Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.
Start by marking “The Art of Always Being Right” as Want to Read:
The Art of Always Being Right
Enlarge cover
Rate this book
Clear rating
Open Preview

The Art of Always Being Right

3.56  ·  Rating details ·  8,723 ratings  ·  823 reviews
Which are the logical tricks that will let you slip through the net when faced with awkward questions? How can you yourself use arguments to deflect difficult situations? Do you recognize all flaws in someone else's argument? This the book the BBC, Andrew Gilligan, Lord Hutton, Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell will not be able to ignore. This is an irresistible guide to cl ...more
Hardcover, 138 pages
Published 2004 by Gibson Square Books Ltd. (first published 1831)
More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about The Art of Always Being Right, please sign up.
Popular Answered Questions
Mohammad Zakerzadeh اسم اصلی کتاب The Vicar of Wakefield ئه که فکر کنم همون کتابیه که شوپنهاور بهش ارجاع داده. ولی دلیل و ربط ارجاع رو نمیدونم.
احتمالا الان با دونستن اسم…more
اسم اصلی کتاب The Vicar of Wakefield ئه که فکر کنم همون کتابیه که شوپنهاور بهش ارجاع داده. ولی دلیل و ربط ارجاع رو نمیدونم.
احتمالا الان با دونستن اسم کتاب میتونید چیزهایی در موردش پیدا کنید. (less)

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30
Average rating 3.56  · 
Rating details
 ·  8,723 ratings  ·  823 reviews

More filters
Sort order
Start your review of The Art of Always Being Right
Ahmad Sharabiani
Die Kunst, Recht zu beleidigen = The art of always being right: thirty eight ways to win when ‭you are defeated ..., Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)‬

The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831) is an acidulous and sarcastic treatise written by the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer in sardonic deadpan.

In it, Schopenhauer examines a total of thirty-eight methods of showing up one's opponent in a debate.

He introduces his essay with the idea that philosophers have concentrated
Jan 11, 2012 rated it really liked it
Shelves: philosophy, humor
Hilarious, insightful, and incredibly relevant.

(And what of course is the Ultimate Stratagem to win 'em all? Become personal, insulting, and rude! Troll, my boys and girls, troll!)
May 11, 2018 marked it as to-read  ·  review of another edition
I miss reading in Spanish, and I miss philosophy even more.
Ivonne Rovira
Apr 26, 2013 rated it liked it  ·  review of another edition
Recommended to Ivonne by: a guy on Paul Krugman's blog
One can discover things in the most unusual ways! While reading some comments on Paul Krugman's blog in The New York Times, one of those commenting mentioned this book and how prescient it's proved when it comes to arguments on Fox News and the right-wing blogs. Well, who could resist an invitation like that?

German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer amused himself with jotting down the nasty argumentative techniques he observed and recounting them in a satirical fashion, presumably for his personal
Jay Miklovic
Nov 02, 2012 rated it really liked it
I am not sure if it was Schopenhauer's intention or not, but this quickly little read was humorous.

Having just read a few books about logical fallacies in which the authors expressed disdain toward bad logic, this book came as a fresh treatise from the other side. Schopenhauer teaches you how to use logical fallacy to win your argument regardless of whether or not truth is on your side.

Anyway, it was fun to read, and I highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys a good argument. However, be careful
Dec 04, 2007 rated it it was amazing  ·  review of another edition
Shelves: reviews, philosophy
Herr Schopenhauer is the master of understanding a conflict; its- versions, progression and the knack of its decimation. This book makes a wonderful complement for his other book The art of always being Right. If you are sort of a being who would consider yourself philosophically inclined, you should not let go of the wisdom in both these books. They would, if understood rightly and applied aptly, come most handy in feverish University debates to Boardroom meetings than any other self help nonse ...more
Sandro Mancuso
Aug 08, 2018 rated it really liked it
This is the first time I’ve read Schopenhauer. Overall I enjoyed the book.

The book is mostly about winning debates even if that means ignoring logic and reason. The book lists 38 tricks identified by the author that people use to defend their position or undermine other’s in order to win debates. The point of the book is not for you to use these tricks, but to identify when they are being used against you or are being used in any other debate you might be interested. Being aware of those tricks
Nov 04, 2012 rated it liked it
Thanks to the great explanatory notes in the edition I read, I was able to understand that this was a work of irony, sarcasm, and possibly vengeance. Even though I know almost nothing about Schopenhauer, I tried to imagine each point of advice he gave (in 1831?)as an example of a specific argument with an opponent. He apparently often "lost" arguments in the view of others (in articles reporting them, perhaps) when in his view, the accuracy and truth of his argument had not been assailed at all. ...more
Jul 30, 2013 rated it it was amazing
I haven't read any book particulary on this branch of philosophy i.e. Ethics. This was first for Ethics as well as for Schopenhauer. Quite a dangerous book it is. Jeopardizing thoughts, this books continously explicates logic, dialectic and eristic dialectic in specific. Dark sarcasm, and influential tone with numerous examples makes it even powerful. For art of debate this book contains 38 stratagems to win the argument. Schopenhauer says ' It would be a very good thing if every trick could rec ...more
M Pereira
Rhetoric after Frege is pointless. However, for anyone without a mathematics and formal logic background, this is a pretty good and accessible guide to understanding the principles of argumentation and getting your point across. Who is the right audience for a work like this? Anyone who is trying to be a good lawyer or arguing a point in a board meeting or committee I suspect. I love Schopenhauer's lucid writing, which could be a little bit more concise, but its eloquence makes it readable all t ...more
Noura Eljerbi
Jun 21, 2016 rated it did not like it
States the obvious, with persuasive techniques. The examples are also vague.
Download at your own risk of a serious disappointment.
Rafael Bandeira
I got this book as a recommendation from my boss, and I must say, it was a good recommendation.

There are 38 tactics, mixing how to do it and how to protect from it, to be used in an argumentation and that will certainly help to put you on the right spot to win over any discussion.

Some philosophy knowledge is required, at least to understand the basic idea of dialectics and the difference between terms like "subjective", "relative", "imperative", "objective", etc. This might seem straight forward
Mar 04, 2019 rated it really liked it  ·  review of another edition
Interesting read on argumentation if you want to escape logic textbooks for philosophers and mathematicians. Based on dialectic method, Schopenhauer is suggesting building blocks for reasoned arguments escaping subjective experiences and using reasoning based on counter-arguments. This is practical book on attacking and maintaining an argument for the sake of an argument or an intellectual contest.
When it comes to saying that proposition is valid, we actually mean that it is true and we shouldn’
Turkel Afandiyev
If you enjoy debating or you're one of those types who gets into all types of arguments after 5 bottles of beer, this "Book of Tricks" can be useful for you. Even if the book lacks comparisons and some of the tricks shown are obsolete or already very well-known, it still can make you even a better debater.
Fr. Kyle
Jun 12, 2011 rated it it was ok  ·  review of another edition
Read via Librivox recording

Interesting book on dialectic. He goes about it the wrong way, inasmuch as the dialectic itself is more important for him than actually finding out the truth. Ridiculous premise for a philosopher in my opinion.
Sep 13, 2012 rated it really liked it
Wish I had read it much earlier in life...
Feb 06, 2014 rated it it was amazing
It's kind of amazing to think that Schopenhauer wrote a book about winning arguments on the Internet in 1831. A must read for any aspiring troll.
Aug 19, 2014 rated it really liked it
I mean, this is basically the single greatest self-help book ever written, so there's that.
Aug 29, 2019 rated it liked it
Shelves: negotiation
Like the content but it really lacks good examples.
Sep 08, 2016 rated it it was amazing  ·  review of another edition
This was actually kind of entertaining, sarcastic, and funny. This is something approximating a modern text in the Sophist tradition, as it has mainly to do with rhetoric and persuasion at the expense of truth. That isn't to say that Schopenhauer abandoned concern for the truth when he wrote this, only that he felt that for the purpose of debate there was an element (rhetoric, style, persuasion) which was just as important as truth but which tended to be ignored by philosophers in favor of reaso ...more
Daniel S
Jan 22, 2014 rated it liked it
"If you find that you are being worsted, you can make a diversion - that is, you can suddenly begin to talk of something else, as though it had a bearing on the matter in dispute, and afforded an argument against your opponent."

"If you know that you have no reply to the arguments which your opponent advances, you may, by a fine stroke of irony, declare yourself to be an incompetent judge: "What you now say passes my poor powers of comprehension; it may be all very true, but I can't understand it
Giannis Kafouros
Jul 23, 2020 rated it it was amazing
An absolute masterpiece of the dialectic and the management of controversies through the lens of rationalism. Arthur Schopenhauer, inspired by ancient Greek sophists, distinguishes the phenomenal reality from reality itself in order to explain simple tricks on how to convince your interlocutor about your point, having obviously a dose of irony in his rhetoric.
Jan 19, 2013 rated it liked it  ·  review of another edition
Shelves: philosophy
Schopenhauer starts out by clearly distinguishing logic and dialectic, which has generally and historically not been done (clearly) before (he presents exerts of the work by Aristotle and Plato as examples) and then continues to present 38 "Kunstgriffe", i.e. tricks that can be used to outwit your opponent in a disputation on dialectic alone.
The language used took me a while to get used to but then turned out to be rather precise and on the mark.
All tricks discussed (and partially illustrated w
Awais Iqbal
Schopenhauer was widely influenced by the ideas of Immanuel Kant, Plato and Goethe. Plato argued in The Republic, “you have to be familiar with the ways of the thieves and thugs if you desire to protect your people from the criminals”. Similarly, Kant argues that “the rightness or wrongness of an action cannot be judged by its consequences, rather by the criterion whether it serves the cause or not”.
Schopenhauer accepts that debates should solely be in the pursuit of truth, knowledge and gainin
Feb 19, 2012 rated it really liked it  ·  review of another edition
The critical introduction, on which Olavo de Carvalho links the ideas of dialectic, logic and eristic between Aristotle and Schopenhauer wasn't that thrilling for me since I am not really on track of this discussion, but to those with more knowledge of Aristotle (and Philosophy in general) it might be a helpful guide. Actually, Olavo's footnotes and comments are, overall, helpful and very thorough; providing good examples and expanding the framework (and sometimes pointing flaws) of Schopenhauer ...more
John Igo
Mar 20, 2018 rated it really liked it  ·  review of another edition
This is more like a very long essay than a short book but I liked it a lot.

Basically Schopenhauer lists 30 odd 'Stratagems' used in arguing that are somewhere between perversions of logic or downright dishonesty. Think something like "Logical Fallacy Referee" meme in essay form, but sketching various forms that dishonest argumentation takes. By sketching the forms that many of these maneuvers take I think it allows you to recognize the patterns when you see them in the wild.

They say that "know
Jacek Bartczak
Oct 22, 2018 rated it really liked it
The great set of approaches about how we can win a discussion. Not each of them is ethical, but it is worth to know how we may be (even unconsciously) cheated. That book also shows how many aspects a discussion has and how loosely it may be connected with a logic and truth.

I'm glad that book was written around 200 years ago - now probably it won't be published unless it has 300 pages instead of 65. Publishers would enrich essentials from the book with the scientific research or won't allow writ
Stephen Ng
Oct 25, 2015 rated it really liked it  ·  review of another edition
Shelves: philosophy, deutsch
Nowadays many of these argument tactics are being used in many places and many ways around us. People now will have to take more time with clear and unbiased mind to see through the fact before jump into a conclusion or will be fooled by those "sophists".

So it would be better for us to know about those tricks and how to respond wisely and promptly, like martial art (Of course for self-defence purpose).

Days is getting tough.......
Gregory Stuart
Nov 19, 2012 rated it it was ok
Recommends it for: Lawyers, people who have to talk to lawyers
Classical debate techniques (classical, meaning from Greek logical forms and fallacies). Interesting book if you want to know how lawyers and other argumentative debaters try to win arguments without truth. Helpful, but only if you want to know how to parry such despicable tricks as the ad hominem, etc.
Aug 28, 2014 rated it it was amazing
If you can get past the first bit, the list of tactics for successful argumentation is HILARIOUS. "Being right" is not about getting to the truth, it is about winning an argument. Winning. That's it. If your opponent is particularly bright, these tricks won't work. This book my dear Robert should never, ever read.
« previous 1 3 4 5 6 next »
topics  posts  views  last activity   
Politics: The Art of Always Being Right 2 39 Apr 12, 2019 02:50PM  

Readers also enjoyed

  • الحرب العالمية الثانية
  • سيكولوجية الجماهير
  • الحرب العالمية الأولى
  • ديكتاتوران
  • المياه كلها بلون الغرق
  • ‫العقد الاجتماعي أو مبادئ الفلسفة‬
  • The Dream Of A Ridiculous Man
  • العالم كما أراه
  • Existentialism is a Humanism
  • المناطق المحرمة بالخوف والإثم
  • عن هذا الكون الفسيح : حقائق عن الكون، والظهور الأول، ونطاق العِلم
  • Twilight of the Idols
  • وجهة نظر
  • Το δώρο
  • The Anti-Christ
  • 2019 on Goodreads
  • Το μονόγραμμα
  • Painting The Future: A Tales of Everday Magic Novel
See similar books…
Arthur Schopenhauer was born in the city of Danzig (then part of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth; present day Gdańsk, Poland) and was a German philosopher best known for his work The World as Will and Representation. Schopenhauer attempted to make his career as an academic by correcting and expanding Immanuel Kant's philosophy concerning the way in which we experience the world.

He was the son o

News & Interviews

Need another excuse to treat yourself to a new book this week? We've got you covered with the buzziest new releases of the day. To create our...
12 likes · 8 comments
“there are very few who can think, but every man wants to have an opinion; and what remains but to take it ready-made from others, instead of forming opinions for himself?” 81 likes
“If human nature were not base, but thoroughly honourable, we should in every debate have no other aim than the discovery of truth; we should not in the least care whether the truth proved to be in favour of the opinion which we had begun by expressing, or of the opinion of our adversary. That we should regard as a matter of no moment, or, at any rate, of very secondary consequence; but, as things are, it is the main concern. Our innate vanity, which is particularly sensitive in reference to our intellectual powers, will not suffer us to allow that our first position was wrong and our adversary’s right. The way out of this difficulty would be simply to take the trouble always to form a correct judgment. For this a man would have to think before he spoke. But, with most men, innate vanity is accompanied by loquacity and innate dishonesty. They speak before they think; and even though they may afterwards perceive that they are wrong, and that what they assert is false, they want it to seem thecontrary. The interest in truth, which may be presumed to have been their only motive when they stated the proposition alleged to be true, now gives way to the interests of vanity: and so, for the sake of vanity, what is true must seem false, and what is false must seem true.” 29 likes
More quotes…