[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 24 KB, 331x334, schopenhauer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11024151 No.11024151 [Reply] [Original]

>read Schopenhauer's The Art of Being Right
>unironically use eristic dialectics when arguing with people
>invariably win the argument every time
why should i ever again attempt to make carefully structured arguments when i got the cheat codes to arguing?

>> No.11024164

>>11024151
>cheat

>> No.11024184

WTF I love sophistry now?!

>> No.11024261

>>11024151
debate me

>> No.11024272

>>11024261
no

I win

>> No.11024276

>>11024261
of course eristic dialectics will not work with people who poses critical thought, but 99.99% of the time in real life i converse with people who only touch paper to wipe their arses, so it doesn't apply

>> No.11024283

>>11024151
You shouldn't debate people because debates are glorified plays for the audience and require drama and have little to do with the truth. Discussions and talks are where the truth is found not through look-at-me debating.

>> No.11024304

>>11024283
If you disagree with someone maybe both of you can find something you will agree with through an argument/debate

>> No.11024328

>>11024304
Not if one side isn't playing fair, like OP

>> No.11024333

>>11024276
>people who only touch paper to wipe their arses
I like this, can I use it?

>> No.11024370
File: 95 KB, 450x585, 1514108097658.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11024370

D-don't use sophistry goyim, w-why would you want to be effective? Remember to stick to abstract principles and values that render you impotent and effete. It's important to keep honour by not engaging with the actuality of real debate and to always lose whenever issues become concrete.

>> No.11024377

>>11024328
But that's not "not playing fair" its breaking the rules, or not playing the game anymore and any person seeking to learn should know the rules and what breaks them (i.e. fallacies) and point them out when needed.

>> No.11024380

>>11024151
somebody give me the rundown on eristic dialectics

>> No.11024382

>>11024151
That's Stirner

>> No.11024383

>>11024380
fuck off

>> No.11024393
File: 188 KB, 396x612, temp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11024393

>>11024380
Plato gave you a delightful rundown already.

>> No.11024440

>>11024370
Do you want to be a demagogue or a philosopher? No, you can't be both sincerely.

>> No.11024441

>>11024377
>But that's not "not playing fair" its breaking the rules
Come on, reread what you just wrote. Just because you can see logical fallacies doesn't stop the other person from using them. Also I know what circular logic is, and red herring, and tu quoqe, but fallacies can be hard to pick out, especially at high levels of debate/argument.

>> No.11024538

>>11024333
I've already stolen it for my novel buzz off

>> No.11024553

>>11024538
>>11024333
You are not allowed, sir, elsewise I will have to contact the phrase police, and you'll be looking at a decade behind bars, if you have a good lawyer, that is.

>> No.11024583

>>11024283
Yeah, but I'm really good at setting up traps, which is often convincing to both the other speaker and the audience