Scan barcode
tomstbr's review against another edition
4.0
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.
jcmeza's review against another edition
2.0
Disappointing but at least it was a quick read. This seemed like it could easily have been a long article instead of a book. It was endlessly repetitive with but 2-3 major points. In short, argument is here to stay (get used to it); all fields (listed in the title) have fictions they maintain, which essentially are the rules of the game in each specific field; and even though everyone knows that these are fictions everyone still plays by those rules, so you need to learn how to do so yourself. While some of Fish's points are nice to hear about, you sometimes feel like he's trying to hard to make his point by repeating each one of them several (sometimes dozens of) times until you get the message – almost as if you were a really slow student.
reinhardt's review against another edition
3.0
Not as good as his ‘How to write a sentence.’ It is not really about argument at all. It’s about reality. Reality is created with words (argument), according to Stanley.
In his chapters on the domains of argument, he points out a few, sometime obvious points, about how argument works in that domain. For example, political arguments are based on assumptions and the arguments are just ways to prop up the idea, i.e. they’re advertising. It’s hard to believe that anyone hasn’t thought of that already if they follow politics. Marriage argument can’t be won, he tells us. Again, true, but not mind blowing insight. Legal arguments are based on a complex structure of law and follow a specific set of rules limited to that domain - really? Academic arguments - well you get the point.
Probably valuable for a high school senior to read, but if you’ve done any reading on rhetoric or philosophy, there’s nothing new here.
That’s not to say it’s not pleasurable to read because he is a good writer, this is just not his best work. It’s also a bit self absorbed, which you’ll notice if you read it.
In his chapters on the domains of argument, he points out a few, sometime obvious points, about how argument works in that domain. For example, political arguments are based on assumptions and the arguments are just ways to prop up the idea, i.e. they’re advertising. It’s hard to believe that anyone hasn’t thought of that already if they follow politics. Marriage argument can’t be won, he tells us. Again, true, but not mind blowing insight. Legal arguments are based on a complex structure of law and follow a specific set of rules limited to that domain - really? Academic arguments - well you get the point.
Probably valuable for a high school senior to read, but if you’ve done any reading on rhetoric or philosophy, there’s nothing new here.
That’s not to say it’s not pleasurable to read because he is a good writer, this is just not his best work. It’s also a bit self absorbed, which you’ll notice if you read it.
jdglasgow's review against another edition
2.0
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.
onceandfuturelaura's review against another edition
3.0
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.
larry1138's review against another edition
4.0
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!
ween9569's review against another edition
1.0
didn't like it. stopped reading midway through in the chapter on legal arguments
tmntfan's review
2.0
The more philosophical side was more enjoyable. The legal side was interesting but probably missing something (like years of law school for context). I was expecting to be underwhelmed as it is an american book about the american legal system- which i have heard is a bit messed up- but has nothing to do with me or the majority of the world.
The academic chapter was a bit bizarre. It started off well in explaining how a traditional academic looks at academic work and how that shouldn’t be confused with a political/moral perspective. But the holocaust/creationism bits seemed out of place. I get the argument he was making in that there is no “in” for some topics but these two seemed bone-headed non-topics. The intellectual property could have done without the personal aside- it seemed a little indulgent.
The marriage chapter seemed the best but he mentions other “marriage” books so often it feels like he knows he isn't saying anything new but trying to synthesize a lot of them into 1 chapter.
Not a great book, a little too self indulgent with a narrow focus. There's got to be a better book out there on this.
The academic chapter was a bit bizarre. It started off well in explaining how a traditional academic looks at academic work and how that shouldn’t be confused with a political/moral perspective. But the holocaust/creationism bits seemed out of place. I get the argument he was making in that there is no “in” for some topics but these two seemed bone-headed non-topics. The intellectual property could have done without the personal aside- it seemed a little indulgent.
The marriage chapter seemed the best but he mentions other “marriage” books so often it feels like he knows he isn't saying anything new but trying to synthesize a lot of them into 1 chapter.
Not a great book, a little too self indulgent with a narrow focus. There's got to be a better book out there on this.
lana_sina's review
1.0
This book is very disappointing. Also super unconvincing, ironical for a book about persuasion. The arguments are full of weird holes and false equivalences. I thought it was going to be about how to make people say what are the hidden reasons for their beliefs.
The same author wrote a book called "How to write a sentence". Here each sentence rambles on several pages, with multiple sets of parentheses and dashes. It's long winded and boring. Maybe he's just a master of irony.
Even the good reviews on Amazon says that the title has nothing to do with the contents of the book, and that the book is "a rumination". Trash bin it is.
The same author wrote a book called "How to write a sentence". Here each sentence rambles on several pages, with multiple sets of parentheses and dashes. It's long winded and boring. Maybe he's just a master of irony.
Even the good reviews on Amazon says that the title has nothing to do with the contents of the book, and that the book is "a rumination". Trash bin it is.
More...