What do you think?
Rate this book
Winning Arguments: What Works and Doesn't Work in Politics, the Bedroom, the Courtroom, and the Classroom
A lively and accessible guide to understanding rhetoric by the world class English and Law professor and bestselling author of How to Write a Sentence.
Filled with the wit and observational prowess that shaped Stanley Fish’s acclaimed bestseller How to Write a Sentence, Winning Arguments guides readers through the “greatest hits� of rhetoric. In this clever and engaging guide, Stanley Fish offers insight and outlines the crucial keys you need to win any debate anywhere, anytime—drawn from landmark legal cases, politics, his own career, and even popular film and TV. A celebration of clashing minds and viewpoints, Winning Arguments is sure to become a classic.
Filled with the wit and observational prowess that shaped Stanley Fish’s acclaimed bestseller How to Write a Sentence, Winning Arguments guides readers through the “greatest hits� of rhetoric. In this clever and engaging guide, Stanley Fish offers insight and outlines the crucial keys you need to win any debate anywhere, anytime—drawn from landmark legal cases, politics, his own career, and even popular film and TV. A celebration of clashing minds and viewpoints, Winning Arguments is sure to become a classic.
224 pages, Hardcover
First published July 5, 2016
169 people are currently reading
1,178 people want to read
About the author
Stanley Fish
65books115followersStanley Eugene Fish is an American literary theorist and legal scholar. He was born and raised in Providence, Rhode Island. He is often associated with postmodernism, at times to his irritation, as he describes himself as an anti-foundationalist.
He is the Davidson-Kahn Distinguished University Professor of Humanities and a Professor of Law at Florida International University, in Miami, as well as Dean Emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and the author of 10 books. Professor Fish has also taught at the University of California, Berkeley, Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University, and Duke University.
He is the Davidson-Kahn Distinguished University Professor of Humanities and a Professor of Law at Florida International University, in Miami, as well as Dean Emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and the author of 10 books. Professor Fish has also taught at the University of California, Berkeley, Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University, and Duke University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 99 reviews
December 18, 2020
In rough political times I crave the clarity of Fish’s analysis of bounded argument spaces. My second read was even better than my first. New insights. And numbers of laugh-out-loud-at-the-cleverness moments. I’m indebted to Fish.
Numbers of other reviewers appeared to expect this to be a how-to book. They wanted help winning arguments. They don’t know Fish. That’s not his way. His way is to observe arguments from the outside—and to observe that because of human finitude, and, yea, human fallenness, those arguments will never go away until we no longer see through a glass darkly but instead face to face. Yes, he cites the Bible. He’s a Milton scholar. I dearly love Stanley Fish.
The thing is, though, that he *has* helped me “win arguments� with his counsel in this book and elsewhere. In particular, his observation that those who change their minds do so by pivoting on something they already believe—like the white supremacist who dropped his views the near instant he heard a neo-Nazi speaker inveigh against the undesirables and included people with cleft palates. The man’s child had a cleft palate. Fish also helped me by making the Rortian argument that truth is whatever you can persuade your colleagues to let you get away with. I’m a Christian; I don’t believe that. Truth is what God says it is. But “under the sun”—in places where God hasn’t spoken clearly, and among people who aren’t listening to God—there is important truth there. There is a pragmatic element to persuasion: you look for the arguments that will fly within the bounded space of the tradition your audience occupies.
And when, in the end, you don’t “win,� you don’t figure necessarily that you did it wrong. You look back to finiteness and fallenness and look forward to the eschaton. I love Stanley Fish. I pray that he’ll heed some of his own favorite words, Bunyan’s words, and seek “life, life, eternal life!� I so frequently feel that the clarity with which he sees must mean he’s close to the kingdom.
Numbers of other reviewers appeared to expect this to be a how-to book. They wanted help winning arguments. They don’t know Fish. That’s not his way. His way is to observe arguments from the outside—and to observe that because of human finitude, and, yea, human fallenness, those arguments will never go away until we no longer see through a glass darkly but instead face to face. Yes, he cites the Bible. He’s a Milton scholar. I dearly love Stanley Fish.
The thing is, though, that he *has* helped me “win arguments� with his counsel in this book and elsewhere. In particular, his observation that those who change their minds do so by pivoting on something they already believe—like the white supremacist who dropped his views the near instant he heard a neo-Nazi speaker inveigh against the undesirables and included people with cleft palates. The man’s child had a cleft palate. Fish also helped me by making the Rortian argument that truth is whatever you can persuade your colleagues to let you get away with. I’m a Christian; I don’t believe that. Truth is what God says it is. But “under the sun”—in places where God hasn’t spoken clearly, and among people who aren’t listening to God—there is important truth there. There is a pragmatic element to persuasion: you look for the arguments that will fly within the bounded space of the tradition your audience occupies.
And when, in the end, you don’t “win,� you don’t figure necessarily that you did it wrong. You look back to finiteness and fallenness and look forward to the eschaton. I love Stanley Fish. I pray that he’ll heed some of his own favorite words, Bunyan’s words, and seek “life, life, eternal life!� I so frequently feel that the clarity with which he sees must mean he’s close to the kingdom.
July 12, 2016
Nope. Nope. Nope.
Waste of THE time.
You will NOT learn how to win arguments.
You will learn that Stanley Fish is bent outta shape because he doesn't regularly receive credit for his interpretative community idea.
This is so haphazardly written that it makes me question whether this was actually written by a first year Ph.D or a tenured professor?!?
Waste of THE time.
You will NOT learn how to win arguments.
You will learn that Stanley Fish is bent outta shape because he doesn't regularly receive credit for his interpretative community idea.
This is so haphazardly written that it makes me question whether this was actually written by a first year Ph.D or a tenured professor?!?
March 7, 2017
The title of this book is rather unfortunate and will throw the average genial reader off. Reviews seem to reflect this. This is not a book that will instruct you on how to win arguments in various fields. This is not a manual on rhetoric. The subtitle appears to promise this, however. This work is basically an extended essay on the difficulties inherent in arguing at all, though argument is everywhere we look. In fact, Fish writes near the beginning that "arguments about the world come first, the world second", though the "ways of argument is context-specific". When read through with this in mind connecting all of it together this book becomes more deserving than two stars. Starting off with the Monty Python skit about buying an argument probably didn't help with presenting its material in a serious light at the beginning. Fish states that conducting arguments occur within specific parameters regulated and pertinent to the institutional arenas they take place in. Therefore political arguments will follow different rules than legal arguments, as the Sunday morning political talk show conducts its "debates" differently than those in the courtroom. Procedures are different because the goals are different. Sagely, the author suggests you do what you can to avoid arguments in the "bedroom", as those conflicts are usually aside from the actual point and are typically damaging to a domestic relationship. Yet arguments aside from the point are a common theme and almost a defining feature of "bounded arguments". A politician can find himself punished for venturing beyond his "talking points"; a witness in court may not be able to truly "testify" because laws governing legal argument won't allow it. This means that though argument might be ubiquitous, it is never perfect by definition. Fish touches upon those which purport to be, however. Foundationalists are perfect because they refuse outright to argue, whether they be the religious or liberal variety. Fish's politics may turn some readers off. In our time of political extremes, there seem to be many who are "perfect" on the left as well as right who consider themselves above any real engagement, much less argument. This book could have been organized better, true enough, but there is much in it that is worth thinking through. Not an easy read, but neither is the worldly human commerce which is argument.
October 28, 2018
I wonder who advised Fish to call his books "a how to." It's not, but if you've read Fish before, you probably know what to expect. The book is well-written and well-reasoned--especially the parts having to do with politics. Not so much the personal parts because there wasn't a theory there. The parts on law and contracts and legal precedent were very interesting and I think I may even use the chapter on contracts in my class.
May 16, 2019
Fish is an Elsa; I'm an Anna (And I suspect you are too.)
Also misleading title. Should be something more along the lines of "On the Persistence of Argument: Why We Can't (And Probably Shouldn't Try to) Stop Arguing"
In his introduction, Fish tells us exactly what he proposes to do:
1) Explain how arguments work in different contexts
2) Argue that argument is unavoidable
And he does both of these things. The first project serves the second, so the second really is the heart of the book.
His explanation of how we argue in different domains: political, domestic, legal, and academic, is helpful. It gives us a new way to think about arguments in these areas. For example:
Making your facts - the facts your opponents deride as mere opinion - stick is the whole of politics.
and
Domestic quarrels...are never about their surface content...but about the asymmetrical needs each party is intent on satisfying in ways that act as negative triggers for the other.
What disappointed me is that there's very little "so what" to all of this. We're not taught how to argue better, or more effectively in any of these contexts, nor - because of Fish's second project - are we ever given any real incentive to try, since argument will never end, there's never any real hope of settling an issue.
The title is Winning Arguments: What Works and What Doesn't In Politics, the Bedroom, the Courtroom, and the Classroom So I expected to learn strategies for winning arguments in "Politics, the Bedroom, the Courtroom, and the Classroom." Alas, I did not. I learned about differences in argumentation in these diverse arenas, but not about how to argue more effectively in them.
And I wonder why.
Fish writes, "Truth and knowledge are always in the process of being renegotiated . There is no end, no stopping point to this process and there is no end to - no resolution of - argument....So repeat after me: argument is everywhere, argument is unavoidable, argument is interminable, argument is all we have."
But if "argument is unavoidable," if it is "all we have," isn't that an argument for getting better at it?
Apparently not to Fish. It seems that to him, it's an argument that skill in argument doesn't matter, since it is, after all, interminable. This reading makes Fish a bit of an Elsa.
The cold never bothered him anyway.
But I'm an Anna - and I suspect most of us are. We want to figure out how to live together, how to get along despite our differences: "I know you can freeze my heart with your magic snow fingers, but we can still play together!"
The book would be most helpful to those who wish to be disabused of the notion that we might avoid arguments if only we would X, or that we might make our culture and communities less contentious by implementing Y.
I don't wish to be disabused of this idea. I'm interested in making our discussions more productive and our communities more united. To me that involves learning how to argue more persuasively in politics, the bedroom, the courtroom, and the classroom.
Also misleading title. Should be something more along the lines of "On the Persistence of Argument: Why We Can't (And Probably Shouldn't Try to) Stop Arguing"
In his introduction, Fish tells us exactly what he proposes to do:
1) Explain how arguments work in different contexts
2) Argue that argument is unavoidable
And he does both of these things. The first project serves the second, so the second really is the heart of the book.
His explanation of how we argue in different domains: political, domestic, legal, and academic, is helpful. It gives us a new way to think about arguments in these areas. For example:
Making your facts - the facts your opponents deride as mere opinion - stick is the whole of politics.
and
Domestic quarrels...are never about their surface content...but about the asymmetrical needs each party is intent on satisfying in ways that act as negative triggers for the other.
What disappointed me is that there's very little "so what" to all of this. We're not taught how to argue better, or more effectively in any of these contexts, nor - because of Fish's second project - are we ever given any real incentive to try, since argument will never end, there's never any real hope of settling an issue.
The title is Winning Arguments: What Works and What Doesn't In Politics, the Bedroom, the Courtroom, and the Classroom So I expected to learn strategies for winning arguments in "Politics, the Bedroom, the Courtroom, and the Classroom." Alas, I did not. I learned about differences in argumentation in these diverse arenas, but not about how to argue more effectively in them.
And I wonder why.
Fish writes, "Truth and knowledge are always in the process of being renegotiated . There is no end, no stopping point to this process and there is no end to - no resolution of - argument....So repeat after me: argument is everywhere, argument is unavoidable, argument is interminable, argument is all we have."
But if "argument is unavoidable," if it is "all we have," isn't that an argument for getting better at it?
Apparently not to Fish. It seems that to him, it's an argument that skill in argument doesn't matter, since it is, after all, interminable. This reading makes Fish a bit of an Elsa.
Let it go, let it go
Turn away and slam the door
I don't care what they're going to say
Let the storm rage on
The cold never bothered him anyway.
But I'm an Anna - and I suspect most of us are. We want to figure out how to live together, how to get along despite our differences: "I know you can freeze my heart with your magic snow fingers, but we can still play together!"
The book would be most helpful to those who wish to be disabused of the notion that we might avoid arguments if only we would X, or that we might make our culture and communities less contentious by implementing Y.
I don't wish to be disabused of this idea. I'm interested in making our discussions more productive and our communities more united. To me that involves learning how to argue more persuasively in politics, the bedroom, the courtroom, and the classroom.
July 22, 2016
Stanley Fish is a very smart guy. But this is a poorly disguised rhetorical romp gussied up in the guise of pontifical logic. Fish begins with a purposeful but grossly wrongheaded reading of Orwell, and barrels downward from there. Not until 70 pages in does he let slip his true colors and declare himself as, not a logical reasoner, but simply an an ardent and unreconstructed free-marketeer.
On the upside, he provides the best argument I have read so far that attempts to justify the late justice Scalia's philosophy and often egregious public behavior and proclamations. His chapter 4 on legal arguments is a nice introduction to the constrained world and fictions of law for novices. Chapter 5, on academics, is less good, but still not bad on legal academia. When he addresses the challenges of technology and the internet, the fact that his sources all seem to predate the 21st century leave his writing in the bin of historical moments passed by.
Oh, and the banal attempts in chapter 5 to address both holocaust denial and "intelligent design" (a.k.a. creationism) are weak at best, and damaging at worst to an understanding of both the nature of historical inquiry and a broader understanding of the scientific method.
As he himself states, argument never fully persuades opponents; only conversion does that. So far I remain unpersuaded and far, far from the road to Damascus.
On the upside, he provides the best argument I have read so far that attempts to justify the late justice Scalia's philosophy and often egregious public behavior and proclamations. His chapter 4 on legal arguments is a nice introduction to the constrained world and fictions of law for novices. Chapter 5, on academics, is less good, but still not bad on legal academia. When he addresses the challenges of technology and the internet, the fact that his sources all seem to predate the 21st century leave his writing in the bin of historical moments passed by.
Oh, and the banal attempts in chapter 5 to address both holocaust denial and "intelligent design" (a.k.a. creationism) are weak at best, and damaging at worst to an understanding of both the nature of historical inquiry and a broader understanding of the scientific method.
As he himself states, argument never fully persuades opponents; only conversion does that. So far I remain unpersuaded and far, far from the road to Damascus.
January 2, 2021
Perhaps it is fitting that I finished the year 2020 with a book on argument, but as many have noted, this is not a how-to book. Instead, it explains and explores what argument is: everything.
December 24, 2016
If I were a smarter person than I am, I would like this book more than I do, but even so, I gave it 4 stars. There is a lot of meat here, a lot of food for thought.
But first, let me say what the book isn't. Despite the title, it isn't a step-by-step guide on how to win an argument, although Fish does a nice job of analyzing the techniques of arguments. And despite the subtitle "What Works and Doesn't Work in... the Bedroom...", you will not learn how to convince your significant other to have (or not have) sex with you. The Bedroom chapter is really about getting along in a relationship.
The author doesn't dumb down his ideas or his vocabulary for a general audience. If you aren't comfortable with words like simulacrum, praxis, and pastiche, you might want to have a dictionary handy. But it's not the vocabulary so much as the density of thought that will (or ought to) slow the reader down, and I mean this as a compliment.
Fish uses examples from sources as diverse as Milton and Monty Python to make his points. Fish talks about the bounded argument space of the courtroom and the classroom. He examines the struggles of Adam and Eve in Milton's Paradise Lost. He points out that words are very powerful. They can create a marriage ("I now pronounce you man and wife.") and a country (the Declaration of Independence). He gives instances of the minority view becoming the majority and vice versa, and how that can happen.
I wish I had the time to go more into depth. I think if you are into philosophy or rhetoric, you would like this book. If you like to question the status quo, especially in the professional or academic spheres, you would like this book.
But first, let me say what the book isn't. Despite the title, it isn't a step-by-step guide on how to win an argument, although Fish does a nice job of analyzing the techniques of arguments. And despite the subtitle "What Works and Doesn't Work in... the Bedroom...", you will not learn how to convince your significant other to have (or not have) sex with you. The Bedroom chapter is really about getting along in a relationship.
The author doesn't dumb down his ideas or his vocabulary for a general audience. If you aren't comfortable with words like simulacrum, praxis, and pastiche, you might want to have a dictionary handy. But it's not the vocabulary so much as the density of thought that will (or ought to) slow the reader down, and I mean this as a compliment.
Fish uses examples from sources as diverse as Milton and Monty Python to make his points. Fish talks about the bounded argument space of the courtroom and the classroom. He examines the struggles of Adam and Eve in Milton's Paradise Lost. He points out that words are very powerful. They can create a marriage ("I now pronounce you man and wife.") and a country (the Declaration of Independence). He gives instances of the minority view becoming the majority and vice versa, and how that can happen.
I wish I had the time to go more into depth. I think if you are into philosophy or rhetoric, you would like this book. If you like to question the status quo, especially in the professional or academic spheres, you would like this book.
November 10, 2016
I listened to the end. I tried to make sense of anything he said. I got nothing out of this. I had hoped for some kind of insight into changing viewpoints. This seemed to be a book about disagreements with labels. A big snooze for me. The only thing clever about this book was how he got it published.
January 31, 2021
I'm not sure what this book is about. I was not expecting or wanting instruction on how to win arguments as it appears other readers may have. This book is more of a collection of somewhat-related essays on the 'bounded argument space' of rhetoric within which differing perceptions attempt to move toward some kind of resolution. While the core of the book appears to be a consideration of the ways that arguments get framed in different contexts, if this indeed was what the book was about, then I think it needed more textual glue to bring the different chapters together.
For the first third of the book (or so), I loved it, and was on track to give it 5 stars - as it stands now, I debate with myself whether 2 or 3 stars is appropriate for my reading of it. In these opening sections, Fish describes how rhetoric shapes the 'reality space' (my term, not his) within which participants engage, and explores the difficulties of getting any kind of rational closures. He discusses political spheres of engagement, and how the framing of issues like slavery and liberty defy any common kind of basis that would afford them an easy resolution.
When he moves into the domestic sphere, his depiction (using Milton's Adam and Eve from Paradise Lost) of the often rapid downward spiral of marital discourse feels spot-on, but he then moves into discussions of marriages as seen in Hollywood comedy shows, which seems weirdly out-of-place. This is followed with a discussion that includes the value of marriage manuals.
Later chapters look at the severely restricted 'bounded argument' space of the legal system (this was interesting material), followed by a description of arguments as seen in the academic world. This is where I really struggled with Fish's text. In the context of discussing admissibility of some arguments (e.g., should Holocaust deniers be given any academic credence), he ends up discussing the Intelligent Design vs Evolution arguments. He indicates the (equivalent?) viability of both sides of this argument, while indicating that the academic community will never allow the Intelligent Design crowd to ever get into positions that would allow their arguments to be really heard or considered. This feels very wrong, as the 'side' of Evolution has vast amounts of empirical evidence on it's side, while the other has faith and/or prophetic literature. One wonders if the book had been written in Galileo's time whether it would have given the argument of the church and the argument of Galileo's science the same weight? Very late in the book he comes back to the faith vs empirical science dichotomy, but the discussion of Intelligent Design vs Evolution itself seems pretty wrong (I somewhat wondered if Fish was very religious himself, and wanted God/Intelligent Design to get more consideration/credence).
For the first third of the book (or so), I loved it, and was on track to give it 5 stars - as it stands now, I debate with myself whether 2 or 3 stars is appropriate for my reading of it. In these opening sections, Fish describes how rhetoric shapes the 'reality space' (my term, not his) within which participants engage, and explores the difficulties of getting any kind of rational closures. He discusses political spheres of engagement, and how the framing of issues like slavery and liberty defy any common kind of basis that would afford them an easy resolution.
When he moves into the domestic sphere, his depiction (using Milton's Adam and Eve from Paradise Lost) of the often rapid downward spiral of marital discourse feels spot-on, but he then moves into discussions of marriages as seen in Hollywood comedy shows, which seems weirdly out-of-place. This is followed with a discussion that includes the value of marriage manuals.
Later chapters look at the severely restricted 'bounded argument' space of the legal system (this was interesting material), followed by a description of arguments as seen in the academic world. This is where I really struggled with Fish's text. In the context of discussing admissibility of some arguments (e.g., should Holocaust deniers be given any academic credence), he ends up discussing the Intelligent Design vs Evolution arguments. He indicates the (equivalent?) viability of both sides of this argument, while indicating that the academic community will never allow the Intelligent Design crowd to ever get into positions that would allow their arguments to be really heard or considered. This feels very wrong, as the 'side' of Evolution has vast amounts of empirical evidence on it's side, while the other has faith and/or prophetic literature. One wonders if the book had been written in Galileo's time whether it would have given the argument of the church and the argument of Galileo's science the same weight? Very late in the book he comes back to the faith vs empirical science dichotomy, but the discussion of Intelligent Design vs Evolution itself seems pretty wrong (I somewhat wondered if Fish was very religious himself, and wanted God/Intelligent Design to get more consideration/credence).
October 11, 2020
"I can think of at least two things wrong with that title"
-Nelson Muntz
Winning Arguments has some major things working against it, as many other reviewers have pointed out:
1) the title is dangerously close to (if not outright) clickbait. The book is NOT a how-to on how to debate. This point strikes me as odd because I can't remember the last time, or if ever, I had read another book where the title failed to descibe the contents so completely.
2) Fish's structure and prose style frankly sucks. If I had to describe the tone of the book in one word, it would be "bloviating". Fish just rambles on and fails to make clear points stick.
It's funny, because I was wondering the other day what it would take for me to give a book one star, and here we are. Please please save your money for something else.
-Nelson Muntz
Winning Arguments has some major things working against it, as many other reviewers have pointed out:
1) the title is dangerously close to (if not outright) clickbait. The book is NOT a how-to on how to debate. This point strikes me as odd because I can't remember the last time, or if ever, I had read another book where the title failed to descibe the contents so completely.
2) Fish's structure and prose style frankly sucks. If I had to describe the tone of the book in one word, it would be "bloviating". Fish just rambles on and fails to make clear points stick.
It's funny, because I was wondering the other day what it would take for me to give a book one star, and here we are. Please please save your money for something else.
September 6, 2017
I read and enjoyed Professor Fish's book "How to Write a Sentence". I expected "Winning Arguments" to be in a similar vein: a tutorial on winning arguments. Instead, the book is a defense of the art of rhetoric. If that subject is of interest to you, Professor Fish is an able guide. If you are looking for insights into how to craft more persuasive arguments, look elsewhere.
February 29, 2024
I loved listening to these arguments, while laughing at the admission that one can never win an argument. The argument simply continues.
I'm not sure that I will listen to this audiobook again, but not through any fault of the author. It is simply because I'm not sure I would learn anything more by the effort. I already know this information.
I'm not sure that I will listen to this audiobook again, but not through any fault of the author. It is simply because I'm not sure I would learn anything more by the effort. I already know this information.
October 6, 2019
Prof. Fish, go back to literature criticism, please.
February 29, 2020
The title absolute is clickbait, even is the introduction I believe.
It does not study various winning arguments, nor instruct you on constructing winning arguments.
It is walk from the authors mind of certain arguments and larger romp or exploration about them.
Lacks any structure or an overall point that justifies a book.
It does not study various winning arguments, nor instruct you on constructing winning arguments.
It is walk from the authors mind of certain arguments and larger romp or exploration about them.
Lacks any structure or an overall point that justifies a book.
December 18, 2021
Excellent. Everyone should read this book.
April 29, 2020
Nothing new. Nothing worthwhile.
July 17, 2021
Stanley Fish discusses rhetoric in "Winning Arguments." He merely discusses as I said. In that sense, the book is disappointing. I thought it would be a guide to use rhetoric better, but instead, it showed how arguments change over time.
January 14, 2017
Pretty good. A lot of words to say something very simple, but it is after all a building to an argument: that is, that you can never get rid of argument. Many great examples of argumentation. The best chapters, in order are: Academic arguments, Marital arguments, Political arguments and Legal arguments. The legal section was OK but I skimmed most of it. Stanley is an erudite and clear writer, so it was enjoyable to read. Given the current media and political landscape, more people should read and understand the nature of argumentation, and this books gives a good overview of how argumentation works and how it can be manipulated.
April 23, 2019
I picked this up because I wanted an old-school right-wing academic's take on all the right-wing arguments by frauds on the internet. It was honestly refreshing. Fish would dEsTRoy Jordon Peterson's ilk.
The core of this book isn't about "winning" arguments, it's a meditation on why some people want to argue, and some people don't. If you are someone who is dragged or baited into arguments with your Fox News-brainwashed friends, Fish will not teach you the rhetorical tricks to beat them. The best advice he gave on those types of arguments was when the master rhetorician wasn't able to outwit his 4-year-old daughter (you cannot reason with a toddler). When all else fails, just punch them. Argument won. I was hoping for an alternative to winning arguments, but you can't mess with what works.
I'm definitely going to recommend this to my Jordon Peterson friends. Fish provides the biblical references, lofty diction, conservative view, and complaints about academia that they long for--plus some self-help and (so out-of-date it's biblical) marriage advice too! The difference is that Fish is not a fraud. He's entrenched in academia (he was the dean of my university!). The fact this guy exists and prospers disproves the whole liberal conspiracy, by the way.
3 stars: as an ultraliberal bible-burning feminist rhetorician who hates arguing (most definitely not the audience for this book), I mostly enjoyed this book. Minus two stars for the lack of rhetoric talk aside from a few passing mentions.
The core of this book isn't about "winning" arguments, it's a meditation on why some people want to argue, and some people don't. If you are someone who is dragged or baited into arguments with your Fox News-brainwashed friends, Fish will not teach you the rhetorical tricks to beat them. The best advice he gave on those types of arguments was when the master rhetorician wasn't able to outwit his 4-year-old daughter (you cannot reason with a toddler). When all else fails, just punch them. Argument won. I was hoping for an alternative to winning arguments, but you can't mess with what works.
I'm definitely going to recommend this to my Jordon Peterson friends. Fish provides the biblical references, lofty diction, conservative view, and complaints about academia that they long for--plus some self-help and (so out-of-date it's biblical) marriage advice too! The difference is that Fish is not a fraud. He's entrenched in academia (he was the dean of my university!). The fact this guy exists and prospers disproves the whole liberal conspiracy, by the way.
3 stars: as an ultraliberal bible-burning feminist rhetorician who hates arguing (most definitely not the audience for this book), I mostly enjoyed this book. Minus two stars for the lack of rhetoric talk aside from a few passing mentions.
June 27, 2016
I got a copy of this from a goodreads giveaway and I was a little concerned that it might be a clichéd self-help type of book. It was actually more a descriptive than prescriptive book about argument. Mr. Fish outlines different argument battlegrounds and their differing rules. Political argument means trading soundbites and talking points, academic argument requires following the academic rules in order to be taken seriously, etc... He argues that there are several situations in which there is no way to "win" an argument (like in marital fights) but that's ok. Language can never be purged of argument as some have called for. The fact that we can argue, whether it's belligerent or to gain understanding, is a win. I don't think I'll be able to change anyone's political ideas after reading this though. Interesting book.
August 1, 2016
Received a free copy of this work through ŷ Giveaways. I was not impressed with thus work at all. It purports to cover arguments and how to win them, but definitely focuses on legal arguments. The writing is pretty poor as well. When it comes to run-on sentences, these are marathoners. Couldn't even finish the book.
July 30, 2016
Started well but lost the momentum in between. I am not sure if i didn't like the style or the title was a misnomer. Anyways book has few real examples that are well presented.
May 2, 2021
I was wrong last week when I professed that I was done reading for 2020. This past summer in PEI, Val and I happened upon a used book store, and I saw Stanley Fish’s Winning Arguments on one of the back tables, knowing immediately I had to have it. In this text, Fish seeks to define the idea that arguments are not finite, yet they exist in different realms, bounded by the space that is agreed upon originally based on the parameters for the arguments to be had.
Looking first at the different basis of arguments to be used, the author quickly dispels various “socially acceptable� methods of arguing. For instance, he points out that the idea of arguments from authority is only valid if such an authority is validated prior. The example he uses is that of parents telling kids “because I said so�, which forms basis of authority that ultimately returns to the point of origin considering that parents give life to their children. However, does this idea of authority hold sway throughout existence then? Should parent organisms always maintain authority over their subordinate or children organisms? This is where the idea of context and bound space of arguments comes in.
In fact, as aforementioned, arguments are not actually finite, but rather based solely on persuasion. It is the ability to overpower the adversary in positioning that allows one to see victory in an argument (should that be the goal in the first place). This sets a dangerous precedent, as we know that sufficiently skilled speakers can therefore make the worse appear the better, and ultimately move direction of such an institution or organization as they see fit based on said persuasion. Think of Hitler, Caesar, or any other that underlined the notion of “victory is written by the winners�. It is therefore important to have caution when considering the consequences of arguments, but it is not just of skilled speakers with questionable motives we must be cautious of overall.
Moving into a section regarding Merchants of Doubt, Fish emphasizes that others with lesser speech abilities still find the ability to persuade simply by questioning the popular position itself. For example, Big Tobacco got away for a long time with their advertisements not by beating the science against their products, but rather by creating noise and continuously questioning the certainty of the science itself. Most recently, Donald Trump was able to achieve the world stage and proclaim his platform on the basis that he refused to play by the rules of the platform in the first place. In this sense, sometimes the best way to beat the game is to not play the game at all, but rather play a game of your own in which you set the rules.
Speaking to the evolution of argument since Aristotle and the idea of rhetoric alone, Fish demonstrates how we’ve moved from an argumentative culture of “What’s the best thing to do?� towards a culture of “What can I do to win?�. The past notion of working based on Logos with supporting notions from Pathos and Ethos have now gone to the wayside as parties no longer seek to analyze both sides of the conflict for a hybrid resolution, but rather simply wait out the argument of their opponent before dishing back a position of their own. This is commonly known hearing versus listening, and I must say that I myself am just as guilty of it as any other. Fish takes the time to actually look at various domains where this holds true, even taking up the devil’s advocacy of creationism and intelligent design vice the evolutionary theory. To this effect, he argues that ID isn’t even able to gain foothold because the presentation of it must be made to the overall scientific community, which maintains its own dogmatic code, ironically to a religious level barring any talk of ideals outside the realm of natural science.
With the outline of arguments about arguments in this text coming to a head (because what would be the point of a book about arguments without arguing a position?), Stanley Fish points to the inevitable schism that occurs between two entities over a long enough period of time. In the context of Liberalism versus Religion, the two sides over millennia have outlined their positions to such a razor sharp edge that the arguments no longer become about listening to each side anymore, but rather about catching the other in a tiny mistake to seemingly gain that two meters of ground on the moral battlefield. In the entre-temps, those caught in between just end up being the historical soldiers of the Somme, destined to do and die in the name of such an endless conflict. Try not to let it get you down when you really think about it, the book has other uses that to make you sad!
Overall, this was well worth the read, although I expected more of a manual for arguing (sorry Val!) than the discourse I got about society. I would recommend it for anyone interested in rhetoric, but maybe read it with something in between this and other works such as Meditations so you don’t get to the point of questioning your own purpose like True Detective Season 1 has you do anyways. Happy Reading!
Looking first at the different basis of arguments to be used, the author quickly dispels various “socially acceptable� methods of arguing. For instance, he points out that the idea of arguments from authority is only valid if such an authority is validated prior. The example he uses is that of parents telling kids “because I said so�, which forms basis of authority that ultimately returns to the point of origin considering that parents give life to their children. However, does this idea of authority hold sway throughout existence then? Should parent organisms always maintain authority over their subordinate or children organisms? This is where the idea of context and bound space of arguments comes in.
In fact, as aforementioned, arguments are not actually finite, but rather based solely on persuasion. It is the ability to overpower the adversary in positioning that allows one to see victory in an argument (should that be the goal in the first place). This sets a dangerous precedent, as we know that sufficiently skilled speakers can therefore make the worse appear the better, and ultimately move direction of such an institution or organization as they see fit based on said persuasion. Think of Hitler, Caesar, or any other that underlined the notion of “victory is written by the winners�. It is therefore important to have caution when considering the consequences of arguments, but it is not just of skilled speakers with questionable motives we must be cautious of overall.
Moving into a section regarding Merchants of Doubt, Fish emphasizes that others with lesser speech abilities still find the ability to persuade simply by questioning the popular position itself. For example, Big Tobacco got away for a long time with their advertisements not by beating the science against their products, but rather by creating noise and continuously questioning the certainty of the science itself. Most recently, Donald Trump was able to achieve the world stage and proclaim his platform on the basis that he refused to play by the rules of the platform in the first place. In this sense, sometimes the best way to beat the game is to not play the game at all, but rather play a game of your own in which you set the rules.
Speaking to the evolution of argument since Aristotle and the idea of rhetoric alone, Fish demonstrates how we’ve moved from an argumentative culture of “What’s the best thing to do?� towards a culture of “What can I do to win?�. The past notion of working based on Logos with supporting notions from Pathos and Ethos have now gone to the wayside as parties no longer seek to analyze both sides of the conflict for a hybrid resolution, but rather simply wait out the argument of their opponent before dishing back a position of their own. This is commonly known hearing versus listening, and I must say that I myself am just as guilty of it as any other. Fish takes the time to actually look at various domains where this holds true, even taking up the devil’s advocacy of creationism and intelligent design vice the evolutionary theory. To this effect, he argues that ID isn’t even able to gain foothold because the presentation of it must be made to the overall scientific community, which maintains its own dogmatic code, ironically to a religious level barring any talk of ideals outside the realm of natural science.
With the outline of arguments about arguments in this text coming to a head (because what would be the point of a book about arguments without arguing a position?), Stanley Fish points to the inevitable schism that occurs between two entities over a long enough period of time. In the context of Liberalism versus Religion, the two sides over millennia have outlined their positions to such a razor sharp edge that the arguments no longer become about listening to each side anymore, but rather about catching the other in a tiny mistake to seemingly gain that two meters of ground on the moral battlefield. In the entre-temps, those caught in between just end up being the historical soldiers of the Somme, destined to do and die in the name of such an endless conflict. Try not to let it get you down when you really think about it, the book has other uses that to make you sad!
Overall, this was well worth the read, although I expected more of a manual for arguing (sorry Val!) than the discourse I got about society. I would recommend it for anyone interested in rhetoric, but maybe read it with something in between this and other works such as Meditations so you don’t get to the point of questioning your own purpose like True Detective Season 1 has you do anyways. Happy Reading!
August 16, 2021
This is the third book of Fish I’ve read, after HOW TO WRITE A SENTENCE and THE FIRST. My opinion of his writing has remained consistent, though at this point I’m getting more annoyed by his unearned arrogance than I am intrigued by his ideas.
First let me say that what keeps bringing me back to Fish is that he does begin with an interesting idea, usually something irreverent and galaxy-brained. In THE FIRST, it’s that the First Amendment is flawed; here, it’s that everything, literally everything, is an argument and that facts exist only so long as they can be successfully argued. And generally I *would* say that he writes in an accessible and engaging way. However, I also liken Fish to a writer of apologetics: he has a tendency to make declarative statements, assuming the truth of his pronouncements, without adequately supporting them. I’m also beginning to notice a tendency to start with a big idea but then have no real plan of where to go with it, or else to become bored of it quite quickly, so that there is no particular advancement of his thesis, but just endless repetition of it.
I think WINNING ARGUMENTS is the worst of the three I’ve read so far. There are times it feels like Fish is an undergraduate student trying desperately to stretch out a thin amount of research into a 10-page paper. I was particularly irritated by a lengthy digression in the “Domestic Arguments� section about some of his favorite classic sitcoms, all of which results in the conclusion the television marriages do not present actual arguments, per se. It’s pages of text to say nothing. This is followed by a “Legal Arguments� section which is mostly a very basic primer on legal terminology, hardly a step above “Webster’s Dictionary defines argument as…� I’m frankly astounded that Fish didn’t start double-spacing his paragraphs and increasing the font size in an effort to dive over what must have been his contractually-obligated 200 pages.
Then there’s his section on “Academic Arguments� which is a favorite subject of his, falling back on a bizarre insistence that TRUE academics is devoid of perspective or intent beyond the general intent to increase awareness I suppose. What makes this bizarre is that so much of the book outside of this section is about the *inability* to separate argument from its context, yet here the author insists academia is a hallowed, empty shell designed only to spark but never develop specific thoughts.
He seems incapable of turning the lens upon himself. He makes similarly galling admissions when he repeatedly cites Antonin Scalia, with apparent approval, and describes himself as an intentional originalist when it comes to Constitutional interpretation, i.e. somebody who believes the *intent* of the Founders should control. Yet he ought to see the flaw in this position given his core argument that *argument* defines facts—the Founders� supposed “intent� is hardly concrete. Later, he goes into an extended riff about creationism/Intelligent Design. Here is one of the Scalia quotes, from a 1968 pre-SCOTUS dissent in which Scalia claims creationism is as scientifically valid—potentially more so, now that I think about it! (“the evidence may be stronger�)—than evolution. While insisting that he’s not putting his finger on the scale one way or the other, Fish repeatedly claims that creationism has been rejected out of hand (that is, without reason� except for the judgment of experts, of course, which he acknowledges but quickly dismisses), insisting that the scientific establishment has “condescending[ly] . . . made up their mind already�. This is all to prop up an argument that inclusion in the scientific field of academics is restricted by presuppositions about what is valid “science�, not by a reasoned argument. Yet the idea that scientists have “made up their mind already� is completely unsupported. Like the female student he condescendingly describes coming to him with a conclusion before an argument, Fish himself has a conclusion (“ID is rejected simply for being outside of the accepted paradigm and no other reason!�) and doesn’t even do the work of reasoning backwards from that but just insists that it is so.
Again, Fish does reliably come up with ideas that are good jumping-off points for thought, and maybe somebody smarter than him could do a better job writing about them. Toward the start of the book he drops the claim that arguments (which encompass literally everything, remember) are only ever temporarily won, though sometimes “temporarily� can mean hundreds of years, and then only ever by speaking to the audience’s self-interest. That’s a provocative position to take and one I’d certainly like to see explored. Unfortunately, the rest of the book fails that initial ambition.
First let me say that what keeps bringing me back to Fish is that he does begin with an interesting idea, usually something irreverent and galaxy-brained. In THE FIRST, it’s that the First Amendment is flawed; here, it’s that everything, literally everything, is an argument and that facts exist only so long as they can be successfully argued. And generally I *would* say that he writes in an accessible and engaging way. However, I also liken Fish to a writer of apologetics: he has a tendency to make declarative statements, assuming the truth of his pronouncements, without adequately supporting them. I’m also beginning to notice a tendency to start with a big idea but then have no real plan of where to go with it, or else to become bored of it quite quickly, so that there is no particular advancement of his thesis, but just endless repetition of it.
I think WINNING ARGUMENTS is the worst of the three I’ve read so far. There are times it feels like Fish is an undergraduate student trying desperately to stretch out a thin amount of research into a 10-page paper. I was particularly irritated by a lengthy digression in the “Domestic Arguments� section about some of his favorite classic sitcoms, all of which results in the conclusion the television marriages do not present actual arguments, per se. It’s pages of text to say nothing. This is followed by a “Legal Arguments� section which is mostly a very basic primer on legal terminology, hardly a step above “Webster’s Dictionary defines argument as…� I’m frankly astounded that Fish didn’t start double-spacing his paragraphs and increasing the font size in an effort to dive over what must have been his contractually-obligated 200 pages.
Then there’s his section on “Academic Arguments� which is a favorite subject of his, falling back on a bizarre insistence that TRUE academics is devoid of perspective or intent beyond the general intent to increase awareness I suppose. What makes this bizarre is that so much of the book outside of this section is about the *inability* to separate argument from its context, yet here the author insists academia is a hallowed, empty shell designed only to spark but never develop specific thoughts.
He seems incapable of turning the lens upon himself. He makes similarly galling admissions when he repeatedly cites Antonin Scalia, with apparent approval, and describes himself as an intentional originalist when it comes to Constitutional interpretation, i.e. somebody who believes the *intent* of the Founders should control. Yet he ought to see the flaw in this position given his core argument that *argument* defines facts—the Founders� supposed “intent� is hardly concrete. Later, he goes into an extended riff about creationism/Intelligent Design. Here is one of the Scalia quotes, from a 1968 pre-SCOTUS dissent in which Scalia claims creationism is as scientifically valid—potentially more so, now that I think about it! (“the evidence may be stronger�)—than evolution. While insisting that he’s not putting his finger on the scale one way or the other, Fish repeatedly claims that creationism has been rejected out of hand (that is, without reason� except for the judgment of experts, of course, which he acknowledges but quickly dismisses), insisting that the scientific establishment has “condescending[ly] . . . made up their mind already�. This is all to prop up an argument that inclusion in the scientific field of academics is restricted by presuppositions about what is valid “science�, not by a reasoned argument. Yet the idea that scientists have “made up their mind already� is completely unsupported. Like the female student he condescendingly describes coming to him with a conclusion before an argument, Fish himself has a conclusion (“ID is rejected simply for being outside of the accepted paradigm and no other reason!�) and doesn’t even do the work of reasoning backwards from that but just insists that it is so.
Again, Fish does reliably come up with ideas that are good jumping-off points for thought, and maybe somebody smarter than him could do a better job writing about them. Toward the start of the book he drops the claim that arguments (which encompass literally everything, remember) are only ever temporarily won, though sometimes “temporarily� can mean hundreds of years, and then only ever by speaking to the audience’s self-interest. That’s a provocative position to take and one I’d certainly like to see explored. Unfortunately, the rest of the book fails that initial ambition.
October 9, 2021
Stanley Fish provides a very deep yet easy to consume analysis of the concept of argument. I went into this book thinking it was going to be something that would teach me how to be a better debater (and admittedly I did purchase this book at a time when I was itching to overpower my opponents in politics on an argumentative level). That is not what this is however.
This book is more of an examination of the nature of argument through language. The opening chapters delve into the history of argument through the use of language and engage the reader in examining the debate over how to get rid of the need for argument (or how to arrive at ultimate truth). The rest of the book details the nuances of argument in politics, marriage, law, and academia, and breaks down the philosophies of argumentation and rhetoric in each field.
Though this book wasn't exactly what I was looking for when I purchased it, I must admit I am quite impressed with what I received. Though I do disagree with a few things, a vast majority of Fish's points are well thought out and well presented (no surprise since he is literally writing on the art of argumentation).
I will only spoil one thing in this book, and that is Fish's conclusion that there is no winning argument in politics. Current events happen and push or pull political movements as they may. Convincing people of your side is somewhat fruitless without the backing of a society-wide event or movement. I think it's rather safe to spoil this particular point, since we've been treated to an endless buffet of confirmation of this thesis for the past 5-6 years now. Fish's other conclusions on how to work things out in marriage, the courtroom, and in academia I'll leave for you to find out. I did find that he has done an excellent amount of research in the chapter on argumentation in law. I found that part a refreshing review of my criminal justice classes on case law.
A definite recommend from me if you're looking for an exploration of why people argue and what can or can't be done about it!
This book is more of an examination of the nature of argument through language. The opening chapters delve into the history of argument through the use of language and engage the reader in examining the debate over how to get rid of the need for argument (or how to arrive at ultimate truth). The rest of the book details the nuances of argument in politics, marriage, law, and academia, and breaks down the philosophies of argumentation and rhetoric in each field.
Though this book wasn't exactly what I was looking for when I purchased it, I must admit I am quite impressed with what I received. Though I do disagree with a few things, a vast majority of Fish's points are well thought out and well presented (no surprise since he is literally writing on the art of argumentation).
I will only spoil one thing in this book, and that is Fish's conclusion that there is no winning argument in politics. Current events happen and push or pull political movements as they may. Convincing people of your side is somewhat fruitless without the backing of a society-wide event or movement. I think it's rather safe to spoil this particular point, since we've been treated to an endless buffet of confirmation of this thesis for the past 5-6 years now. Fish's other conclusions on how to work things out in marriage, the courtroom, and in academia I'll leave for you to find out. I did find that he has done an excellent amount of research in the chapter on argumentation in law. I found that part a refreshing review of my criminal justice classes on case law.
A definite recommend from me if you're looking for an exploration of why people argue and what can or can't be done about it!
March 9, 2018
Ah... I'd recommend this over Xanax for those who want to understand the heated emotions around today's politics. This reinforces my opinion that many "educated" arguments are not "the truth", but basically "talking points" the system has created and these don't coexist with many people's actual experiences/values and what happens in the real world.
"It may seem paradoxical, but in the contest between rhetoric and truth, truth's best ally is the rhetoric it scorns"
I found the writing difficult to comprehend, so I struggled to read this quickly. But there was a lot of good information and ideas I hadn't heard before. I ended up reading the book in this order: Relationships --> Law --> Academia --> Politics --> Intro/Ch 1 --> Conclusion. This order was definitely easier for me to get used to his presentation style and concepts.
The major points the author makes are:
* Each field of study acts like a clique with their own rules and allows certain topics to be "argued" about and other topics can get you kicked out. For instance, in politics, the political winner needs more than just truth, they need catch phrases. In contracts, the rules don't care if there is a big power dynamic between the people writing up the contract, the contract is based purely on what is written and not based on "intent". For academia, certain topics will get you shunned from the community, similar to history when "the earth revolves around the sun" was not allowed.
* Personal note: I just finished reading "How the Hippies Saved Physics by an MIT professor who describes how the physics community shunned many bright physicists for believing their might be a link between quantum physics and alien communication or ESP.
"It may seem paradoxical, but in the contest between rhetoric and truth, truth's best ally is the rhetoric it scorns"
I found the writing difficult to comprehend, so I struggled to read this quickly. But there was a lot of good information and ideas I hadn't heard before. I ended up reading the book in this order: Relationships --> Law --> Academia --> Politics --> Intro/Ch 1 --> Conclusion. This order was definitely easier for me to get used to his presentation style and concepts.
The major points the author makes are:
* Each field of study acts like a clique with their own rules and allows certain topics to be "argued" about and other topics can get you kicked out. For instance, in politics, the political winner needs more than just truth, they need catch phrases. In contracts, the rules don't care if there is a big power dynamic between the people writing up the contract, the contract is based purely on what is written and not based on "intent". For academia, certain topics will get you shunned from the community, similar to history when "the earth revolves around the sun" was not allowed.
* Personal note: I just finished reading "How the Hippies Saved Physics by an MIT professor who describes how the physics community shunned many bright physicists for believing their might be a link between quantum physics and alien communication or ESP.
May 17, 2018
I had difficulty getting into the book. However, so many positive reviews encouraged me to the finish line. I still think it is awful. To get where he is - teaching at two prestigious universities and owning multiple homes across the country - Fish must be an amazing law professor or a charismatic blowhard. The chapters read like animated lectures that were transcribed without pauses, imagery, or other speaking aids. Perhaps it would have been much better to hear the book rather than read it. Otherwise, I am left with overall impression of a blowhard inflated by his own hubris.
As many reviewers observed, the title is very misleading. The book has little to do with winning arguments, except in the courtroom, where specific criteria determine the ground rules for arguing. Everything else, Fish concludes is unwinnable. Do not try to win. Unless there are ground rules that all parties honor, it is usually impossible to win an argument. That by itself is an interesting observation, if overly simplified. What irritated me the most was his claim to sage-like authority over many subjects - marriage, politics, law, and academe. He is distinguished in the later two areas. His chapter on legal arguments was both overly generalized and jargon-filled to the point that only law students could really follow him. As for academe, he must publish at an incredible rate to achieve his lofty status. However, if this book is a sample of his work, it is disappointing.
I do not recommend anyone to read this. I have lost respect for Harper Collins for publishing it. Save your time. Read something else.
As many reviewers observed, the title is very misleading. The book has little to do with winning arguments, except in the courtroom, where specific criteria determine the ground rules for arguing. Everything else, Fish concludes is unwinnable. Do not try to win. Unless there are ground rules that all parties honor, it is usually impossible to win an argument. That by itself is an interesting observation, if overly simplified. What irritated me the most was his claim to sage-like authority over many subjects - marriage, politics, law, and academe. He is distinguished in the later two areas. His chapter on legal arguments was both overly generalized and jargon-filled to the point that only law students could really follow him. As for academe, he must publish at an incredible rate to achieve his lofty status. However, if this book is a sample of his work, it is disappointing.
I do not recommend anyone to read this. I have lost respect for Harper Collins for publishing it. Save your time. Read something else.
January 5, 2019
Fish combines many of my loves -- the law, literature, and journalism -- in his discussion on arguments. The title is more for selling the book than indicative of the contents. (Insert argument about judging a book by it's cover here.) This isn't an argument about winning arguments, but more an analysis of how arguments work in real life.
A main argument of the book is that arguments are part of the human condition and are often bounded and circumscribed by the realm in which the argument takes place, whether it is the courtroom or the living room or the classroom or the campaign trail, so in that regard the title works, but again, this book isn't about winning, in part because an argument maybe shouldn't be about winning in most circumstances.
His takedown of academic arguments confirmed that I made the right choice in my career path as an attorney over a professor. The one down side is the stakes tend to be higher in the law than academe. Bonus points for Fish for quoting Robert Cover, my favorite legal philospher, in the classic Violence and the Word: "Legal interpretation takes place in a field of pain and death."
On the domestic front, through Fish shows the intractability and the unique stance of arguments in that sphere and manages to prove more insightful than any self-help or marriage manual.
A main argument of the book is that arguments are part of the human condition and are often bounded and circumscribed by the realm in which the argument takes place, whether it is the courtroom or the living room or the classroom or the campaign trail, so in that regard the title works, but again, this book isn't about winning, in part because an argument maybe shouldn't be about winning in most circumstances.
His takedown of academic arguments confirmed that I made the right choice in my career path as an attorney over a professor. The one down side is the stakes tend to be higher in the law than academe. Bonus points for Fish for quoting Robert Cover, my favorite legal philospher, in the classic Violence and the Word: "Legal interpretation takes place in a field of pain and death."
On the domestic front, through Fish shows the intractability and the unique stance of arguments in that sphere and manages to prove more insightful than any self-help or marriage manual.
May 10, 2021
Asserts that we live in a world of argument and interpretive communities, not of flesh. Pity this busy monster. There is no way to the hell of a good universe next door.
This is not a book about winning arguments. It describes some that won, for a time -- Satan in the garden, the Glorious Revolution, Lawrence v. Texas, Trump in 2016. Seems to suggest that if you can go to pathos, go to pathos. Ethos and logos only have a shot in small, bounded, communities. He might be right.
The prose is beautiful. "[T]here can never be a 'clean' inauguration of a state, an inauguration that is innocent of illegitimate force. There is always a bleeding head (and beneath that, another), no matter how many pieces of paper have been piled on top of it in an effort to erase it from history. Moreover, as Harvell reminds us in the poem's [An Horation Ode upon Cromwell's Return from Ireland, 1650] closing lines, a state founded by a declaration without ground can maintain itself only by endlessly shoring up its nonfoundation." (94-95).
But the content . . . I've seen the good ideas in his previous books. As for the rest? I can't say it's just classical liberalism that seems profoundly irritated that holocaust denial and intelligent design have been banished from the interpretive community. But I can't say that it's not.
This is not a book about winning arguments. It describes some that won, for a time -- Satan in the garden, the Glorious Revolution, Lawrence v. Texas, Trump in 2016. Seems to suggest that if you can go to pathos, go to pathos. Ethos and logos only have a shot in small, bounded, communities. He might be right.
The prose is beautiful. "[T]here can never be a 'clean' inauguration of a state, an inauguration that is innocent of illegitimate force. There is always a bleeding head (and beneath that, another), no matter how many pieces of paper have been piled on top of it in an effort to erase it from history. Moreover, as Harvell reminds us in the poem's [An Horation Ode upon Cromwell's Return from Ireland, 1650] closing lines, a state founded by a declaration without ground can maintain itself only by endlessly shoring up its nonfoundation." (94-95).
But the content . . . I've seen the good ideas in his previous books. As for the rest? I can't say it's just classical liberalism that seems profoundly irritated that holocaust denial and intelligent design have been banished from the interpretive community. But I can't say that it's not.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 99 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.