This essay reconstructs Wilde's view of the role of argument in human life. The distinction in rhetorical theory between agonistic argument and cooperative argument explains Wilde's apparently complete dismissal of argument in his aversion to "all argumentative books." Wilde dislikes agonistic arguments that suppress an individual's effort to realize his or her unique identity. He does, however, recognize two forms of argument as beneficial to that effort: cooperative argument stated through paradox and agonistic argument that leads to self-transcendence. Comparisons with philosophers Henry Johnstone and Richard Rorty explicate Wilde's remarks on argument and show that his subordination of argument to personal growth is compatible with philosophical thinking.