The Art of The Argument: Western Civilization's Last Stand

by Stefan Molyneux

'The Art of the Argument' shocks the dying art of rational debate back to life, giving you the essential tools you need to fight the escalating sophistry, falsehoods and vicious personal attacks that have displaced intelligent conversations throughout the world. At a time when we need reasonable and empirical discussions more desperately than ever, 'The Art of the Argument' smashes through the brain-eating fogs of sophistry and mental manipulation, illuminating a path to benevolent power for all who wish to take it. Civilization is defined by our willingness and ability to use words instead of fists – in the absence of reason, violence rules. ‘The Art of the Argument’ gives you the intellectual ammunition – in one concentrated, entertaining and powerful package – to engage in truly productive, civilization-saving debates. Armed with this book, you will be empowered to speak truth to power, illuminate ignorance, shatter delusions and expose the dangerous sophists within your own life, and around the world.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Audiobook, History, Psychology, Unfinished

172 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2017

About the author

Stefan Molyneux is the founder and host of Freedomain Radio, the largest and most popular philosophical show in the world. With more than 2,600 podcasts, 10 books and 50 million downloads, Stefan has spread the cause of liberty and philosophy to listeners throughout the world.

As the host of Freedomain Radio, Stefan has interviewed experts Noam Chomsky, Dr. Nathaniel Branden, Dr. Warren Farrell, Peter Schiff, Dr. Peter Boghossian, Dr. Mary J. Ruwart and many others.

Prior to launching Freedomain Radio, Stefan built a thriving career as a software entrepreneur and executive. In 2006, he left his work in the tech industry to devote his efforts to Freedomain Radio. Now a self-identified full-time parent and philosopher, Stefan speaks regularly at liberty-themed events all over North and South America. His speeches cover subjects ranging from politics, philosophy, science, atheism and economics to relationships, parenting and how to achieve real freedom in your life.

Stefan is the author of two novels, "Revolutions" and "The God of Atheists," as well as eight non-fiction books on relationships, government and religion.

Past live appearances include presentations at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum, the Porcupine Freedom Festival, Libertopia, Students For Liberty, FreedomFest, LibertyNow, Capitalism and Morality, LibertyFest West, the Brazilian Mises Institute's Idieas em Movimento, Freedom Summit, and the Global Escape Hatch.

Stefan has participated in a number of live debates, among them: "Bitcoin vs. Gold: The Future of Money" with Peter Schiff, "Zeitgeist Versus the Market" with Peter Joseph, "The Function of the State in Society" with Professor Vladimir Safatle and "How Much Government is Necessary?" with Michael Badnarik.

In addition to hosting his own regular show, Stefan has been a guest on audio and television programs such as RT America's "Breaking the Set" with Abby Martin, "Adam vs. The Man" with Adam Kokesh, "The Keiser Report" with Max Keiser and "The Joe Rogan Experience" with Joe Rogan.

Reviews

[Joshua Stein · Rating 1 out of 5]

Molyneux's The Art of the Argument may not be the worst piece of popular philosophy writing I've ever read, but it is certainly close. The sheer volume of obvious and embarrassing errors (including confusion about basic philosophical concepts like validity, the correspondence theory of truth, absurd Plato exegesis, etc.) should make this book a masochistic exercise to anyone even remotely familiar with the field and its disciplinary standards.

Molyneux has a dedicated fanbase who no-doubt lap this sort of thing up, but the insistence that this is an appropriate assessment of argument, and includes in its pages prescriptions for how to argue, leave those fans far worse off.

I'll have a full review of the core ideas of the book posted elsewhere, and I will link to it here. However, a summary of some of those general thoughts on the poor contents of the book is, hopefully, of some value in the meantime.

Edit: You can read my lengthier review of why Molyneux's views are so bad and embarrassing here.

[Fernando L. · Rating 1 out of 5]

WARNING: Do not expect an objective analysis on how to formulate a good argument or engage in rational discussion!

After a brief introduction on deductive and inductive reasoning, false equivalencies and synonyms in discussion, the author will go on a passive aggressive rant on the welfare state, political correctness and the so-called 'left', with little nuance. I made the mistake of picking a book simple because it was a best-seller and I was looking to get a sense of some popular philosophy. In the first chapters, I started to notice a weird undertones of anti-liberal (or whatever you call it) bias. First, an example in which the author makes a 'joke' about how stepping on a California campus as a conservative would be equivalent to getting into an MMA cage. Then, illustrating the government as the anti thesis of an argument because they do not give the choice for a two-sided debate. Next, he goes on a rant from which I can only interpret a longing to the good old days in which men still made the money while women stayed at home to care for the children, since they were better at it ("the most nobel work in the economy because they get to raise the future"). At this point, I begin to wonder why an author who just told me that a fact can only be established from irrefutable premises slowly builds up more and more opinionated pieces disguised as absolute truths, so I look up who this peculiar person is (blame it on me for not doing this before buying a book). Turns out his name is regularly mentioned in a same breath with Alex Jones, the Infowars crusader who must be the anti-thesis of rational debate. OMG! Also, the high rating on the book is simply caused by his only audience being his loyal youtube/podcast followers. Actually, I recommend reading Joshua Stein's review, since he turns out to be much better at reviewing than I am (my first review, had to say something). I listened for another few chapters until I could not stand the blatant alt-right bias anymore. Maybe I am just too European for this stuff.

[Alex Guzelian · Rating 5 out of 5]

An essential manual of everyday logical theory, and an invaluable tool for the layman to identify the fallacies and outright lies swarming all around us every day. Molyneux takes us on a no-filler intensive tour of the nature of facts, lies and their sometimes unsettling relationship to politics, language and deception, using vivid and colourful examples and analogies every step of the way to make sure the reader is not left scratching their head at any point. Clear, concise and crucial to anyone looking to develop their debating skills and expand their understanding of how to discover diamonds of truth in the murky quagmires of fallacy and manipulation.

[Gary · Rating 1 out of 5]

Nobody shouldn't waste their time with this. There's not a lot of good reasons to read it. It's the intellectual and academic equivalent of a false flag. The author suggests he's presenting logic and reason, and he does so in dribs and drabs, but only to then present examples that ignore every aspect of the basic logic he presents or to make an argument using methods that he'll refute elsewhere. It's a common tactic among the socio-political/marketing crowd these days. Present a simple concept to get the target's agreement, then hit 'em with a fallacious one. Salespeople use similar tactics to get you to buy a more expensive washing machine or whatever. Get the punter to agree once or twice and start nodding their head before hitting them with the closer. "Simple idea, simple idea, sales pitch" as it were.

If you can't get through even the first chapter without finding a logical error and/or misrepresentation of fact in order to support a political agenda then you need to back up, find a book that isn't riddled with false analogies, and read that first. If you are already able to recognize those fallacies and misrepresentations then... well, you don't need to read this book as a primer. It only covers concepts you've already mastered. There's nothing here that you can't find in a college freshman or sophomore philosophy class on logic. After taking such a class, it might be vaguely amusing to go through this book to note how bad the presentation is, how high the author can soar the rhetorical heights before plunging into the depths of rhetorical fallacy, if you will, and that the author can't seem to abide by his own method from sentence to sentence, let alone chapter to chapter. That would be the only effective reason for picking up this particular text about the nature of reasoning and debate.

[Matt Feragne · Rating 1 out of 5]

Unbelievable. Right off the bat you violated your own argument about the product and the process of an argument. Muddled with random unnecessary jabs at atheism and leftists. Totally biased under the guise of objectivity.

[Ian · Rating 1 out of 5]

A hilariously self-indulgent exercise in justifying conservative ideology. Poorly written, poorly argued and a very misleading title.

[Hazel Bright · Rating 1 out of 5]

The Art of Smug Sophistry: Conservative Rationalizations for Being Duped

I was expecting to learn about argument. Instead I got treated to a snide and simplistic description of why bleeding heart liberals are ridiculous clowns followed by a fourth-grade-level discussion of inductive vs. deductive reasoning and examples of flawed initial assumptions. Then immediately, IMMEDIATELY after the discussion of flawed assumptions, we get this gem: "If I tell you that gravity is a property of matter, and that Planet Bob is composed of matter, would you know for certain that gravity existed in this other world? Of course you would." No. You would not, stupid. By your own previous example, we would know nothing about how Planet Bob is defined. Perhaps Planet Bob is simply our dude, Bob, the strawman used throughout this stupid libertarian diatribe masquerading as a discussion of argument; his world being a coercive-state-controlled-government-loving, welfare-pushing, public-school-supporting, baby-hating atheist foisting his cuck ideas on every good, freedom-loving Christian, world view. Even if Bob is as heavy as an obese, aging, daughter-pawing, pussy-grabbing lunatic, adept at running businesses and now nations into bankruptcy, he is still not going to have enough mass to generate gravity. See, this is the kind of thing you learn in - like - school. That school that we libtards make people go to to - like - learn things about Newton's laws. And how to craft an actual argument.

Because it turns out that no matter how much you run around proclaiming that your book is a masterpiece or that you are an expert, and no matter how glib and smarmy you are when you post your billionth youtube clip, when your primary argument tool is the ad hominem attack and your "information" is a random sampling of stuff I learned at a single digit age, well, you end up with a self-published book that's free on Kindle.

It was worth less than I paid for it.

Also, dipshit, don't capitalize articles in titles. Since you probably don't know what things like nouns, verbs, and articles are, I will just correct it for you. It should be "The Art of the Argument." You are barely literate and don't even have a single literate friend who could have pointed that out to you. What can I learn from a barely literate, uneducated, friendless jerk? Nothing. Not even that no one is easier to con than a right-wing authoritarian follower. I already knew that.

[Paul Leitner · Rating 1 out of 5]

short version:
-) this is not a book about logic or crafting an argument but an incoherent rant pushing anarcho-capitalist/anti-socialist talking points in (poor) disguise. Think "one guy holding a stick saying 'I am a tree'" disguise
-) while I have no problem with arguing against socialism (or anything, really), this is
A) terribly lazily done and more importantly
B) pretends to be an "impartial" and "logical" book WHICH IT IS NOT
-) the book is one overlong rant without any red thread, meandering wildly around topics - did anyone bother to edit this?
-) I am no classically trained philosopher by any stretch of the imagination but his misrepresentation of other philosophers, lazy argumentation and complete absence of logical rigor are painfully obvious
-) *THE ARGUMENT* is brought up about 5 times a minute, never having been properly defined and meaning *whatever*, at various points in the book - example:

“The first thing to understand is that The Argument is everything. The Argument is civilization; The Argument is peace; The Argument is love; The Argument is truth and beauty; The Argument is, in fact, life itself.”


For all the reasons listed above this is just a terrible, terrible book.

I went into this with no expectations or prejudice one way or the other, having never heard of Molyneux in my life. About half an hour in (I listened to the audiobook) it started to sink in that while this presents itself as a book about logic and rational argumentation it is really anything but - the author rambles on, mostly without rhyme, reason or a red thread pushing his blatant anarcho-capitalist agenda in your face.
It is not suble. AT ALL!
It was read by the author and while this should not be a criterion his voice performance is INFURIATING beyond measure - overly smug, patronising in tone of voice and choice of vocabulary, incredibly repetitive and overall vomit-inducing. This should not bother me as much as it does, but if I have to listen to Molyneux sigh *the AAAHGUMENT* (as he does, about 16 times a minute) once more, I will be sorely tempted to give myself a DYI lobotomy with a screwdriver.

DO NOT read this if you have ever read any decent philosophy, EVER.

And by all means STAY AWAY FROM THE AUDIO VERSION unless you want to hear Molyneux' voice in your head for MONTHS whenever you see the words "the Argument" anywhere. It's like a revolting aftertaste that just will not go away.

[Kenny Parnell · Rating 4 out of 5]

While I don't agree with the author on all of his conclusions, I can definitely get on board with the main thrust of the book that open and rational discussion is required for Western civilization to survive.

[Kevin Beal · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed how concisely the author explained complex philosophical concepts in actually useful language for real people to use in their real lives.

[Ben · Rating 2 out of 5]

I've enjoyed watching Stefan Molyneux's YouTube channel over the years. His matter-of-fact style of sifting through the bullshit of today's SJW-filled culture is refreshing. When I saw he had a book available on Kindle Unlimited, I decided to download it.

I like his way of conveying points in debate of a particular topic; I didn't like this book.

Molyneux decides to cram his political views down your throat till you can take no more. Instead of establishing the basis on how to actually have an argument, he instead uses his own beliefs to construct what an argument actually means.

"There is no such thing as a “square circle,” and if my argument requires the existence of such a self-contradictory concept, it can be dismissed without further inquiry. It disproves itself in the contradiction of the definition. This is why The Argument first requires logical consistency, and only then empirical verification."

So an argument is deemed invalid unless it passes through your personal views on what an argument can be? Interesting.

He continues to preach his own views as that of a "philosopher" and those who disagree as "sophists" - the left, feminists and atheists all take turn playing this "sophist".

"Atheists claim to respect reason and evidence, but substantially inhabit the “large government, high taxation” clusters of the political spectrum – mostly on the left, of course."

Perhaps he's just trying to stir the pot for the sake of stirring the pot, a common tactic of writer's for this breed of right-wing political view. "If I can make a huge scene and piss people off, people will pay attention to what I'm saying!".

What seems to slip these writer's minds is that their writings aren't revolutionary (the sense of elitism in this book was cringeworthy). These extreme views have only gained traction due to the gross nature of social-justice-warrior culture.

I will say that the book is well-written. Even with his annoying agenda attached to every chapter in the book... I managed to read the whole thing.

Would I bother reading any of his other pieces of work in the future? Probably not.

Not recommended.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a much-needed plea for rationality in an irrational and angry age such as our own. Obviously, it is not as earth-shatteringly significant as the endorsements suggest but, as with most things by Stefan Molyneux, it is worth reading. I listen to Stefan on an almost daily basis and regard him as one of greatest thinkers of our generation. His obsession with the state and his radical libertarianism tends to unduly colour much of his work, however. Sadly, this book is no exception. That said, he does make some useful critiques of the modern welfare state subsidising immorality, which we all ought to commend. Since the author is a (mild) atheist, one question stalks the treatise: Why does rationality ultimately matter? I do not think that this question can be answered unless you believe that we are created in the image of the God of reason.

[Alex Lowe · Rating 1 out of 5]

I’ll keep it simple, this book is trash.

[Ryan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ugh. I liked some of Stefan's radio-style interviews (but dislike a lot of his psychology/therapist stuff). I figured I'd listen to this on a plane so I could review it. Maybe 2.5 stars, but the audio version is read by Stefan and is paced really badly (he speaks each word quickly but then has lengthy pauses between each word) so 2/5 is generous.

It starts with a basic primer on logic. Not the best presentation, but nothing factually incorrect. Then a subtle segue into using the logical arguments on abstract social issues (libertarian arguments re: charity), and then more pointed criticism of current events and politics. There's a pretense that the political criticism is just as factual and logically derived as the earlier abstract logical statements, but..no. Ironic for a book which spends 5-10% criticizing sophistry vs. logical argument.

What is with it with people and "argument" or "argumentation" as the basis for their philosophy? I love Hans-Hermann Hoppe, but his "Argumentation Ethics" is horrible. I can't tell if this was inspired by that, or just generally horrible on its own, but it accomplished that task.

[Nikola Tchipev · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read with caution
Some good argumentation on why 'The Argument' is important. But (and its a big "but") comes with a lot of political baggage. He raises some interesting arguments for the right,, but strawmans the left to the point of disbelief. One thing I really don't buy is how he says that he debates differently in private and in public. If his goal is truth, where he debates should not make a difference. Since he says that he is "more gentle" in private debates, this implies that he is not "gentle" in public ones. How can a knowledgeable debater not be "gentle" in any debate? The only way, which comes to my mind is to not be "fair". Which would explain him strawmaning the entire book, as it is a form of public debate. And since he seems to be fairly knowledgeable in debating, it is difficult to exclude malicious intent as a motivation.
Also, why wrap political content in a "how to debate" book title and cover? Who needs to wrap his content in false packaging?

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short book about how the left now increasingly attack the individual and no longer debate the facts.

As things stand it is very difficult to have a debate about the important issues without it becoming personal and about personally attacking those with apposing views.

Do the left want equality of opportunity (everyone starting the race together) or equality of outcome (people being forced to finish together regardless of speed)?

The lack of argument allows people to be attacked for being rich/white/thin/educated without looking at why society has disproportionately rewarded them, whether that is due to talent or tremendous amounts of hard work.

[djcb · Rating 1 out of 5]

Terrible book.

Ostensibly, the book is about the art of the argument, but in practice it's just a platform for the writer to complain about things he does not like. Seems he's a bit of the Randian/reactionary. In a book about Arguments I would then at least expect some well-articulated explanation of his position, but no, it's just a bunch of examples, with some "arguments" that shouldn't even convince people who agree with them. Full of flawed logic, non-sequiturs and just generally uninteresting.

[Davis · Rating 1 out of 5]

The Art of The Argument is a comedy.
It immediately fails to demonstrate basic propositional logic. Stefan is very clearly unable to understand basic logic, and does not know the difference between validity and soundness. If he were to take even a simple Philosophy 101 class, he would know these basic differences.
He has no credibility, and it is a disservice to the name of debate and argumentation to give his book such a preposterous title.
It is painfully obvious to see how this man has developed such alt-right views, and is an embarrassment to anyone who holds similar ideology.

[Bryan D. Hopkins · Rating 1 out of 5]

I enjoyed the book until it was finally so weighted down with false premises that it made reading unbearable. "The Art of the Argument" is propaganda disguised as a logic book. It's unfortunate because the author was entertaining, just couldn't help asserting bs that a freshman psych student could destroy with ease. A mere newspaper subscription would have helped the author feel an ounce of humility. Gladly returning this one. Does anyone have any recommendations on a legitimate logic book?

[Jordan Taylor · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book should be required reading in public school. Of course, institutions rarely encourage their own demise, so I suppose it will be up to parents to get this book into their children's hands. I give it 5 stars without hesitation or reservation.

[Dwayne Roberts · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought Mr. Molyneux's The Art of the Argument was well-structured, well-presented, and, well, well-done. I wasn't thrilled that "The Argument" was bold everywhere; it seemed gimmicky. I also wished that certain concepts had been better defined. Overall, it's worth the read.

[SilverReader · Rating 4 out of 5]

""The Argument is the chess game of society, and victory is civilization"

[Greg Gauthier · Rating 2 out of 5]

Despite the inspiring vision, it is deeply flawed, lazy and sloppy

I yearned for this to be a better book than it was. I sympathise deeply with the sentiment that reason is beleaguered in modern society, and crave a good book on the topic, but alas, this is not the book. For all his railing against sophistry, confirmation bias, and appeals to emotion, this book relies heavily on an audience so steeped in its own prejudices, that it wont notice the factual errors, logical incongruity, or interpretation biases littered throughout its pages.

Molyneux's book reads like a personal journal that was transcribed directly into print. It is haphazard, overwrought, and at times, stream-of-consciousness. If you're not already familiar with the lingo of internet Libertarianism, you'll be completely confused by numerous passages. If you're not already rehearsed in, and in agreement with, the arguments and positions of right-leaning anarchism ("anarcho-capitalism"), you'll find the presumption of foregone conclusions scattered throughout the book to be irritating at best.

At bottom, the main problem with this book, is that it doesn't appear to have an audience. The dismissive and sneering tone taken toward the political left will put them off. The appeals to the political right will (and has) earned him podcast interviews, but they certainly aren't interested in philosophical inquiry beyond their own prejudices. The academic community has already shunned him as a lightweight at best, crackpot at worst. The book is too polemical and doctrinaire to appeal to the mainstream (many of whom fear him as some sort of cult leader already). So, who is this book for?

He will say, of course, that it is for the true philosophers. But any true philosopher will find this book terribly disappointing at best, perniciously self-defeating at worst. His explication of logic is amateur and incomplete, and at times just plain wrong. He takes Popperian falsificationism as a given, as if it were just a fact. He makes a sophomoric straw man of consequentialism, misreads Hume, offers only common-sense intuition explanations for complex topics like virtue and happiness, and deftly shifts from normative to descriptive usages of "right" and "wrong", where it suits him.

In the end, as near as I can tell, the audience for this book was himself. The only person who will be most convinced by this work, is his own faltering conscience. He is defending heavily against the anxiety of uncertainty; the vulnerability and insecurity of having more questions than answers.

For centuries, the medievals also sought the same security in the reified power of deductive logic which Stefan is groping so desperately for in this book. On that count, I surely sympathise with him. The seduction of certainty - its comforting, self-soothing lullaby of finality and the archimedian lever it offers against those who would use doubt and curiosity to hurt, to plunder, and to oppress, is something I have been drawn to at times in my own life.

But for those of us afflicted by the daemon of Socrates, these islands of comfortable absolutism will never make a permanent home. Eventually, the urge to set sail again on the sea of uncertainty - on the path to discovery - will overtake the fear of being unmoored, and away we will voyage, come what may.

Stefan's book is one such island of comfortable certitude, for some. The philosophers may visit, but they won't stay long. What concerns me, though, are those who end up shipwrecked on one of these islands, before they've even had an opportunity to understand the voyage they set themselves on.

[Pavel Lukacko · Rating 5 out of 5]

Stefan positions 'The Argument' where it belongs. Not in ivory towers but among the people. Argumentation developed not for solving paradoxes or postulating about possible worlds. It developed to persuade fellow human beings about the facts of reality. To argue well doesn't simply mean jotting down pages upon pages of syllogisms. It includes establishing first principles - principles everyone already implicitly accepts, and looking inwards and understanding your own motives and the motives of others. Only then can we persuade truthfully and honestly. Stefan introduces original and well thought out ideas that suggest civilisation has been failing in this regard. For all of history, sophists have masqueraded as enlightened thinkers. 'The Argument' is a bright light that beams into the hidden cracks and crevices of our society and of ourselves, revealing our true natures. It is also a ship enduring a storm, preserving justice for each individual. So why on earth does 'The Argument' seem so foreign to almost all but the most educated? By reading this book, you will learn the surprising truth that this has been no coincidence. You will also learn how to argue well and how 'The Argument' can set us free.

[Vyom Khandelia · Rating 1 out of 5]

While the basics of arguments is good, Stefan himself uses flawed logic or brings in vague similarities which are his political views and logic. I was looking for a book on argument and not with political ideas of one single person. He subtly brings in his political ideas without giving any verification. As one point he talks about ostracizing all who do not listen to your argument and on others how the vilification can help.

However this is a good book for a) if you are of the same political denomination b) if you are a want to understand all the tactics that can be used in politics.

Somehow I was not interested in this space and hence the lowest grade.

[Herman · Rating 1 out of 5]

One star, since there is no way to score it lower. I bought this on a whim because of the title. However, the content is anything but an example of “The Art of the Argument”. Very limited in valuable content, with only the very basics of deductive reasoning explained. And the rest of the book quickly dissolves into a rant, based on politically biased right-wing premises, that are stated - without any argument - as facts. I read the whole thing, and tried to be open minded, but this book is just unbelievably bad.

[Jim Strasma · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very clear and enjoyable read. It doesn't detail every logical fallacy and how to counter it, but then I didn't need for it to, having also read at least two other also-good books on the topic recently. What stood out for me about this book was how easy its argument was to understand and follow. I particularly liked how he explained the implications of counterfeiting currency, and then used that as a way to more simply explain the effects of sophistry on the body politic.

[Ronald J. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some excellent advice for debating, making rational arguments, etc. It's also a philosophy lesson, which is also good. I think the author takes the logical/reasoning argument a bit far, especially when he swerves into religion. He's also a staunch libertarian, so this was part political tract. I could have done without that, which would have shortened the book quite a bit. Not that I don't agree with his points, it's just not why I was reading this book.

[Peter Anthony Roland (PARoland) · Rating 5 out of 5]

AbsoFuckingLuteky BRILLIANT

It's The Definitive Guide Book
On
How To Navigate Through A World Gone FUBAR!
And
Not Only SURVIVE
But
Succeed!
Must Read!

Peter Anthony Roland
Miami Beach Florida
August 2017

[David G · Rating 1 out of 5]

It’s hard to read a book about making arguments when he makes so many anti-liberal arguments without a shred of evidence. Most of them he just states as if it is fact. Pathetic. Definitely not worth the time.