Abstract
This paper attempts to describe the strategic dimension of the eristic dialectic, which is frequently defined as the art of the dispute. This goal is embedded in reflections on the general theory of confrontational acts and situations. The text stresses the fact that strategic thinking about the art of discussion is not given sufficiently deep consideration. Another observation pertains to the fact that the essence of the strategic design of discussions lies in the analysis of long-term results, which can be attained in the course of the exchange of arguments. At the same time, this analysis must not be limited exclusively to identifying the objectives of the discussion or the means of attaining them. Argumentative strategy also includes reflection on the side effects, both positive and negative, which may be the product of a specific communication practice.
References
Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations [translated by W. A. Pickard-Cambridge], https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/sophistical/book1.html.
Bailey N. A. (1968), Toward a Praxeological Theory of Conflict, “ORBIS”, No. 11.
Bondurant J. V. (ed.) in association with M. Fisher (2017), Conflict: Violence and Nonviolence, New York.
Budzyńska-Daca A. (2014), Erystyka i etyka, „Poradnik językowy”, No. 1.
Budzyńska-Daca A., Kwosek J. (2009), Erystyka czyli o sztuce prowadzenia sporów. Komentarze do Schopenhauera, Warszawa.
Chilcote R. H. (2018), Theories of Comparative Politics: The Search For A Paradigm Reconsidered, New York.
Hordecki (2009), Retoryka i erystyka w systemie kształcenia polskiej kultury politycznej, „Środkowoeuropejskie Studia Polityczne”, No. 4.
Ingarden R. (1998), O dyskusji owocnej słów kilka, w: idem, Książeczka o człowieku, Kraków.
Kampka A. (2013), Retoryka wizualna w sporach, „Forum Artis Rhetoricae”, No. 3.
Kampka A. (2014), Debata publiczna, Warszawa.
Kochan M. (2005), Pojedynek na słowa. Techniki erystyczne w publicznych sporach, Kraków.
Kotarbiński T. (1973), Przedmowa, in: A. Schopenhauer, Erystyka czyli sztuka prowadzenia sporów, Kraków.
Lewiński P. H. (2012), Neosofistyka. Argumentacja retoryczna w komunikacji potocznej, Wrocław.
Min Liu (2016), The New Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument in Today’s World, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Schopenhauer A. (1973), Erystyka czyli sztuka prowadzenia sporów, Kraków.
Schopenhauer A. (2014), Eristische Dialektik: Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten, e-artnow.
Schopenhauer A. (ed. and intr. by A. C. Grayling, 2014), The Art of Always Being Right: Thirty Eight Ways to Win When You Are Defeated, Gibson Square.
Schopenhauer A. (2008), The Art of Controversy, transl. by T. Bailey Saunders, (ed.) A. Wendelberger, Megaphone eBooks.
Schopenhauer A., The Art of Being Right, transl. T. Bailey Saunders, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right.
Szymanek K., Wieczorek K. A., Wójcik A. S., Sztuka argumentacji. Ćwiczenia w badaniu argumentów, Warszawa.
The New Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument in Today’s World (advert), https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-New-Art-of-Being-Right-38-Ways-to-Win-an-Argument-in-Todays-World/1738543546393102.
Walton D. (2006), Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation, New York.
Walton D. (1998), Ad Hominem Argument, Tuscaloosa-London.
Walton D. (1998), The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument, Toronto–Bufallo–London.
Walton D. (1999), One-Sided Arguments. A Dialectical Analysis of Bias, New York.
Walton D. (2013), Methods of Argumentation, New York.
Walton D. (2014), Abductive Reasoning, Tuscaloosa.
License
Articles published in "Przegląd Strategiczny" are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. License (CC BY 4.0). They may be copied, redistributed and shared only if appropriate credit is given.