I Am Right Because I Am Not Wrong

December 29, 2004 9:43 PM

The Art Of Controversy: Or Better Referred To As The Politician's Bible by Arthur Schopenhauer.
posted by Gyan (20 comments total)

Any other resources for manipulation?

And I ask this honestly. I'm a Sun Tzu and Machiavelli devotee, and I believe in moderate use of manipulation and power plays in business and social life.
posted by NickDouglas at 10:06 PM on December 29, 2004

NickDouglas, I haven't read it but the book The 48 Laws of Power ought to be useful.
posted by Gyan at 10:21 PM on December 29, 2004

A better link (without all that funny language)
posted by wilful at 10:21 PM on December 29, 2004

wilful, you must mean the original German text on the left, because the English translations in both the links are the same.
posted by Gyan at 10:30 PM on December 29, 2004

The 48 Laws of Power (without having to buy anything).
posted by lacus at 10:39 PM on December 29, 2004

[This is great.]
posted by squirrel at 10:54 PM on December 29, 2004

Does "The Art of Controversy" use examples? I'm an empiricist, and I love Sun Tzu's and Macchiavelli's supporting examples. Are there more highly researched books on manipulation? I don't want to take the author's word for it.

Incidentally, I find these books quite close to Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" and Josh McDowell's "Be a People Person," as well as (to some extent) Mark Levine's "Live Rich." These books take a more benevolent approach, but they also cater to the self-improver specifically geared toward leadership.

Has any work been done on the truthfulness of Never Be Lied To Again?
posted by NickDouglas at 1:01 AM on December 30, 2004

STRATAGEM 8 "This trick consists in making your opponent angry; for when he is angry he is incapable of judging aright, and perceiving where his advantage lies. You can make him angry by doing him repeated injustice, or practicing some kind of chicanery, and being generally insolent."

Couldn't this be required reading and replace the MeFi guidelines for a trial period? Mathowie could just sit back and watch the utter mayhem for a little while, before stepping back in as an avenging angel.
posted by Cancergiggles at 1:07 AM on December 30, 2004

Other relevant guidelines, from The Ultimate Stratagem (XXXVIII):

As a sharpening of wits, controversy is often, indeed, of mutual advantage, in order to correct one's thoughts and awaken new views. But in learning and in mental power both disputants must be tolerably equal: If one of them lacks learning, he will fail to understand the other, as he is not on the same level with his antagonist. If he lacks mental power, he will be embittered, and led into dishonest tricks, and end by being rude.

The only safe rule, therefore, is that which Aristotle mentions in the last chapter of his Topica:

• not to dispute with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities;
• to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it;
• to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him.

In other words, be rational, love truth, and, please, don't feed the trolls.

MeFi could also be the ideal place to put into practice Aristotle's Rhetoric.
posted by Turtle at 4:59 AM on December 30, 2004

be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him.

So few people appreciate the strength of apology and misguidedly see it as a weakness.
posted by Cancergiggles at 5:39 AM on December 30, 2004

See also here for a recent book review (quel coincidence! the review was posted on aldaily the same day as this thread).
posted by mowglisambo at 5:44 AM on December 30, 2004

Our debating society in high school had the 38 Strategies (I'm talking about Schopenhauer's, you threadjacking commies) on a large poster in the back room of the library.

We studied that thing forever. To someone new to the idea of discourse, these various sorta-dirty tricks felt like a new martial art of the mind.

Good to see this again. Time to learn a new skill or two, you neofascist crackheads.
posted by chicobangs at 5:56 AM on December 30, 2004

Stratagem XIV [Claim Victory Despite Defeat]

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.

Namin' no names...

This is a great link. (And wilful, why is yours a "better link"? It eliminates the ability to find a particular stratagem from the contents page; is not having to look at a column of German really worth the loss?)

Does "The Art of Controversy" use examples?

Do you think you might have, you know, actually clicked on the link to find out? Because if you had, you would have seen that it was full of examples.

Example 2. - A. declares that the Peace of 1814 gave back their independence to all the German towns of the Hanseatic League. B. gives an instance to the contrary by reciting the fact that Dantzig, which received its independence from Buonaparte, lost it by that Peace. A. saves himself thus: "I said 'all German towns,' and Dantzig was in Poland." This trick was mentioned by Aristotle in the Topica (bk. viii., cc. 11, 12).

"Excuse me, sir, could you tell me if my shoes are tied?"
posted by languagehat at 7:51 AM on December 30, 2004

Example 2. - A. declares that the Peace of 1814 gave back their independence to all the German towns of the Hanseatic League. B. gives an instance to the contrary by reciting the fact that Dantzig, which received its independence from Buonaparte, lost it by that Peace.

Apparently A. forgot Poland.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:06 AM on December 30, 2004

If one debate team used Schopenhauer's 38 Strategies as their guide, and another used a comprehensive list of logical fallacies, would their debate result in an implosion?
posted by krinklyfig at 8:07 AM on December 30, 2004

Oh the irony! NickDouglas' question "Does the Art of Controversy use Examples?", as answered by languagehat. Since, as far as I can tell, very few of the strategies actually list examples, I think that NickDouglas being taken to task over this is a good example of Strategem XXV - "find one instance to the contrary". Yes, in the strictest sense, the book *does* contain examples :-)
posted by RichAromas at 9:38 AM on December 30, 2004

Well played, sir!
posted by languagehat at 10:28 AM on December 30, 2004

.
posted by talitha_kumi at 3:37 PM on December 30, 2004

Hooray for aldaily!.
posted by Ayn Marx at 6:28 PM on December 30, 2004

I am avenged!
posted by NickDouglas at 9:07 PM on December 30, 2004