On the Legitimacy of Eristic in the Context of Rhetoric

This paper is an attempt at a contemporary revision of eristics from the perspective of an allegation of being an immoral art of excuses that is only pretending to be rhetoric, a noble art of striving for the truth which is commonly (since ancient times) formulated against the eristics. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to evaluate the connection between rhetoric and eristics, especially in terms of similarities. The Aristotelian characteristic of eristics has already separated the two, indicating the dishonesty of those who use eristics. Artur Schopenhauer, in turn, diagnoses the term ‘disagreement’ by pointing out the innate tendency among people to win regardless of the means. Krzysztof Szymanek, on the other hand, strives to justify and, in a way, ‘cleanse’ the eristics from a part of the pejorative labels, showing mainly its technical dimension and partly combining it with rhetoric in terms of the impact that it has on the auditorium. The educational function of eristics, although it does not constitute its main purpose, allows for an evaluation of the eristics as a component of the art of arguments rather than just a collection of techniques unworthy of a respected speaker.