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

Bought the kindle version when it first came out, finished it, and now have purchased the paperback as well so I can display it on my bookshelf. Extremely useful information and is an intro to arguments, discussion, and philosophy. As a first stepping stone to introduce the public into the sort of logic and reasoning that has been removed from public education in the US. It is not an end all be all, and by no means was it ever intended to be. It is merely a good first step that can hopefully propel a few souls towards reason, evidence based thinking, and logic, and away from emotional sophistry.

This book is absolutely essential reading for any person that wishes to educate themselves. I cannot recommend it enough.
Stefan starts from a place that is self-evident: human being have two ways to interact with each other, that is, through discussion (The Argument) or through violence (fists). He then clearly, rationally, and in very precise steps explains why we should all favor The Argument over violence. (While this would also seem self-evident, a quick scan of the latest news will remind you that people chose fists more often than The Argument.)
I'd like to write more, but I know that I cannot properly describe the book without actually copying and pasting the book into this box.
This book would be especially appropriate for aspiring Social Justice Warriors. The tone of the book is in a soft, delicate voice (trigger warning is unnecessary) and it could lead them through the internal logic (or anti-logic) of their movement.
If you are a person who loves reason, logic, liberty, and peace, then you will love this book.

Fantastic! Is clearing my head of clutter and tangled up processes. Finally, complex concepts made simple to use. I am starting to communicate more effectively rather than just reacting emotionally. Thank you Stefan!

An excellent book. Stefan Monyneux, is a brilliant writer and explains how to construct and explains the logic of how to work an argument. An excellent thinker and philosopher of our time. A must read for everyone.

Short book that will reinforce the way you approach political arguments. Molyneux keeps the wording very conversational while informative at the same time.

would recommend to anyone to read that enjoys politics.

If you want to understand what happened to our society and why seemly rational arguments now seem to to have been made to appear uncaring, read this, it will give you the information you need. As he says these ideas were normal a couple of generations ago. They will be normal again and you can help by reading this.

Laid as about as clearly as anyone could, Stefan sums up largely what he explains everyday on the podcast in a way non philosophers can understand. What the argument is, what makes it valid, and who is the enemy of the argument. We'll written, concise, satirical, humorous at times, an all around good read.

I was expecting a little less bias towards modern events but it does get the point across. If you disagree with the events/situations quoted in the book, it may convince you otherwise by giving you a sound argument.

excellent presentation on how to win an argument. wish this could be taught in schools everywhere. unfortunately, all too often people simply wish to shut down or leave arguments. this shows you how to justify what you believe in.

If this book is your first experience of Mr. Stefan Molyneux, welcome! If you happen to be one of the lucky, enlightened, millions of fans that have been listening to him for years, this book will not disappoint. Salutations, fellow free thinkers!

Stefan, with his wicked wit, explains not only the art of debate, but also walks you through the processes necessary to confirm the validity of your arguments, meaning that your arrow hits as close to the bullseye of truth as possible.
Any debate that begins with "feelings" or "opinions", will certainly go no where and fast.

Sadly, proper debating has become moribund. In fact, the art form of a splendid argument has degenerated into screeching, bashing, flag burning, destruction of personal property, etc et al.
Thankfully, Mr. Molyneux has published this book in the knick of time! We must rediscover how to speak with a civilized tongue even to those we virulently disagree.

This was a great refresher for debates. Start from the ground up; construct and go through the definitions of an argument with the bricks and mortar and layer it up until you built a solid structure which is the conclusion, a finished house! This isn't a complete guide or HOW TO book but it is an eye opener in why your arguments are not going anywhere. I encourage new readers to check out his Youtube channel and download podcasts at Freedomainradio to get a more thorough grasp on what "The Argument" looks, feels and (tastes?) like!

Taking Molyneux at his word that he is sincerely seeking truth, the truth is that he needs to pay much closer attention to his critics. Indeed, sitting down with them one-on-one, and outside of the “win the audience over” podcast format he so excels at could do him a great deal of good, if he did it with the right attitude. Would he bring the right attitude? With remarks like this, I don’t know:

> "Now, if you tell someone that you notice that more people carry umbrellas on cloudy days, and he replies that he never carries an umbrella, he is simply removing himself from realm of rational argument and revealing himself to be either an idiot, or ridiculously overemotional (two sides of the same coin). Heave a sigh, give him some edible glue, and move on."

To dismiss someone because of a singular perceived logical blunder is usually grossly unfair, arrogant, and self-destructive. (Keep in mind here that Molyneux’s main audience is young males.) I say “perceived” because it may be that the person wasn’t actually being illogical, but rather that they were in a chatty mood and just intending to talk with Molyneux about a related experience.

Civilized people do not dismiss one another because of a single logical blunder. What they do is inquire and correct each other. I am not even saying we ought to be perfectly polite – a “WTF?” may well be in order. If we find someone who is unwilling to answer inquiries or to correct themselves (ahem…), then we dismiss that person intellectually – they’re indeed an uncivilized barbarian. But to be civilized is to recognize that we are human, that we all make mistakes, and that we should give each other opportunities to self-correct.

I am not going to analyze the many mistakes Molyneux makes ad nauseam, but since I have a particular interest in metaethics I will analyze this bit (p. 30):

> "Also, considering Hume’s argument that you cannot get an “ought” from an “is”, we can easily see that the mirror of The Argument destroys The Argument. (1) If we cannot get an “ought” from an “is”, then anyone who tries to argue that we can is wrong. (2) In other words, we (3) “ought not” get an “ought” from an “is”.

(The numbering was added by me for ease of reference.)

This argument is a “nice try, but no cigar.”

If you think that what Hume meant regarding is vs. ought was that you can’t rationally derive an “oughts” at all, then this misunderstanding of Hume’s position might drive you to attempt the absurd and thus fall into such mistaken reasoning as the above, as opposed to finding other actually valid techniques of rationally deriving “oughts.”

(1) is true, of course, but contrary to (2), (3) is not merely another way of stating (1): that we “ought not” argue for what is false (in this case), is an additional premise not contained in (1). I say “in this case”, because sometimes arguing for what is false is morally permissible – such as if the Nazis are arguing about whether there are Jews in your basement. In this (1) (2) (3) sequence, Molyneux very ironically retraces precisely the fallacy Hume had warned us of:

“In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, ‘tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality …”

All Hume is indicating here is the humble request: “’tis necessary that it should be observed and explained.” But an observation and explanation is precisely what Molyneux has not given. Instead, (1) underscores a certain contradiction, and then he relies on something implicit and unstated in order to leap to (3). Explicitly naming what this implicit and unstated thing is is precisely the “is-ought problem.” In other words, Molyneux has done nothing here but to turn Hume into a straw man and then skip over the real problem.

In spite of his failure, I think Molyneux’s general approach is vaguely (emphasis on “vaguely”) in the right direction. In this regard it is not unique: others, including myself, have argued similarly. What would be unique is if his argument withstood technical scrutiny. And, for one who claims to be pro-logic, that really matters, because either the argument is sound or it isn’t. If it isn’t technically sound, then it is a failure. Failures can be steps forward, of course, but only if we are willing to learn from them.

Though the author's prose makes the book accessible to the average reader, I believe he wasted much space complaining rather than teaching one to argue logically about about most subjects. He doesn't state his main idea at the beginning of the book, which would have helped. Instead, I found out halfway thru the book that The Argument is about freedom. There is nothing wrong with the topic and needs to be discussed and defended, but I think his approach to the subject matter could have been approached better. I was hoping for a logic primer since other books about it are often difficult to understand. I think the author missed an opportunity to teach his audience how to be better thinkers in general.

We desperately need the skills to combat sophistry, and this book provides - some. He should spend a lot more space drilling, perhaps repeating, how to counter the sophist and a lot less time making the case for doing so and celebrating how wonderful the philosopher is.

He's a bona fide bright boy to be sure, but all too full of himself. You can skip the last 10% of the book as it just repeats itself.

This book describes what an argument is and what it is not. It made me realize statements I used to make were not arguments and useful for persuasion. The author is a very good writer and provides the fundamentals of argumentation and detailed strategies. Highly recommend!

Concise and powerful book that does a good job of giving the reader the tools to be rational and to inoculate themselves against anti-rationality. My only complaint is that Stefan admitted that there are issues of faith with regards to atheism that he would address later in the book, but he never did. The problem is that the existence of a divine being can be neither proved nor disproved. Atheism requires a leap of faith as much as religious belief.

Stefan packs years of debating experience, analytical expertise, and his trademark fiery wit into this sophist-slaying masterpiece.

Reading The Art of the Argument was like an enigmatic friend showing me the map to an existential Atlantis and showing me the way: surprising, thrilling, and a bit daunting.

I've had many of my core beliefs challenged, but with the tools provided here I know that I am able to maintain my integrity by submitting to reality, to the standards of reason and evidence. Most importantly, however, I have the tools to convince others to do the same.

I encourage anyone who values reason and evidence, not to mention the continued existence of civilization itself, to read this book and support the author in his work.

This book seems to be about the political argument between two sides – the only two sides we can see when we are too pressed to look more carefully at what is going on. In war remember, “Either you are with us or you are against us.” At this level I agree almost entirely with Stefan Molyneux. I am libertarian and if life is a war between state and non-state then Molyneux and I are on the same side. At this level I applaud his success and wish him more success. This book might help with a certain class of readers..

But if we go one level deeper, in a meeting among libertarians we libertarians discover little commonality in our reasons for being libertarian or in our rationale for a positive alternative to the state. At this deeper level my ontology (if I use that fancy word correctly) differs from Molyneux’s; he sounds overconfident and mistaken to me. I would classify his philosophy as positivist, he believes a little too much in his own epistemology. For readers who want some good philosophy I recommend: “An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis” by John Hospers; “The Uses of Argument” by Stephen Toulmin; and of course my own exposition of the Resource-Patterns Model of Life on blogspot in the blog titled “Perceived Order”.

Most people either love or hate this book (witness the huge number of 5-star reviews, significant number of 1-star reviews, and almost nothing in between). I loved it obviously, but I knew that any book by Molyneux would be polarizing. Because people come to the book with a knowledge of the author's politics, it is not surprising that some people hate the book. Many of the 1-star reviews cite disagreement with Molyneux's politics.

Regardless of his politics, though, Molyneux makes an argument in this book that should be appreciated by all Americans. After the surge in campus protests in 2017 (in which numerous speakers were prevented from speaking on U.S. campuses), people on both sides of the political spectrum have recently stated that America needs more open and respectful debate. Molyneux's book discusses what is necessary for open debate.

Among other things, he explains why people should approach debates with a desire to arrive at truth rather than vanquish their opponents, why arguments should be based on reason rather than emotion, and why real-world evidence is a necessary element of a sound argument.

This is not a book about how to win arguments even when your position is wrong. Nor is it an academic treatise on the rules of formal logic. Instead, it is an attempt to create a foundation for rational debate. To me, The Art of the Argument is to debate what Bastiat's The Law is to economics. In both cases, we are dealing with a text that approaches a discipline in a basic, non-exhaustive manner, but delivers profound insights with a conservative politic slant that seems to flow from the subject matter.

Concise and powerful book that does a good job of giving the reader the tools to be rational and to inoculate themselves against anti-rationality. My only complaint is that Stefan admitted that there are issues of faith with regards to atheism that he would address later in the book, but he never did. The problem is that the existence of a divine being can be neither proved nor disproved. Atheism requires a leap of faith as much as religious belief.

Stefan packs years of debating experience, analytical expertise, and his trademark fiery wit into this sophist-slaying masterpiece.

Reading The Art of the Argument was like an enigmatic friend showing me the map to an existential Atlantis and showing me the way: surprising, thrilling, and a bit daunting.

I've had many of my core beliefs challenged, but with the tools provided here I know that I am able to maintain my integrity by submitting to reality, to the standards of reason and evidence. Most importantly, however, I have the tools to convince others to do the same.

I encourage anyone who values reason and evidence, not to mention the continued existence of civilization itself, to read this book and support the author in his work.

This book seems to be about the political argument between two sides – the only two sides we can see when we are too pressed to look more carefully at what is going on. In war remember, “Either you are with us or you are against us.” At this level I agree almost entirely with Stefan Molyneux. I am libertarian and if life is a war between state and non-state then Molyneux and I are on the same side. At this level I applaud his success and wish him more success. This book might help with a certain class of readers..

But if we go one level deeper, in a meeting among libertarians we libertarians discover little commonality in our reasons for being libertarian or in our rationale for a positive alternative to the state. At this deeper level my ontology (if I use that fancy word correctly) differs from Molyneux’s; he sounds overconfident and mistaken to me. I would classify his philosophy as positivist, he believes a little too much in his own epistemology. For readers who want some good philosophy I recommend: “An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis” by John Hospers; “The Uses of Argument” by Stephen Toulmin; and of course my own exposition of the Resource-Patterns Model of Life on blogspot in the blog titled “Perceived Order”.

Most people either love or hate this book (witness the huge number of 5-star reviews, significant number of 1-star reviews, and almost nothing in between). I loved it obviously, but I knew that any book by Molyneux would be polarizing. Because people come to the book with a knowledge of the author's politics, it is not surprising that some people hate the book. Many of the 1-star reviews cite disagreement with Molyneux's politics.

Regardless of his politics, though, Molyneux makes an argument in this book that should be appreciated by all Americans. After the surge in campus protests in 2017 (in which numerous speakers were prevented from speaking on U.S. campuses), people on both sides of the political spectrum have recently stated that America needs more open and respectful debate. Molyneux's book discusses what is necessary for open debate.

Among other things, he explains why people should approach debates with a desire to arrive at truth rather than vanquish their opponents, why arguments should be based on reason rather than emotion, and why real-world evidence is a necessary element of a sound argument.

This is not a book about how to win arguments even when your position is wrong. Nor is it an academic treatise on the rules of formal logic. Instead, it is an attempt to create a foundation for rational debate. To me, The Art of the Argument is to debate what Bastiat's The Law is to economics. In both cases, we are dealing with a text that approaches a discipline in a basic, non-exhaustive manner, but delivers profound insights with a conservative politic slant that seems to flow from the subject matter.

I was hoping this would be more oriented to making better arguments, like a modern Rhetoric. It's more of a treatise on philosophy vs sophistry, not a bad thing but not what I had hoped for. Yes, avoiding sophistry makes for better arguments, but I expected something more technical / algorithmic. I enjoy what Stefan Molyneux puts out on Youtube so I was happy to patronize via the book buy. Also, if one doesn't understand sophistry this can help clarify it.

Simple and effective. Nihilstic ideas and questions about the nature of truth plagued my mind, but this book took a glorious blow against them. This book will tell you many things you "already know", but seeing them in writing simply will be hard to argue against. The points are illustrated in an entertaining way, for example a boat coming out of a car factory telling you that the process should be examined.

This needs to be prefaced by saying I like Stefan and listen to his show. However, I do not always agree with him.

This book is terrible. It reads like a collection of blog posts on similar topics, but does not follow a logical order. It lacks structure and arbitrarily sweeps from topic to topic. It constantly stops and starts, taking side-treks that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Stefan is so keen to add lame jabs and quips he actually has to stop the conversation and explain the joke or comment. This book was advertised (for months) by Stefan as a guide on how to debate properly and why it is important in the current political climate. Throwing in jokes is ok, but Stefan is notoriously clumsy in his humor, it lacks any cleverness or grace. By trying to bring his sense of humor to writing, it fractures the gravitas of the subject matter.

It is difficult to articulate how poorly written this book is. It seems to have forgone any editing and reads like it was pushed out after one draft. This is a logical conclusion given the structure and the manner in which the text is presented. I feel that if someone other than Stefan had read the book before its publishing, they would have encouraged some major changes. The choice to bold and increase the font size of the phrase “THE ARGUMENT” is one of those things an editor would axe immediately for the purpose of easier reading and clarity.

I understand the intention behind this formatting choice. The book is trying to present the concept of "THE" argument, so that it can be treated with respect and caution. However, this concept of a singular, greater, “meta-argument” could have been easily be explored and explained in a less garish and haughty manner. For reference, see slide 7 in the book's preview.

Stefan somewhat stealthily is trying to tie “THE ARGUMENT” to his concept of “Universally Preferable Behavior" (UPB). There is a free ebook available on Stefan’s website on the subject matter. The purpose of UPB is to provide a basis for ethics in a society without religion. That is a very simplified but accurate summary. The Art of The Argument: Western Civilization's Last Stand was described to be purely about the process of debate and its importance. There is nothing wrong with trying to include UPB in the text, the problem is that the book is not forthright with its intention to do so. By not establishing this precedent early on in the book, the rest of the text lacks a momentum that may have been possible if the book was more focused and coherent. The whole concept (of UPB), much like a lot of the book, just comes across as disposable - which is a shame.

Throughout the book, concepts drag on giving little substance and sometimes are repeated in succession. In some cases, concepts are introduced then sidelined only to be revisited in their entirety a few "chapters" later. I put chapters in quotes due to how strange the formatting of the book is. A “chapter” can be anywhere from a few sentences to half of a page, or several pages. Had any of these ideas been expressed in a coherent manner they would only need to be deconstructed and explained once. When the reader is familiar with an idea you can then expand on it moving forward, which is the typical format of most books. Yet, The Art of the Argument reads nothing like a book and plays loose with its structure. "Chapters" being a few sentences followed by ideas that relate nothing to the topic in focus at the time. It truly is remarkable how absurdly this book is laid out.

I could put up with the arcane structure if the book had something to offer, and this is what makes me so frustrated. If you have listened to Stefan for any period of time you already have "read" this book. That is because Stefan brings forward nothing new to those who already are aware of his message. Which leads me to ask - Then who is this book for?

Stefan is a niche public speaker, his supporters are the ones most likely to pick up this book. What we have been delivered is a messy and pointless read that does less in 163 pages than what Stefan could do in a single 1-hour show. Being that I am familiar with Stefan, I was expecting this book to be his chance to go into more detail about techniques, with great examples of fallacies and how to generally deal with them. With a book, you can structure a more refined message than you could talking off the cuff, at least one would think.

This book has nothing to offer for fans of Stefan. As a book written for newcomers to his message and mission, it is an incomprehensible mess that is a disservice to the subject matter and Stefan himself.

The book features examples of various types of logic and some ideas surrounding philosophy, but it all feels like a preamble that goes nowhere. Page after page, word after word, nothing but introductions or surface level commentary. It is plagued with paragraphs relentlessly trying to take on too many subjects. The book is filled with paragraphs that are completely useless or totally irrelevant to any topic at hand. Jokes constantly needing to be explained in between paragraphs, as they work against the message. UPB is interjected into the text when the book never established its intent to connect the two.

It feels like an essay written by someone in high school who is trying to pad the length with unnecessary specificity, repeated ideas, increased font sizes and spacing. When the book finally begins to discuss how to "structure" an argument on page 123, it conveys nothing that had not been explained in those previous 123 pages. The chapter just before this "Part 2" (only 2 pages prior) features an actual essay Stefan had previously composed and decided just to throw in there because he wanted you to see it, and he needed to fill some space. With some editing and better wording the essay itself would be a great edition to the book!

This essay is essentially a summary and introduction to ideas that are expressed throughout the book and would have worked at lot better at-

Wait? Did you hear that? It's an electronic voice phenomenon! Let's hear what it says!

"...at the beginning of the book".

This essay Stefan wrote, it's important to him and he is proud of it. So reuse it! There is no problem with that. But its value is diminished when just haphazardly thrown into a book 120 pages in. This kind of baffling structure is the sort of thing that leads me to believe Stefan had no editor or second draft for this book. This type of flowery speech goes either at the beginning or at the end of a book, it is common sense.

The book is just packed with wasted space trying to come across as profound. Stefan is so in love with certain sentences he turns them into their own paragraphs to give them emphasis. This can be fine, but there are instances of entire pages composed of these "quotables". Page 103 stands out.

There are other books that breakdown how to debate and use logic available, they are straightforward and sharp. They are about one thing and pull it off. The Art of the Argument: Western Civilization’s Last Stand is a book that only sort-of showcases Stefan's worldview and how he supports his beliefs. It is not about how to debate but rather why Stefan feels it is important to do so and what it vaguely should look like. People who pick up this book will most likely already agree why it is important to debate and why definitions are important, etc. So again - who is this for?

Stefan tries to sound scientific but interjects with his voice constantly. He wants to push his worldviews but does so with only a half-effort. He wants to support open discussion but does little to teach you how. His frequent non sequiturs and bias pollute a book that feigns to be "objective". It is dishonest to claim objectivity then push an ideology. This is easily avoided by establishing intent and bias. There is nothing wrong with writing to express a bias.

You could derive lessons from the book but I would assume most interested parties already know how to get around the evil of emotion in a debate for "truth". What they (me) would like to know is why it is being used, the history of its use and where it falls in today. This book feels like Stefan wrote it for himself, not for other people. It is a frustrating waste of time and a disappointment as I learned only one thing:

Stefan can talk, but he cannot write.

Thank you Stephan. Am thoroughly enjoying your book. Cannot wait to finish it. Not sure why all of the negative comments...they must be sophists. The philosophers that are true to their name, will certainly enjoy this book.

I found this book well worth reading, and probably more than once. Certainly, if I'm to do a full review I'll need another pass, due to the levels of nuance and complexity.

I found many of the lessons in it compelling, entertaining and enlightening and I think it may serve as a good intro to applied argumentation, argumentation ethics, sophistry, logical validity, and truth among other categories in this topic.

The exposition on sophistry is, I think, alone worth reading.

Stefan is undoubtedly a good orator and critical thinker. However, like all academics, he refuses to see that the chance to turn Western Civilization around from it's current impending demise through debate, philosophy, and diplomacy has long since past. It can only be reclaimed now through the price academics never are willing to pay: blood.