RE: What is an Ad Hominem?
May 28, 2010 at 4:37 am
(This post was last modified: May 28, 2010 at 4:38 am by Violet.)
Literally... a thing that is ad hominem is 'of a person/to a person'. It's latin in origin (to my knowledge)... and I should appreciate to know if we are discussing colloquial or differing definitions as to what 'ad hominem' means (so that a sleepy girl might properly know what we're talking about).
Are we using colloquial language or being literalists? Colloquially, it is often ('incorrectly') loosely defined as an insult to one's person... though as it can be as easily used in a positive light, this does neither always hold to be true nor even tend to be true. In example... an ad hominem support for an argument might occur like so: Bother Maybel believes the Earth is flat... and since he is a Brother: he must be right. Similarly, an ad hominem attack of an argument might occur like so: Brother Maybel believes the Earth is flat... and since he is a Brother: he must be wrong. It should be noted that neither of these positions are based on logic... but almost certainly in some way relate to an emotion or trust/distrust in a thing (if trust is not an emotion).
Further... it should be noted that this is only in reference to a person making an assertion (and that assertion being made into an argument with a thing's perceived status of trustworthiness (or some other emotional influence) to support it (it can indeed be used alongside other arguments without damaging them, and is not necessarily incorrect (especially if a thing's status specifically relates to a point... such as a biologist's opinion on biology being considered more trustworthy than a scientologist's.))
It is often frowned upon in philosophical circles... and often comes somewhat 'disguised' in many forms (IE: Arguments from authority and establishment)... so that the argument's status as an ad hominem (or even that wether it happen to be an argument relating to a person, thing, or substance changes not the argument's weakness) often goes unnoticed whilst the more specific argument is refuted (and from which point several other ad hominems tend to surface, in what I've seen of debates at least).
It certainly merits it's own thread... and the philosophy subforum will be prettier for it
Please note if I've made an oopsie: I am half asleepy as of posting this...
Are we using colloquial language or being literalists? Colloquially, it is often ('incorrectly') loosely defined as an insult to one's person... though as it can be as easily used in a positive light, this does neither always hold to be true nor even tend to be true. In example... an ad hominem support for an argument might occur like so: Bother Maybel believes the Earth is flat... and since he is a Brother: he must be right. Similarly, an ad hominem attack of an argument might occur like so: Brother Maybel believes the Earth is flat... and since he is a Brother: he must be wrong. It should be noted that neither of these positions are based on logic... but almost certainly in some way relate to an emotion or trust/distrust in a thing (if trust is not an emotion).
Further... it should be noted that this is only in reference to a person making an assertion (and that assertion being made into an argument with a thing's perceived status of trustworthiness (or some other emotional influence) to support it (it can indeed be used alongside other arguments without damaging them, and is not necessarily incorrect (especially if a thing's status specifically relates to a point... such as a biologist's opinion on biology being considered more trustworthy than a scientologist's.))
It is often frowned upon in philosophical circles... and often comes somewhat 'disguised' in many forms (IE: Arguments from authority and establishment)... so that the argument's status as an ad hominem (or even that wether it happen to be an argument relating to a person, thing, or substance changes not the argument's weakness) often goes unnoticed whilst the more specific argument is refuted (and from which point several other ad hominems tend to surface, in what I've seen of debates at least).
It certainly merits it's own thread... and the philosophy subforum will be prettier for it
Please note if I've made an oopsie: I am half asleepy as of posting this...
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
