The Art of Controversy
- Idioma:
- anglès
- Completesa:
- Obra completa
- Autoria:
- Escrita per l'autor
- Estat del text:
- Sense soroll d'escaneig detectat (mesura automàtica sobre tot el text, no revisada a mà)
- Extensió:
- ~32.000 paraules · 152 passatges
Cita aquesta obra
- APAArthur Schopenhauer. (n.d.). The Art of Controversy. Digital reproduction: SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/ca/works/schopenhauer/the-art-of-controversy
- MLAArthur Schopenhauer. The Art of Controversy. Digital reproduction, SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/ca/works/schopenhauer/the-art-of-controversy.
- ChicagoArthur Schopenhauer. The Art of Controversy. Digital reproduction, SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/ca/works/schopenhauer/the-art-of-controversy.
Referència de l'edició que reprodueix SigPhi: SigPhi n'és la reproducció digital, no l'editor. L'any de l'edició no consta a les metadades (per això «n.d.») i el traductor només hi surt quan consta.
De què tracta
Trenta-vuit trucs per guanyar una discussió tinguis raó o no. Escrit de debò, i no com a broma.
Context i història
La «dialèctica erística» és un manual de mala fe argumentativa, catalogada amb precisió: generalitzar l'afirmació de l'altre, irritar-lo, atacar la persona quan falten raons. Schopenhauer el presenta com el que és —una descripció de com discuteix la gent realment— i per això funciona tan bé com a defensa. Aquesta és una traducció anglesa antiga, en domini públic. L'original alemany també hi és al catàleg, i és el que s'ha de citar.
Context editorial, no una font citable: a diferència dels passatges de l'obra, aquestes dades no es poden contrastar amb el corpus.
This use of the words and synonymous terms lasted through the Middle Ages into modern times; in fact, until the present day. But more recently, and in particular by Kant, Dialectic has often been employed in a bad sense, as meaning “the art of sophistical controversy”; and hence Logic has been preferred, as of the two the more innocent designation. Nevertheless, both originally meant the same thing; and in the last few years they have again been recognised as synonymous. It is a pity that the words have thus been used from of old, and that I am not quite at liberty to distinguish their meanings. Otherwise, I should have preferred to define Logic (from [Greek: logos], “word” and “reason,” which are inseparable) as “the science of the laws of thought, that is, of the method of reason”; and Dialectic (from [Greek: dialegesthai], “to converse”—and every conversation communicates either facts or opinions, that is to say, it is historical or deliberative) as “the art of disputation,” in the modern sense of the word. It it clear, then, that Logic deals with a subject of a purely à priori character, separable in definition from experience, namely, the laws of thought, the process of reason or the [Greek: logos], the laws, that is, which reason follows when it is left to itself and not hindered, as in the case of solitary thought on the part of a rational being who is in no way misled. Dialectic, on the other hand, would treat of the intercourse between two rational beings who, because they are rational, ought to think in common, but who, as soon as they cease to agree like two clocks keeping exactly the same time, create a disputation, or intellectual contest. Regarded as purely rational beings, the individuals would, I say, necessarily be in agreement, and their variation springs from the difference essential to individuality; in other words, it is drawn from experience.