to be in favour of the opinion which we had begun by expressing, or of the opinion of our adversary."
For the most part, my natural aim when engaged in conversation or discussion is to seek truth rather than merely prove the validity of my initial opinion. I do not believe that human nature (whatever that is) requires us to be so foolish, though I agree with him that to have any goal other than the discovery of truth is base.
I'm not clear on how you disagree with him, then.
Schopenhauer assumes that it is in the nature of humans to value vindication above truth. I assume no such thing.
Well... it seems pretty obvious from my observations that most people are more concerned with how they look and winning than with discovering the truth.
Perhaps most people *are* more concerned with how they look and winning than with discovering truth, but would that make them more human than those "honorable" individuals who pursue truth first? I would not believe so. It would only make them more "base."
I am sorry to hear that one can have such a thoroughly cynical view of his fellow men, because to assume so little of one's peers only serves to excuse one's own shortcomings while simultaneously satisfying and reinforcing the lowest expectations held by others.
And I will use my equally valid power of anecdotal citation to cancel out yours, by saying: it does *not* seem obvious from my observations that most people are more concerned with how they look and winning than with discovering truth. Perhaps this perceived difference between our respective experiences of humanity is rooted in nothing more than a difference in our perceptions and expectations. Yet mine allows for the possibility of human honor, and yours does not.
More human? Everyone human is equally human.
And yes, I'm cynical, because humans are not honorable. We periodically behave honorably, but by and large we're all evil and depraved, vain and selfish.
Everyone human is equally human. Thank you. Yes, my point was to make it seem ridiculous to think that base humans are in any sense closer to "human nature" than honorable humans. Honor and baseness both have places in the human experience. Schopenhauer's stated perspective denies this.
You *almost* deny that humans can be honorable, but you don't go that far for some reason. You will only say that "by and large" they are evil, etc. So I wonder if these base traits are fundamental qualities, or just products of the way individual humans choose to see themselves in relation to others, at this time. If there are times when humans are not evil etc, or if it is even conceivable that a human might at some time act in a way other than "evil," then I would try to persuade you that the baseness you use to justify your cynicism is not fundamental to what it is to be human, and that your cynicism is therefore not founded on truth, but on sand.
Cynicism is the easiest route, because much of what we perceive is evil, and it is hard to know what to think about evil without relying on cynicism, which tells us that evil is inevitable and natural. But cynicism is just passive acceptance. And I would not choose to live that way.
But again my fingers out-perform my brain. I would not continue such a conversation by text. I think many nuances may be missed. Forgive my long-windedness.
I belive Schopenhauer has a firm grasp on the psycology of man.
By simple observation many of Shopenhauers propositions can be verified.
Others require a more prolonged approach and yet, they too are verifiable.
Any creature whose true form is hidden in the Subconcious will or firestorm of base emotions, must be considered Base.
That is not to say that all humans operate from thier base, this is a non-truth, and also an abnormal behavior.
In order to become less base we must be constantly at battle with our selves, first fighting our base emotions, then our subconcious/
the Subconcious is an extremely creative foe, with intimate knowledge of your base fears your subconcious will engulf you with imagery to bring you back into your comfort zone.
Self talk cycles, positive imagery, and a realization that humans are base helps to ease the pain of this self realization
Sometimes, conversation is not neccessary simply about seeking the truth but is about defending our stands and faiths. Schropanheuer 38 stratagems teach us ways to defend our proposition against challenges of so called opponent "friends", "colleagues" or whosoever. The knowledge does not contain any element of "evil" or "righteous" and it lies with the person who uses it. Even a person with extensive true knowledge and true learning, he/she may lose to an ignorance person but with controvery skills, so take the bullet resistance vest of Schropanhauer to block all the lowly attacks. Never use these strategems on your real friends, person whom you love or any kind person.