[HN Gopher] Schopenhauer's 38 Stratagems, or 38 Ways to Win an A...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Schopenhauer's 38 Stratagems, or 38 Ways to Win an Argument
        
       Author : yamrzou
       Score  : 33 points
       Date   : 2021-07-13 14:23 UTC (8 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.mnei.nl)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.mnei.nl)
        
       | solus_christus wrote:
       | Better title: "Use These 38 Logical Fallacies to Blow Up a
       | Debate." You could teach Logic 101 based on this list, by asking
       | students to identify the flaws (straw man, red herring, ad
       | hominem, equivocation).
        
       | miga wrote:
       | Better title would be "38 ways to devolve discussion to
       | irrationality".
       | 
       | Schopenhauer was not a logician. He searched for ways of emerging
       | victorious, not to search for the truth.
        
         | skywal_l wrote:
         | Schopenhauer became disillusioned early in life. He quickly
         | came to think that people, in general, are not rational and
         | appeals to their rationality is a mistake, if you are looking
         | to convince them.
         | 
         | His book is more a passive aggressive denunciation of this.
         | 
         | See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist
        
         | jvanderbot wrote:
         | And you've highlighted the often-overlooked truth: Arguments
         | are very rarely won with rationality.
        
           | cirgue wrote:
           | Depends on your definition of winning. Is your goal to get
           | the other side to capitulate, or is your goal for the
           | onlookers and interested parties to come away with a view of
           | the world that's actually useful? If you're a public
           | intellectual or participant in the internet, you're not
           | arguing in isolation. People are watching, and it absolutely
           | has an impact even if you don't directly observe it. This bit
           | of internet "wisdom" is maybe one of the most destructive and
           | misapplied factoids to emerge in recent years, because while
           | true in its narrowest sense, is utterly useless if ones aim
           | is to contribute to the wider world of discourse.
        
         | yamrzou wrote:
         | Well, reason is seen more as weapon than path to truth:
         | https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to...
         | (https://archive.ph/cvWMc)
        
       | erhk wrote:
       | Arguments arent won. They are to convince the audience
        
       | MikeUt wrote:
       | > 32. A quick way of getting rid of an opponent's assertion, or
       | throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious
       | category.
       | 
       | I'm surprised such a popular tactic is so low down the list.
        
         | spywaregorilla wrote:
         | Popular among nazis maybe.
        
           | splistud wrote:
           | ..he said, chucking previous comment into an odious category
        
             | spywaregorilla wrote:
             | Yes, that's the joke.
        
       | sjg007 wrote:
       | The Fox News playbook.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-07-13 23:02 UTC)