Not a manual for omniscience; rather the aim is always to appear right, whether you are or not. Schopenhauer wants to keep the crooked in ‘straight and crooked thinking’, when most books on arguments assume that we should try to eliminate it. This assumption hides a value judgment as to what arguments are for. Is it a matter of winning — getting others to admit that they’re wrong and we’re right — or is it about finding the truth — getting to the right answer? It’s not obvious that the truth is always more important than winning. A good logical argument might convince no one; a bad illogical argument might convince everyone. One could just hope that this isn’t so. Here’s the nub of Schopenhauer’s contention: such hope is necessarily utterly futile. This is because of something deep in human nature that reflects something still deeper about the world: it’s not reason and thought that rule the roost and give the true picture of reality, but rather blind assertive will.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in