{"id":12860,"date":"2009-01-05T05:14:29","date_gmt":"2009-01-05T05:14:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2009\/01\/05\/would-schopenhauer-allow-comments\/"},"modified":"2009-01-05T05:14:29","modified_gmt":"2009-01-05T05:14:29","slug":"would-schopenhauer-allow-comments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2009\/01\/05\/would-schopenhauer-allow-comments\/","title":{"rendered":"Would Schopenhauer Allow Comments?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Schopenhauer\"<\/a> If Schopenhauer were a blogger, would he allow comments on his weblog, The Scowl of Minerva?<\/em><\/p>\n

I say no, and adduce as evidence the following passage<\/font><\/a> that concludes his Art of Controversy<\/strong>, a delightful essay found in his Nachlass<\/em>, but left untitled by the master:<\/p>\n

As a sharpening of wits, controversy is often, indeed, of mutual advantage, in order to correct one's thoughts and awaken new views. But in learning and in mental power both disputants must be tolerably equal: If one of them lacks learning, he will fail to understand the other, as he is not on the same level with his antagonist. If he lacks mental power, he will be embittered, and led into dishonest tricks, and end by being rude. <\/span><\/p>\n

The only safe rule, therefore, is that which Aristotle mentions in the last chapter of his Topica<\/em>: not to dispute with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him. From this it follows that scarcely one man in a hundred is worth your disputing with him. You may let the remainder say what they please, for every one is at liberty to be a fool – desipere est jus gentium<\/em>. Remember what Voltaire says: La paix vaut encore mieux que la verite<\/em>. Remember also an Arabian proverb which tells us that on the tree of silence there hangs its fruit, which is peace.<\/span><\/p>\n

Here is the same passage in the German original:<\/p>\n

Das Disputieren ist als Reibung der K\u00f6pfe allerdings oft von gegenseitigem Nutzen, zur Berichtigung der eignen Gedanken und auch zur Erzeugung neuer Ansichten. Allein beide Disputanten m\u00fcssen an Gelehrsamkeit und an Geist ziemlich gleichstehn. Fehlt es Einem an der ersten, so versteht er nicht Alles, ist nicht au niveau<\/em>. Fehlt es ihm am zweiten, so wird die dadurch herbeigef\u00fchrte Erbitterung ihn zu Unredlichkeiten und Kniffen [oder] zu Grobheit verleiten.<\/span>
<\/font>
Die einzig sichere Gegenregel ist daher die, welche schon Aristoteles im letzten Kapitel der Topica<\/em> gibt: Nicht mit dem Ersten dem Besten zu disputieren; sondern allein mit solchen, die man kennt, und von denen man wei\u00df, da\u00df sie Verstand genug haben, nicht gar zu Absurdes vorzubringen und dadurch besch\u00e4mt werden zu m\u00fcssen; und um mit Gr\u00fcnden zu disputieren und nicht mit Machtspr\u00fcchen, und um auf Gr\u00fcnde zu h\u00f6ren und darauf einzugehn; und endlich, da\u00df sie die Wahrheit sch\u00e4tzen, gute Gr\u00fcnde gern h\u00f6ren, auch aus dem Munde des Gegners, und Billigkeit genug haben, um es ertragen zu k\u00f6nnen, Unrecht zu behalten, wenn die Wahrheit auf der andern Seite liegt. Daraus folgt, da\u00df unter Hundert kaum Einer ist, der wert ist, da\u00df man mit ihm disputiert. Die \u00dcbrigen lasse man reden, was sie wollen, denn desipere est juris gentium<\/em>, und man bedenke, was Voltaire sagt: La paix vaut encore mieux que la v\u00e9rit\u00e9<\/em>; und ein arabischer Spruch ist: \u00bbAm Baume des Schweigens h\u00e4ngt seine Frucht der Friede.\u00ab <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

If Schopenhauer were a blogger, would he allow comments on his weblog, The Scowl of Minerva? I say no, and adduce as evidence the following passage that concludes his Art of Controversy, a delightful essay found in his Nachlass, but left untitled by the master: As a sharpening of wits, controversy is often, indeed, of mutual … Continue reading “Would Schopenhauer Allow Comments?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[109,113,268],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12860","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blogging","category-logica-utens","category-schopenhauer"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12860","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12860"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12860\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12860"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12860"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12860"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}