Eristic

In philosophy and rhetoric, eristic (from Eris, the ancient Greek goddess of chaos, strife, and discord) refers to argument that aims to successfully dispute another's argument, rather than searching for truth. According to T.H. Irwin, "It is characteristic of the eristic to think of some arguments as a way of defeating the other side, by showing that an opponent must assent to the negation of what he initially took himself to believe."[1] Eristic is arguing for the sake of conflict, as opposed to resolving conflict.[2]

Use in education

Eristic was a type of "question-and-answer"[3] teaching method popularized by the Sophists, such as Euthydemos and Dionysiodoros. Students learned eristic arguments to "refute their opponent, no matter whether he [said] yes or no in answer to their initial question".[4]

Plato contrasted this type of argument with dialectic and other more reasonable and logical methods (e.g., at Republic 454a). In the dialogue Euthydemus, Plato satirizes eristic. It is more than persuasion, and it is more than discourse. It is a combination that wins an argument without regard to truth. Plato believed that the eristic style "did not constitute a method of argument" because to argue eristically is to consciously use fallacious arguments, which therefore weakens one's position.[5]

Unlike Plato, Isocrates (often considered a Sophist) did not distinguish eristic from dialectic.[6] He held that both lacked a "'useful application' ... that created responsible citizens",[7] which unscrupulous teachers used for "enriching themselves at the expense of the youth."[8]

Philosophical eristic

Schopenhauer considers that only logic pursues truth. For him, dialectic, sophistry and eristic have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself because it aims at victory. He names these three last methods as "eristic dialectic (contentious argument)."[9]

According to Schopenhauer, Eristic Dialectic is mainly concerned to tabulate and analyze dishonest stratagems,[10] so that they may at once be recognized and defeated, in order to continue with a productive dialectic debate. It is for this very reason that Eristic Dialectic must admittedly take victory, and not objective truth, for its selfish aim and purpose.

Argumentation theory

Argumentation theory is a field of study that asks critical questions about eristic arguments and the other types of dialogue.

gollark: Okay. I don't see why I should support this instead of deantimemeticizing the antimemes.
gollark: That runs counter to *many* of our policies.
gollark: What? Why?
gollark: How is that a problem? It's merely an example of our excellent advertising.
gollark: Apologies.

See also

Notes
  1. Irwin, T.H. "Plato's Objection to the Sophists." The Greek World. London: Routledge, 1995. P. 585. Print.
  2. H.D. Rankin (1983). Sophists, Socratics and Cynics. Pp. 233–237.
  3. Alexander Nehamas. "Eristic, Antilogic, Sophistic, Dialectic: Plato's Demarcation of Philosophy from Sophistry". (page 6)
  4. Irwin, T.H. "Plato's Objection to the Sophists." The Greek World. London: Routledge, 1995. 583. Print.
  5. Alexander Nehamas. "Eristic, Antilogic, Sophistic, Dialectic: Plato's Demarcation of Philosophy from Sophistry". (page 7).
  6. "Plato, Republic, Book 5, section 454a". www.perseus.tufts.edu.
  7. Marsh, Charles. Classical rhetoric and modern public relations: an Isocratean model. New York: Routledge, 2013. P. 121.
  8. "Isocrates, Antidosis, section 45". www.perseus.tufts.edu.
  9. Controversial Dialectic on CoolHaus.de accessed at January 19, 2008
  10. In his Dialectica Eristica Schopenhauer presents 38 eristic stratagems

References
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.