Eristik

Eristik, or eristic argumentation, is a term used in philosophy and rhetoric to describe the practice of disputation aimed at victory rather than the discovery of truth. The word derives from the Greek eris, meaning strife, and has been used since antiquity to classify argumentative strategies that emphasize cleverness, dialectical maneuvering, or rhetorical skill over sound foundations.

In classical thought, eristik is often contrasted with dialectic and with genuine inquiry. Plato warned against eristic methods as forms of sophistry that win debates by trickery rather than by demonstrating truth. Aristotle, by contrast, drew a clearer distinction among dialectic, rhetoric, and eristic-like disputation, noting that persuasion may rely on audience psychology as well as reasoning. In later European philosophy, eristik became a label for a range of disputation techniques that privilege victory and rhetorical effect over epistemic reliability.

Common features associated with eristik include the use of controversial questions, ambiguous language, rhetorical devices, and fallacies such as ad hominem or straw man arguments; it may also involve traps, red herrings, or selective evidence. Supporters may defend eristic methods as useful tools for testing positions, exposing inconsistencies, or provoking critical thought, while critics view them as potentially deceptive if used to obscure truth.

Today, eristik is discussed in the study of argumentation theory and critical thinking as a way to distinguish productive inquiry from adversarial tactics. Distinctions are often drawn between eristic, dialectic, and rhetoric, with the latter two generally oriented toward truth-seeking and persuasion, respectively.