Eristics - Cunning and trickery in language for successful negotiation
In pandemic times, our communication is more difficult. I can imagine that one or the other of us has done a good job. Of course, this should be recognized by the employer or teacher, but can be overlooked. Therefore, I would like to show you some eristic reasoning skills that you are welcome to learn and use.
What is Eristics?
Even as a teenager I was fascinated by the power of language, but I quickly realized that the words "please" and "thank you" don't open every door. The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer also noticed this and developed 38 techniques in his book "The Art of Being Right" to better assert oneself linguistically.
Eristics is literally the art of arguing. Since arguing is not popular in most societies, rhetoric or dialectic is more popular, because who among us likes to argue? Rhetoric is more suitable to support theses with supporting or refuting arguments or to prove them as invalid.
Therefore, compared to rhetoric (The Art of Public Speaking), eristics tries to offer a shorter yet effective techniques.
Compared to dialectic (The Art of Discussion), eristics has a more aggressive character and is therefore intended to catch the interlocutor off guard. In a boxing match, one would speak of a knock-out.
There is also a great similarity with sophistics (The Art of Doubt). A major difference, however, is that sophists only doubt a thesis while having a variable thesis or no thesis at all. If, however, we want a salary increase as an example, then we have a clear position, which we want to defend at all costs.
I would like to emphasize: Eristics is about being right, that is,
Schopenhauer says:
With a thesis, there are two modes and two ways to attack it.
- modes: ad rem (focus is on the thesis).
- modes: ad hominem (focus is on the opponent).
We use the modes to determine who we are attacking.
1st way - direct refutation (focus of the attack is on the reason - shows that the thesis is not true)
2nd way - indirect refutation (focus of the attack is on the consequences - shows that the thesis cannot be true).
The ways we use to determine how we attack.
If we want to attack ad rem (and in a direct way), then you attack the meaning of the thesis.
In the example of the raise, the boss would say, "Why should you get one anyway?"
Attack ad rem: "A raise is common, everyone gets one sometime!"
If we want to attack ad hominem (and indirectly), then we don't attack the thesis but the opponent and thus question the thesis.
In the example of the raise, the boss would say, "Why should you get one anyway?"
Attack ad hominem: "If they are really my boss, then you know how much added value my work generates and how high my salary is and should notice that my salary needs to be adjusted!"
Source
Thank you for reading, but I would love to discuss such techniques with you guys. Espacially when you are a employer.
Sincerly, Litshit69
