ERÍSTICA: OBJECT OF STUDY AND AUTHORS - DUDAS - 2025

The erística is often considered an art that is based on obtaining the reason for an argument. It is a process in which the interlocutors of a conversation are part of a discussion that does not resolve any issue or in which no one agrees.

It is a widely used resource in the literature and is sometimes associated with a process that generates disagreements. It has to do with philosophy, although most of the time it focuses almost exclusively on the rhetorical study of argumentation.

Plato established the differences between eristics and dialects. Source: Glyptothek, via Wikimedia Commons.

The term eristics has its origin in the Greek language. It is born from the word 'eris' which in turn means to generate problems or fight. The sophists were its main exponents. Important philosophers of ancient times did not take this definition very into account, as was the case with Plato, who despised this resource.

Eristics has evolved over time and this concept has also been used to define certain types of fallacious arguments.

Eristic goal

By studying the way in which eristics is used, it is possible to determine what role this resource fulfills within rhetoric. The idea is to propose ideas or arguments that allow a discussion to be extended; that is, they are approaches that do not help to solve a problem or the lack of consensus on an issue.

The sophists were the first to study and use eristic arguments, but today they are used in a large number of situations. It is very common for eristics to appear in political harangues or discussions, as well as in different literary publications.

The idea is almost always based on entangling the rival.

characteristics

Eristic arguments or arguments have certain norms although they encourage conflict. To begin with, the interlocutors must alternate their interventions in this type of debate.

There has to be some kind of collaboration or contribution between the participants, but only at almost imperceptible levels. The objective is to be right in the dialogue that is maintained. Arguments are used to pass time, since there is no interest in discovering something, showing a truth, or solving a problem or question.

Authors

Several authors dealt with eristics in their works. Plato, for example, was a detractor of the sophist movement, therefore he was always against this type of technique. He was rather a supporter of dialectics. While Aristotle left the role of Euthydemus in the creation of eristics reflected in his writings.

The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) enunciated 38 types of deceptions that could be performed and that can be considered as eristic techniques. He did it in the work Dialectica erística or the art of being right (1864) .

In more recent times, Terence Henry Irwin, an English philosopher, also gave his opinion on this subject.

Eristic dialectic

Schopenhauer's work was not a very extensive publication and appeared after the death of its author thanks to a Polish philosopher of the time.

He came to expose more than 30 types of deceptions that could be done thanks to rhetoric and that were considered eristic. Using any of these tricks could help one of the parties in the discussion to be successful.

Of course, the truth was not an end to be sought with these tools, the idea was simply to achieve victory in the confrontation of ideas.

In this way, Schopenhauer stated that in a discussion someone could benefit from resources such as the exaggeration of things, from not raising the conclusion so that the rival interlocutor had to accept the exposed premises or inducing the other to admit the thoughts as valid of the issuer.

In many cases they are methods that focus on confusing the other participant in the discussion. If you manage to accept any of the ideas presented, it is considered that you are losing the confrontation.

Schopenhauer also named the importance of making comparisons, of getting things done quickly. He also appealed to feelings when he spoke of making the opponent impatient and making him upset. In the same way, he explained that the public present could have a relevant role.

The teaching of eristics

The philosopher brothers of Ancient Greece, Euthydemus and Dionisodorus, made eristics famous as an instrument to educate people. It was based on the posing of different questions that had to be answered.

In this case the answer used to be the least, the important thing was to learn to contradict or oppose what was answered. The ideas of these sophist brothers appeared in one of Plato's works, although he was not a supporter of them.

Plato was more inclined to the technique of the dialectic. He did not consider eristics as an appropriate way to question others. He came to think that premises were simply used that were not true on purpose. For Plato, this absence of true arguments detracted from the credibility of the discussion and the speaker of the argument.

Isocrates, best known for his role as an orator and associated with the sophists, used to mix the ideas of eristics with dialectics. It was not a tool that he explained as an educator because he believed that it was not socially relevant. The fallacy of the arguments used led him to think that those who used eristics were not committed to society.

Comparison between eristics and dialectics

In his writings, Plato went so far as to ensure that there are differences between the meaning and function of eristics with dialectics. The most important aspect in this sense is that the eristics does not distinguish between the topics discussed, it does not have any kind of classification. Dialectics, for its part, focuses on seeking the truth. It does not compare arguments.

Both are considered techniques that human beings have to speak.

Goddess

Eristics is associated with an important character: the goddess Eris, or in some cases also called Eride. It is a deity that is associated with discord.

According to Greek mythology Eris and Ares were family, specifically brothers.

References

1. Gallagher, B. (1965). Controversy: eristic and heuristic.:.
2. Reames, R. (2018). Seeming and being in Plato's rhetorical theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
3. Walton, D. (1996). Arguments from ignorance. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press.
4. Walton, D. (1998). The new dialectic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
5. Walton, D. (1999). One-sided arguments. Albany (NY): State University of New York Press.