"eristic dialectics is the art of arguing, and discussing so that you always carry reason, ie, per fas et nefas (rightly or wrongly). One can therefore have no objective reason in the matter itself and yet lack of it in the eyes of those present, sometimes even the eyes. This is the case when, for example, the adversary disproves a test and this is considered a refutation of the claim itself, for which may however have other tests, in which case, of course, the situation is reversed for the adversary is being objectively right even without one. Therefore, the objective truth of a proposition and its validity in the approval of those who argue and his audience are two different things. (Of the latter deals with the dialectic.)
What is this? The natural wickedness of mankind. If there is, if we are honest by nature, any discussion would have no other purpose than to reveal the truth, regardless of anything that conformed to the first view we had exposed or the other, this would be indifferent , or at least completely secondary. But now the main thing. Vanity innately susceptible especially with regard to the intellectual, refuses to admit that what we started exposing it to be false and some comments made by the adversary. In this case, all you have to do is strive to judge correctly, which would have to think first and talk later. But to vanity innate added in most loquacity and innate bad faith. " Arthur
SCHOPENHAUER
(The art of being right)
0 comments:
Post a Comment