Schopenhauer’s 38 eristic stratagems

Schopenhauer's 38 Stratagems come from his unfinished essay Eristische Dialektik (usually translated as The Art of Being Right or The Art of Controversy). He wrote it as a cold, sardonic catalogue of the dirty tricks people actually use when they care more about winning than about truth.

He distinguishes two activities:

• Logic / Dialectic (in the proper sense) = collaborative search for truth.
• Eristic = the art of appearing right, per fas et nefas (by fair means or foul).

The 38 stratagems belong entirely to the second category. Here they are, grouped and explained in plain language.

Stretching and Distorting the Opponent's Position

1. The Extension - Take your opponent's claim and push it far beyond what they meant, making it absurd, then attack the exaggerated version.
2. The Homonymy - Exploit a word that has two meanings. Treat the opponent's statement as if it used the other meaning, then "refute" that.
3. Generalize Specific Statements - Treat a limited, relative claim as if it were absolute and universal, then knock it down.
4. Generalize Admissions of Specific Cases - If they concede a particular instance, act as if they have conceded the general rule.
5. Generalize the Matter, Then Argue Against It - Broaden the topic until it becomes easier to attack.

Concealing Your Own Position

4. Conceal Your Game - Scatter the premises of your argument throughout the conversation so the opponent never sees where you are heading until it is too late.
5. Postulate What Has to Be Proved - Slip the very thing you need to prove into the discussion as if it were already accepted.
6. Yield Admissions Through Questions - Ask many questions (Socratic style) so the opponent ends up conceding the points you need.
7. Questions in Detouring Order - Ask questions out of logical order so the opponent cannot see the trap being set.
8. Draw Conclusions Yourself - Once they have granted most of the premises, simply announce the conclusion as if they had already accepted it.

Using the Opponent's Own Commitments

5. False Propositions (ex concessis) - Use premises the opponent already accepts (even if you know they are false) to force a conclusion against them.
6. Take Advantage of the Nay-Sayer - If they refuse everything, ask them to concede the opposite of what you want; their automatic "no" hands you the point.
7. Turn the Tables - Take their own argument and turn it back against them.

Emotional and Psychological Pressure

8. Make Your Opponent Angry - An angry person reasons poorly and becomes easier to defeat.
9. Make Him Exaggerate His Statement - Provoke them into overstatement, then refute the exaggerated version.
10. Anger Indicates a Weak Point - If they suddenly get angry about a particular point, press it harder; you have found a vulnerability.
11. Will Is More Effective Than Insight - Appeal to their self-interest or vanity rather than to reason. Make the truth seem personally costly to them.

Diversion and Obstruction

18. Interrupt, Break, Divert the Dispute - When you are losing, change the subject or break the flow.
19. Diversion - Suddenly introduce a new topic that seems vaguely related.
20. This Is Beyond Me - Feign that the subject is too deep or technical for you (irony) so you can dismiss their argument without answering it.

Authority, Rhetoric, and Appearance

12. Choose Metaphors Favourable to Your Proposition - Pick analogies and images that make your side look natural and theirs look ugly.
13. Agree to Reject the Counter-Proposition - Force a false dichotomy so that rejecting their preferred alternative makes your claim look inevitable.
14. Claim Victory Despite Defeat - Simply declare you have won, especially if the audience is not paying close attention.
15. Use Seemingly Absurd Propositions - Advance something extreme; if they reject it, you can claim they are rejecting an obvious truth.
16. Persuade the Audience, Not the Opponent - Ignore the person you are arguing with and play to the crowd. Make them look ridiculous so the audience sides with you.
17. Appeal to Authority Rather Than Reason - Cite authorities (real, twisted, or invented) that the opponent respects or does not understand.
18. Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category - Label their position with a hated name ("that's just socialism / fascism / relativism") so it is tainted by association.
19. Bewilder Your Opponent by Mere Bombast - Use impressive-sounding language, jargon, or complex sentences to confuse them into silence.

Logical Trickery and False Refutations

16. Arguments Ad Hominem - Attack the person instead of the claim (their character, motives, past statements, or behaviour).
17. Defense Through Subtle Distinction - When cornered, invent a fine distinction that lets you escape.
18. Meet Him With a Counter-Argument as Bad as His - Answer a weak argument with an equally weak one; the goal is victory, not truth.
19. False Claim of Petitio Principii - Accuse them of begging the question even when they are not.
20. State a False Syllogism - Draw absurd or unintended conclusions from their premises so the whole position looks ridiculous.
21. Find One Instance to the Contrary - Produce a single counter-example and treat it as fatal to a general claim.
22. It Applies in Theory, but Not in Practice - Concede the theory but claim the real world works differently.
23. Don't Let Him Off the Hook - Keep pressing a point they are trying to evade; their evasion itself is a sign of weakness.
24. A Faulty Proof Refutes His Whole Position - If they offer a bad argument for a true claim, refute the bad argument and act as if you have destroyed the claim itself.

The Nuclear Option

38. Become Personal, Insulting, Rude - When all else fails, abandon the subject entirely and attack the person. Schopenhauer notes that this is the most popular and most widely available stratagem, because anyone can do it.

Why This Matters

Schopenhauer's point is not that you should use these tricks. It is that they are used constantly, and that people who still believe they are in a sincere search for truth will lose to those who are only trying to win. Recognising the stratagems is the first defence against them - and the first step toward deciding when an argument is no longer worth having.