Stratagem 31
Original German
Wo man gegen die dargelegten Gründe des Gegners nichts vorzubringen weiß, erkläre man sich mit feiner Ironie für inkompetent: „was Sie da sagen, übersteigt meine schwache Fassungskraft: es mag sehr richtig seyn; allein ich kann es nicht verstehn, und begebe mich alles Urtheils.“ — Dadurch insinuirt man den Zuhörern, bei denen man in Ansehn steht, daß es Unsinn ist. So erklärten beim Erscheinen der Kritik der reinen Vernunft oder vielmehr beim Anfang ihres erregten Aufsehns viele Professoren von der alten eklektischen Schule „wir verstehn das nicht“, und glaubten sie dadurch abgethan zu haben. — Als aber einige Anhänger der neuen Schule ihnen zeigten, daß sie Recht hätten und es wirklich nur nicht verständen, wurden sie sehr übler Laune.
Man darf den Kunstgriff nur da brauchen, wo man sicher ist, bei den Zuhörern in entschieden höherm Ansehn zu stehn als der Gegner: z. B. ein Professor gegen einen Studenten. Eigentlich gehört dies zum vorigen Kunstgriff und ist ein Geltendmachen der eignen Autorität, statt der Gründe, auf besonders maliciöse Weise. — Der Gegenstreich ist: „Erlauben Sie, bei Ihrer großen Penetration, muß es [I]hnen ein leichtes seyn es zu verstehn, und kann nur meine schlechte Darstellung Schuld seyn“, — und nun ihm die Sache so ins Maul schmieren, daß er sie nolens volens verstehn muß und klar wird, daß er sie vorhin wirklich nur nicht verstand. — So ist's retorquirt: er wollte uns „Unsinn“ insinuiren: wir haben ihm „Unverstand“ bewiesen. Beides mit schönster Höflichkeit.
Musean translation
Machine-assisted, directly from Deussen’s German edition (1923).
When one has nothing to offer against the opponent's stated reasons, declare oneself incompetent with subtle irony: “What you say exceeds my poor powers of comprehension. It may be perfectly correct, but I cannot understand it, and I refrain from all judgment.” In this way one insinuates to listeners who respect one that it is nonsense. Thus, when the Critique of Pure Reason appeared—or rather, when it first began to cause a sensation—many professors of the old eclectic school declared, “We do not understand this,” and thought they had thereby disposed of it. When some adherents of the new school showed them that they were right and really did not understand it, they became very ill-tempered.
One may use this stratagem only where one is certain of enjoying decidedly greater standing among the listeners than the opponent—for example, a professor against a student. Strictly speaking, this belongs to the preceding stratagem: it is a particularly malicious assertion of one's own authority instead of reasons. The counterstroke is: “Permit me: with your great discernment, you must find it easy to understand, and only my poor presentation can be to blame.” Then spoon-feed him the matter so that, willing or unwilling, he must understand it, and it becomes clear that he really had merely failed to understand it before. Thus the argument is turned back: he wanted to insinuate “nonsense” against us; we have proved his “lack of understanding.” Both with the finest courtesy.
Plain English translation
Machine-assisted, independently translated directly from Deussen’s German edition (1923).
When you cannot answer the opponent's reasons, declare with quiet irony that you are not capable: “What you are saying is beyond my limited understanding. It may be quite correct, but I cannot understand it, so I will not judge.” This hints to listeners who respect you that the argument is nonsense. When the Critique of Pure Reason appeared, or rather when it first attracted attention, many professors of the old eclectic school said, “We do not understand that.” They thought this disposed of it. But when followers of the new school showed that they were right and really did not understand it, they became very bad-tempered.
Use this trick only if you are sure the listeners respect you much more than the opponent, as a professor might be respected more than a student. This really belongs to the previous trick. It is a particularly spiteful way of relying on your own authority instead of reasons. The response is: “Excuse me, with your great insight, this must be easy for you to understand. My poor explanation must be the only problem.” Then spoon-feed them the explanation until they have to understand it, whether they want to or not. It becomes clear that they simply failed to understand it before. The argument is turned back: they hinted that we were talking nonsense, but we have proved their failure to understand. Both moves are made with perfect politeness.
About this section
Stratagem 31 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 36 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.