The Art of Controversy (or: The Art of Being Right) (FULL Audiobook)

Рет қаралды 60,372

10 жыл бұрын

The Art of Controversy (or: The Art of Being Right) audiobook
Arthur SCHOPENHAUER (1788 - 1860), translated by T. Bailey SAUNDERS (1860 - 1928)
free-audio-books.info/nonficti...
The Art of Controversy (or The Art of Being Right) (Die Kunst, Recht zu Behalten) is a short treatise written in 1831 by the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer in which he presents thirty-eight methods of gaining an unfair advantage in a debate and thereby being right even if you are wrong. Schopenhauer champions the virtue of dialectical argument, in his view wrongly neglected by philosophers in favour of logic, and goes on to discuss the distinction between our conscious intellectual powers and our will. The text is a favourite of debaters including the philosophers AC Grayling and Mary Warnock, and the Mayor of London Boris Johnson. (Summary by Carl Manchester)
Genre(s): *Non-fiction, Philosophy, Self-Help
Language: English (FULL Audiobook)

Пікірлер: 57

@aktony6223 2 жыл бұрын

The best part to hear is "This is a libriVox recording, All libriVox recordings are in the public domain". They have great voices

@thejackbancroft7336 2 жыл бұрын

Skip to 29:45 if you want Schopenhauer. His strategy starts there.

@Zed...Himself 2 жыл бұрын

Thank you

@craig2415 Жыл бұрын

thanks

@nataliasimonetti4205 Жыл бұрын

Thank you!

@stanleydonkor1110 Жыл бұрын

The reader is a good reader, I love listening to him. He is a great man.

@johnmiller7453 7 жыл бұрын

The second half of this is priceless. Schopenhauer is the man.

@svalbard01 3 жыл бұрын

A comment like this should come with a timestamp, friend.

@TatoMome 3 жыл бұрын

@@svalbard01 I believe it's from 01:28:18 on.

@TatoMome 3 жыл бұрын

24:40 Section 02 29:33 S03 55:01 S05 01:14:14 S06 01:28:18 S07 01:50:37 S08

@thejackbancroft7336 2 жыл бұрын

Not all heroes wear capes. But you wear one heroically

@joeybeann Жыл бұрын

@@thejackbancroft7336 lol shut up

@thejackbancroft7336 Жыл бұрын

@@joeybeann eat my hair and shit

@joeybeann Жыл бұрын

@@thejackbancroft7336 meet me somewhere

@JoaoSantos-lv4rc 6 жыл бұрын

His Analysis of the mind is great too. the passages on the possible biological underpinnings of thought was incredibly close in retrospect. this guy was f. Smart.

@JoaoSantos-lv4rc 3 жыл бұрын

Beautiful, thank you. He still did manage to be pretty intelligent, if annoying. Let's not dismiss that because he also got so well burned lol.

@IFYOUWANTITGOGETIT 2 жыл бұрын

To be more free is to be more alone.

@kathalaluna 5 жыл бұрын

Who's reading this to spice up their romantic relations?

@TheRealestIdealist 4 жыл бұрын

Lmao 😂

@wallacelux 4 жыл бұрын

Well, with my ex relations.. 🙄😣

@sourabhnavani9609 4 жыл бұрын

😆😅

@punkrider8758 4 жыл бұрын

???

@brahimilyes681 3 жыл бұрын

This comment is gold

@bleedinggreen2518 3 жыл бұрын

When presupposition meets the Dunning Kruger effect it’s a very dangerous combination

@2Hot2 3 жыл бұрын

After 1:48:00 , I finally figured out S'' s strange use of the word "interest" vs. beauty: interest here equals suspense (the dynamic factor that keeps the reader/viewer interested until the dénousement of the story, even if the story is not beautiful per se)

@ellieschmitz7837 5 жыл бұрын

Love this great thinker 🎓

@montymonto6430 2 жыл бұрын

Reading footnotes where it mostly cites references is quite annoying, unnecessary, and detracts from understanding the main text.

@BLDalton85 3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the share.

@africandawahrevival Жыл бұрын

I needed this, Shopenhauer definitely knew his craft

@OccamsRazor393 10 ай бұрын

Great narrator!

@simonasimionescu5176 4 жыл бұрын

anyone in 2020?

@danielrojas-db9nq 3 жыл бұрын

Yep

@ynat957 3 жыл бұрын

i am here in 2021. happy new year.

@redshift1976 11 ай бұрын

I am here in 2023. Are you living at The Lake House? 😂

@joeybeann 3 ай бұрын

There is something profound in this, but your voice makes it hard to find listening to it enjoyable.

@nickkerinklio8239 3 жыл бұрын

I do not agree with the idea that you have to be sneaky or deceptive to win an argument, but it’s important to have knowledge of these kinds of traps so they cannot be used against you. The easiest way to win an argument is to have truth on your side. I also believe any good debater should learn and understand the opponents side. I believe debates should be used to reach the truth. I’m taking what I’ve learned from this book to debate Darwinists on their evolution religion. When you’re in a debate remember that math cannot lie. Proving your side with math is the most potent way to expose the truth, but it always requires being on the factually right side of the argument. Logic and evidence are important, but they won’t always change the minds of stubborn people

@blackfeatherstill348 3 жыл бұрын

You don't seem to undertstand the whole point of this book. He is saying that if you are in an argument or debate you have entered the domain of what he calls dialectics, not truth or logic. Truth has nothing to do with this book. He is explaining about ways to win a debate regardless of truth. Because when you have entered an an argument you have departed from the domain of truth (if one exists)

@nickkerinklio8239 3 жыл бұрын

@@blackfeatherstill348 I do understand and I disagree. I believe the real winner of the debate is whoever learns the most, even if that’s the audience.

@blackfeatherstill348 3 жыл бұрын

@@nickkerinklio8239 Schopenhauer may disagree with what he calls the art of controversy too. I think that he is pointing out this is how the world works. It is as relevant now as it was back then. People don't in general believe in truth or logic, they just want to be right. I think he is giving a thorough demonstration of how this phenomena operates between people and even entire countries. It is almost impossible to pin down the truth because people just want to be right.

@bilwisss Жыл бұрын

this book was very helpful, knowing how to spar with narcissists.

@clubadebisi 5 жыл бұрын

29:43

@madsbs123 4 жыл бұрын

aka. strawman

@Sprite_525 3 жыл бұрын

madsbs123 - not exactly. It was a specific trick about the scope of a claim: to act like the opposition’s claim is absurdly general, and to make the opposition spend energy proving otherwise, and to frame your own argument so narrow and modestly, that if the opposition says your argument is flawed, the opposition will ALSO inevitably have made an error summarizing your argument by over-extending the originally small scope, then you can distract the opposition’s first claim about the flaw by focusing on their secondary error about the scope. I must say tho... These tricks are not good for conversation, not good for discourse, and not good for propaganda even.. These are only for last-resort, warlike confrontations with bad-faith actors.

@Sprite_525 3 жыл бұрын

@@cibo889 yeah I’m not gonna lie, I wish Schopenhauer also hadn’t used these tactics. It lowered the status of his body of work when he drifted off into saying super salty rhetorical stuff about people he hated

@bleedinggreen2518 3 жыл бұрын

@@Sprite_525 It’s just an argument in bad faith. Fox News mouthpieces do this shit all the time. Same thing with begging the question.

@bleedinggreen2518 3 жыл бұрын

@@Sprite_525 Sometimes you have to use these tactics. But only to show the absurdity of those tactics. To me it only works if you pointed out. I’m not gonna stoop to their level.