Stratagem 29
Original German
Merkt man daß1 man geschlagen wird; so macht man eine Diversion: d. h. fängt mit einem Male von etwas ganz anderm an, als gehörte es zur Sache und wäre ein Argument gegen den Gegner. Dies geschieht mit einiger Bescheidenheit wenn die Diversion doch noch überhaupt das thema quaestionis betrifft; unverschämt, wenn es bloß den Gegner angeht und gar nicht von der Sache redet.
Z. B. Ich lobte daß in China kein Geburtsadel sei und die Aemter nur in Folge von Examina ertheilt werden. Mein Gegner behauptete daß Gelehrsamkeit eben so wenig als Vorzüge der Geburt (von denen er etwas hielt) zu Aemtern fähig machte. — Nun gieng es für ihn schief. Sogleich machte er die Diversion, daß in China alle Stände mit der Bastonade gestraft werden, welches er mit dem vielen Theetrinken in Verbindung brachte und beides den Chinesen zum Vorwurf machte. — Wer nun gleich auf alles sich einließe, würde sich dadurch haben ableiten lassen und den schon errungenen Sieg aus den Händen gelassen haben.
Unverschämt ist die Diversion wenn sie die Sache quaestionis ganz und gar verläßt, und etwa anhebt: „ja, und so behaupteten Sie neulich ebenfalls etc. — — —“ Denn da gehört sie gewissermaaßen zum „Persönlichwerden“, davon in dem letzten Kunstgriff die Rede seyn wird. Sie ist genau genommen eine Mittelstufe zwischen dem daselbst zu erörternden argumentum ad personam und dem argumentum ad hominem. —
Wie sehr gleichsam angeboren dieser Kunstgriff sei, zeigt jeder Zank zwischen gemeinen Leuten: wenn nämlich Einer dem Andern persönliche Vorwürfe macht; so antwortet dieser nicht etwa durch Widerlegung derselben; sondern durch persönliche Vorwürfe die er dem Ersten macht, die ihm selbst gemachten steh[n] lassend, also gleichsam zugebend. Er macht es wie Scipio der die Karthager nicht in Italien sondern in Afrika angriff.(?) Im Kriege mag solche Diversion zu Zeiten taugen. Im Zanken ist sie schlecht, weil man die empfang[nen] Vorwürfe stehn läßt, und der Zuhörer alles Schlechte von beiden Partheien erfährt. Im Disputiren ist sie faute de mieux gebräuchlich.
1 [Daneben am Rand der späte Zusatz:] Zu Kunstgriff 18.
Musean translation
Machine-assisted, directly from Deussen’s German edition (1923).
If one notices that1 one is being defeated, make a diversion: suddenly begin speaking of something quite different, as though it belonged to the matter and were an argument against the opponent. This is done with some modesty if the diversion still concerns the general subject of the question; shamelessly if it concerns only the opponent and says nothing at all about the matter.
For example, I praised the fact that China had no hereditary nobility and that offices were granted only on the basis of examinations. My opponent maintained that learning qualified a person for office no more than the advantages of birth, which he valued. Things then went badly for him. At once he made the diversion that all classes in China are punished with the bastinado. He connected this with the drinking of much tea and reproached the Chinese for both. Anyone who immediately entered into all this would have allowed himself to be diverted and let an already-won victory slip from his hands.
The diversion is shameless when it entirely abandons the question at issue and begins, for example: “Yes, and you recently maintained something like that too, and so on.” Here it belongs in a sense to “becoming personal,” which will be discussed in the last stratagem. Strictly speaking, it is an intermediate stage between the argumentum ad personam to be examined there and the argumentum ad hominem.
How nearly inborn this stratagem is can be seen in every quarrel among common people. When one makes personal accusations against another, the other does not answer by refuting them, but by making personal accusations against the first, leaving those against himself standing and thus, as it were, conceding them. He acts like Scipio, who attacked the Carthaginians not in Italy but in Africa.(?) In war such a diversion may sometimes serve. In a quarrel it is poor, because it leaves the accusations received unanswered, and the listener learns everything bad about both parties. In disputation it is customary for want of anything better.
1 [The late addition beside this in the margin:] For stratagem 18.
Plain English translation
Machine-assisted, independently translated directly from Deussen’s German edition (1923).
When you notice that1 you are losing, make a diversion. Suddenly start talking about something entirely different, as if it belonged to the issue and were an argument against the opponent. This is somewhat restrained if it still concerns the general question. It is shameless if it concerns only the opponent and says nothing about the issue.
For example, I praised China for having no hereditary nobility and granting offices only through examinations. My opponent said learning qualified people for office no more than the advantages of birth, which he respected. His argument then started going badly. He immediately changed the subject to the fact that all social classes in China were punished by beating the soles of their feet. He connected this with their heavy tea drinking and criticized the Chinese for both. Anyone who immediately took up all these points would have been distracted and let an already-secured victory slip away.
The diversion is shameless if it abandons the question entirely and starts, for example, “Yes, and you were also claiming something like that the other day, and so on.” It then partly becomes a personal attack, which the last trick discusses. Strictly speaking, it lies between attacking the person, argumentum ad personam, discussed there, and arguing from the person's own position, argumentum ad hominem.
Quarrels among ordinary people show how nearly natural this trick is. When one accuses the other personally, the other answers with personal accusations of their own instead of refuting the first ones. They leave the accusations against themselves standing and so seem to admit them. They act like Scipio, who attacked the Carthaginians in Africa instead of Italy.(?) This sort of diversion can sometimes work in war. It is bad in a quarrel: it leaves the accusations unanswered and tells the listener everything bad about both sides. In debates people commonly use it because they have nothing better.
1 [The later addition beside this in the margin:] Related to trick 18.
About this section
Stratagem 29 is part of The Art of Being Right by Arthur Schopenhauer. This page sets the German original beside 2 direct-source translations, so any line can be checked against the source. It is section 34 of 43 in the work, which is kept in the European tradition.
Open the work page for the full contents, every edition, and the download links, or go back to Explore to browse other complete works in the European tradition. The reader keeps your place when you are signed in and lets you compare the original with each translation, one edition at a time.