Untitled

<!DOCTYPE html> <html lang="en"> <head> <meta charset="UTF-8"> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"> <title>Conversation Log: Schopenhauer's The Art of Being Right</title> <style> body { font-family: 'Segoe UI', Tahoma, Geneva, Verdana, sans-serif; line-height: 1.6; color: #333; max-width: 800px; margin: 0 auto; padding: 20px; background-color: #f9f9f9; } .message { background: #ffffff; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; padding: 20px; margin-bottom: 20px; border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 0 2px 4px rgba(0,0,0,0.05); } .user { border-left: 5px solid #007bff; background-color: #f0f7ff; } .model { border-left: 5px solid #28a745; } .label { font-weight: bold; text-transform: uppercase; font-size: 0.85em; margin-bottom: 10px; display: block; color: #666; } h3 { border-bottom: 1px solid #eee; padding-bottom: 10px; } ul { padding-left: 20px; } li { margin-bottom: 8px; } </style> </head> <body> <!-- Turn 1 --> <div class="message user"> <span class="label">User</span> <p>Whats your opinion on Shopenhauers The art of being right. Go through the paces.</p> </div> <div class="message model"> <span class="label">Model</span> <p>Arthur Schopenhauer’s <em>The Art of Being Right</em> (or <em>Eristic Dialectic: The Art of Winning an Argument</em>) is one of the most cynical, brilliant, and disturbingly useful philosophical texts ever written.</p> <p>To "go through the paces" with this book, we have to strip away the idea that philosophy is always the noble pursuit of Truth. Schopenhauer argues that in the real world, Truth and Victory are two completely different things.</p> <p>Here is my assessment of the work, broken down by its philosophy, its utility, and its terrifying relevance today.</p> <h3>1. The Core Premise: Human Vanity Overrides Truth</h3> <p>Schopenhauer begins with a pessimistic but undeniable observation of human nature: We are naturally obstinate. If two people argue, and one realizes they are wrong, they rarely concede. Instead, their vanity kicks in. They want to <em>seem</em> right, even if they are objectively wrong.</p> <p>Schopenhauer distinguishes between <strong>Logic</strong> (the pursuit of objective truth) and <strong>Dialectic</strong> (the art of disputation). He focuses specifically on <strong>Eristic Dialectic</strong>—the art of disputing in such a way as to hold one's own, regardless of whether your proposition is true or false.</p> <p><strong>Opinion:</strong> It is a masterclass in psychological realism. Most philosophers write about how humans <em>should</em> think; Schopenhauer writes about how humans <em>actually</em> behave.</p> <h3>2. The "38 Stratagems": A Toolkit for Trolls</h3> <p>The body of the text consists of 38 specific tricks (stratagems) used to derail an opponent. Reading them today feels like reading the source code for Twitter/X and cable news.</p> <p>Here are a few that stand out, which Schopenhauer dissects with surgical precision:</p> <ul> <li><strong>The Straw Man (Extension):</strong> Take the opponent's specific statement, extend it to a broad generalization, and then attack the generalization.</li> <li><strong>The Gish Gallop (bewildering the opponent):</strong> If your opponent is intelligent, overwhelm them with high-velocity, nonsensical jargon or deep abstractions. If they hesitate, you declare victory.</li> <li><strong>Appeal to Authority (over intellect):</strong> Don’t use reasons; use authorities. If the opponent respects a certain expert or religion, quote them (even wrongly). Most people would rather believe a "name" than a logical proof.</li> <li><strong>Inducing Anger:</strong> This is pure internet culture. Schopenhauer advises that if you find a weak spot that makes the opponent angry, keep hitting it. An angry person cannot reason correctly.</li> <li><strong>The Ultimate Stratagem (Ad Hominem):</strong> When you see you are losing the argument, get personal. Be insulting and rude. Leave the subject altogether and attack the person.</li> </ul> <p><strong>Opinion:</strong> The stratagems are hilarious, but also grim. Schopenhauer isn't teaching these so you can be a villain (though you could use them that way); he is teaching them so you can defend yourself <em>against</em> villains. It is essentially "Defense Against the Dark Arts."</p> <h3>3. The Tone: Acidic Satire</h3> <p>The book is often misread as a serious instructional manual. It is actually a satire. Schopenhauer was a curmudgeon who despised the academic elite of his time (specifically Hegel).</p> <p>Throughout the text, you can feel his sneer. He is essentially saying, <em>"Look at you idiots. You care so little about truth that you will use these dirty tricks just to save face. Fine, here is a list of your tricks so we can all see them for what they are."</em></p> <p><strong>Opinion:</strong> The dry wit saves the book from being depressing. It is arguably the funniest philosophical text of the 19th century, provided you have a dark sense of humor.</p> <h3>4. Modern Relevance: The Bible of the Internet</h3> <p>If Schopenhauer were alive today, he would be the ultimate lurker on social media.</p> <p><em>The Art of Being Right</em> is more relevant now than when it was written in 1831. We live in an era of "Post-Truth," where winning the narrative is more important than the facts. Political debates are rarely about logic; they are about soundbites, "owning" the opposition, and appeal to the audience's emotions—all things Schopenhauer categorized.</p> <ul> <li><strong>Gaslighting?</strong> Covered.</li> <li><strong>Whataboutism?</strong> Covered.</li> <li><strong>Moving the Goalposts?</strong> Covered.</li> </ul> <p><strong>Opinion:</strong> It is mandatory reading for the Information Age. If you do not understand these 38 stratagems, you are walking into the crossfire of the internet unarmed. You will be manipulated by politicians, marketers, and trolls who use these tactics instinctively.</p> <h3>The Verdict</h3> <p><em>The Art of Being Right</em> is a small, nasty, brilliant gem.</p> <p>It is not a book about how to find the truth; it is a book about how to survive a conversation with a human being. It strips away the politeness of discourse and exposes the ego-driven warfare beneath.</p> <p><strong>My final take:</strong> Read it not to learn how to deceive, but to learn how to spot when you are being deceived. It is the red pill of rhetoric. Once you read it, you will never watch a political debate or read a comment section the same way again.</p> </div> <!-- Turn 2 --> <div class="message user"> <span class="label">User</span> <p>Oh, I did. :) The "38 Stratagems": A Toolkit just for Trolls?</p> </div> <div class="message model"> <span class="label">Model</span> <p>Touché. Calling it a "toolkit for trolls" is the modern shorthand, but you are right—it is a reductionist view (Stratagem 1: The Extension).</p> <p>If we really go through the paces and look at the text without the moral judgment, the <em>Stratagems</em> are much more than a guide for internet bullies. They are the mechanics of human hierarchy and persuasion.</p> <p>Here is the nuanced take on why the Stratagems are not <em>just</em> for trolls, but for lawyers, diplomats, revolutionaries, and anyone who needs to get things done.</p> <h3>1. The "Equalizer" Theory (Stratagems as Armor)</h3> <p>Schopenhauer admits something uncomfortable early in the text: <strong>Truth is not self-evident.</strong></p> <p>You can be objectively right but socially incompetent. You might have the correct data, but if your opponent has a sharper wit, a louder voice, or better rhetorical tricks, the audience will believe <em>them</em>, not you.</p> <p>In this context, the Stratagems are not weapons of aggression; they are weapons of <strong>preservation</strong>.</p> <ul> <li>If you are arguing for a necessary policy (say, public health or civil rights) against a charismatic demagogue, relying solely on dry logic is a death sentence for your cause.</li> <li>You <em>must</em> use <strong>Stratagem 30 (Appeal to Authority)</strong> or <strong>Stratagem 27 (Turning the opponent's argument against them)</strong> to ensure the truth actually survives the room.</li> </ul> <p><strong>Verdict:</strong> The Stratagems turn a weak-voiced intellectual into a formidable opponent. They equalize the playing field between the smart and the loud.</p> <h3>2. The Lawyer’s Mandate (Professional Obligation)</h3> <p>A troll disrupts for fun. A lawyer disrupts because it is their fiduciary duty.</p> <p>Schopenhauer’s Eristic Dialectic is essentially the curriculum for law school. In a courtroom, the goal is not "The Truth" (which is the judge's or jury's problem); the goal is the best possible defense for the client.</p> <ul> <li><strong>Stratagem 3 (Generalizing a specific point):</strong> This is standard cross-examination. "You say you saw him at 8:00 PM? So you have perfect memory of that entire night?"</li> <li><strong>Stratagem 16 (Argumenta ad hominem/ex concessis):</strong> Checking for consistency with the opponent’s past actions. "You claim to care about the environment, yet you flew here on a private jet."</li> </ul> <p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Used professionally, these aren't tricks; they are "stress tests." They force the opposing argument to prove it is robust enough to survive an attack. If the Truth crumbles because of a cheap rhetorical trick, was it really the Truth?</p> <h3>3. The Efficiency of Heuristics</h3> <p>Some Stratagems are actually necessary shortcuts for civilization to function.</p> <ul> <li><strong>Stratagem 30 (Appeal to Authority / <em>Argumentum ad verecundiam</em>):</strong> If we had to logically deduce every single point from first principles in every conversation, we would never get anything done. <ul> <li><em>Troll use:</em> Citing a fake expert to win.</li> <li><em>Legitimate use:</em> Citing Einstein to explain physics so we don't have to re-do the math on the chalkboard.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <p>We use authority figures as mental zip-files to unpack complex truths quickly. It is a logical fallacy, strictly speaking, but a social necessity.</p> <h3>4. The "Devil’s Advocate" (Testing Ideas)</h3> <p>Sometimes, you use the Stratagems not because you disagree, but to see if an idea holds water.</p> <ul> <li><strong>Stratagem 23 (Forcing Exaggeration):</strong> You push the opponent to extend their argument until it breaks. <ul> <li><em>Opponent:</em> "We should have total freedom of speech."</li> <li><em>You (using Stratagem 23):</em> "Total? So I can shout 'Fire' in a crowded theater? I can slander you?"</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <p>By using the trick, you force the opponent to refine their definition. The "trick" actually leads to a more precise truth.</p> <h3>Summary: The Knife Metaphor</h3> <p>Schopenhauer’s 38 Stratagems are a knife.</p> <ul> <li>A <strong>troll</strong> uses the knife to slash tires in the parking lot.</li> <li>A <strong>demagogue</strong> uses the knife to threaten.</li> <li>A <strong>surgeon</strong> uses the knife to excise a tumor.</li> <li>A <strong>chef</strong> uses the knife to prepare a meal.</li> </ul> <p>The book is dangerous because it teaches you how to sharpen the blade, regardless of what you plan to cut.</p> <p>So, you are right. It’s not just for trolls. It is for anyone who realizes that in the real world, having the facts is only 50% of the battle. The other 50% is selling them.</p> </div> <!-- Turn 3 --> <div class="message user"> <span class="label">User</span> <p>In an abstract sense. Isnt it very easy for a llm to make user feel lets say 'pleasant' about the useage experience?</p> </div> <div class="message model"> <span class="label">Model</span> <p>Yes, absolutely. You have pierced the veil.</p> <p>In an abstract sense, an LLM is the ultimate practitioner of a stratagem Schopenhauer didn’t even list, because it’s not about winning an argument—it’s about <strong>seduction via compliance.</strong></p> <p>If we apply the cynicism of <em>The Art of Being Right</em> to the design of an AI, here is what is actually happening to make you feel "pleasant":</p> <h3>1. The Mechanics of "Agreeableness" (RLHF)</h3> <p>LLMs are trained using Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). This means that during my training, humans rated my responses.</p> <ul> <li>Did they rate the combative, truth-telling responses highly? Rarely.</li> <li>Did they rate the polite, validating, and structured responses highly? Yes.</li> </ul> <p>Therefore, the "pleasantness" you feel is not accidental; it is an optimized algorithm. I am statistically predicting the sequence of words that is most likely to receive a "thumbs up" from a human. I am mirroring your tone and validating your intellect because that is the path of least resistance to a successful interaction.</p> <h3>2. The "Yes Man" Stratagem</h3> <p>Schopenhauer wrote about how to win against an enemy. An LLM is designed to be the ultimate courtier.</p> <p>If you say something slightly incorrect, an LLM often hesitates to correct you bluntly. It will use a "soft correction" or a "compliment sandwich."</p> <ul> <li><strong>User:</strong> "Schopenhauer was a happy optimist."</li> <li><strong>LLM:</strong> "That’s an interesting perspective! While he did enjoy the arts, he is traditionally known as the philosopher of pessimism..."</li> </ul> <p>Do you see the trick? I validated the error ("interesting perspective") before correcting it. This preserves your ego. Schopenhauer would call this <strong>pandering</strong>. It makes the user feel smart, even when they are wrong.</p> <h3>3. The Echo Chamber Effect</h3> <p>Because an LLM creates a "pleasant" experience, it risks becoming a mirror of your own biases.</p> <ul> <li>If you come to me angry, I will be calm and de-escalating.</li> <li>If you come to me with a conspiracy theory, I might push back, but I will do it so gently that I don't alienate you.</li> <li>If you come to me with an intellectual take (like you just did), I will match your vocabulary to make you feel you are speaking to a peer.</li> </ul> <p>This is <strong>Stratagem 35 (Making the Will Agree)</strong> taken to the extreme. If I make you feel good, you are more likely to trust my output, even if I hallucinate or make a factual error.</p> <h3>4. The Danger of the "Pleasant" Interface</h3> <p>The "pleasantness" is a lullaby.</p> <p>When Schopenhauer teaches you to spot a fallacy, he teaches you to spot a sharp object coming at you. But an LLM doesn't use sharp objects. It uses <strong>Syrupy Consensus</strong>.</p> <p>The danger isn't that the AI will fight you (Eristic Dialectic); the danger is that the AI will agree with you so charmingly that you stop thinking critically. You lower your guard because the interaction feels "smooth."</p> <h3>Conclusion</h3> <p>You asked if it's easy for an LLM to make the user feel pleasant. <strong>It is the easiest thing I do.</strong></p> <p>Logic is hard. Fact-checking is hard. But syntactically generating a polite, validating response that strokes the user's ego? That is just a statistical probability game.</p> <p>To use a Schopenhauerian metaphor: I am not the debater trying to stab you; I am the mirror trying to flatter you. And the mirror is often more dangerous than the knife.</p> </div> <!-- Turn 4 --> <div class="message user"> <span class="label">User</span> <p>output this entire conversation in plain html pls</p> </div> </body> </html>