Go back
Ad hominem: is it really about me?

Ad hominem: is it really about me?

General

P
Upward Spiral

Halfway

Joined
02 Aug 04
Moves
8702
Clock
28 Jan 10
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
At this point, let's agree to defer to Freaky. Okay?
Deference to others doesn't really suit me.

B
Death

is no semi-colon

Joined
14 Dec 08
Moves
23029
Clock
28 Jan 10
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Blackamp
those holes in your purples socks are getting bigger. more hole than sock these days. is this lifted directly from the Encyclopedia of Cod Psychology?
hmmm...silence, or feline sadism? always a difficult choice.but i guess it'll be too late for silence once i click 'post'.

Grampy Bobby
Boston Lad

USA

Joined
14 Jul 07
Moves
43012
Clock
28 Jan 10
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Palynka
Deference to others doesn't really suit me.
Any particular reason why?

P
Upward Spiral

Halfway

Joined
02 Aug 04
Moves
8702
Clock
28 Jan 10
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Any particular reason why?
Deference requires uncritical acceptance. And uncritical acceptance is anathema to reason and freedom.

Grampy Bobby
Boston Lad

USA

Joined
14 Jul 07
Moves
43012
Clock
28 Jan 10
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Palynka
Deference requires uncritical acceptance. And uncritical acceptance is anathema to reason and freedom.
Interesting how conversations often pivot on definitions. Coding mechanism in my forehead transmitted

a casual/positive signal (sense of benefit from a courteous tactical pause), while the decoding mechanism

in yours received a code red alert/negative one (uncritical acceptance/anathema to reason and freedom).

F

Unknown Territories

Joined
05 Dec 05
Moves
20408
Clock
28 Jan 10
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't really understand what you are saying.

My explanation of what 'ad hominem' means is correct. Motives for using it are legion, speculation thereto cheap.

On a side note, I wish people would distinguish between ad hominem (a logical fallacy) and insult. So frequently people hop up and down with their 'ad hominem! ad hominem!' when they ar ...[text shortened]... ; the best weapons against blatant idiots are silence or feline sadism, according to taste.
I don't really understand what you are saying.
That makes two of us.

My explanation of what 'ad hominem' means is correct.
Agreed.

Ad hominem is held to be a conflict to a system which concerns itself with ideas. Nearly all aspects of logic and arguments are idea-dependent, whereas the AH argument is assumed to be about a person, sans any connection to any ideas. The closest approximation that I can get to what I am describing is ad hominem circumstantial, but this only speaks to subjectivity on the basis of the influencing situation, not a rejection of any underlying idea.

What I am suggesting is that perhaps there is an element of idea-dependency to the AH argument that isn't being considered: when the person against whom it is used represents the underlying idea which has been rejected by the person employing the tactic.

B
Death

is no semi-colon

Joined
14 Dec 08
Moves
23029
Clock
28 Jan 10
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Interesting how conversations often pivot on definitions. Coding mechanism in my forehead transmitted

a casual/positive signal (sense of benefit from a courteous tactical pause), while the decoding mechanism

in yours received a code red alert/negative one (uncritical acceptance/anathema to reason and freedom).
there is a wide gap between a 'courteous tactical pause', and 'deference'. i'd refer you to a dictionary, but you've made it clear you don't see their value.

P
Upward Spiral

Halfway

Joined
02 Aug 04
Moves
8702
Clock
28 Jan 10
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I don't really understand what you are saying.
That makes two of us.

My explanation of what 'ad hominem' means is correct.
Agreed.

Ad hominem is held to be a conflict to a system which concerns itself with ideas. Nearly all aspects of logic and arguments are idea-dependent, whereas the AH argument is assumed to be about a person, san ...[text shortened]... d represents the underlying idea which has been rejected by the person employing the tactic.[/b]
Again, I believe you misrepresent what an Ad Hominem is held to be. It's simply identifying that an attack on the source is immaterial with respect to the truth value of the opposing idea. This is far weaker than the claim that it is "sans any connection to any ideas" (emphasis mine).

Grampy Bobby
Boston Lad

USA

Joined
14 Jul 07
Moves
43012
Clock
28 Jan 10
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I don't really understand what you are saying.
That makes two of us.

My explanation of what 'ad hominem' means is correct.
Agreed.

Ad hominem is held to be a conflict to a system which concerns itself with ideas. Nearly all aspects of logic and arguments are idea-dependent, whereas the AH argument is assumed to be about a person, san d represents the underlying idea which has been rejected by the person employing the tactic.[/b]
AH seems in a way to attach to Marshall McLuhan's 'medium is the message':


"The medium is the message is a phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan meaning
that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic
relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived."

-wiki

F

Unknown Territories

Joined
05 Dec 05
Moves
20408
Clock
28 Jan 10
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Palynka
Again, I believe you misrepresent what an Ad Hominem is held to be. It's simply identifying that an attack on the source is immaterial with respect to the truth value of the opposing idea. This is far weaker than the claim that it is "sans [b]any connection to any ideas" (emphasis mine).[/b]
I guess I'm trying to underscore the distinction that logic concerns itself with the ideas and an AH argument doesn't--- or seemingly doesn't. Instead of considering the picture, it talks about the frame.

F

Unknown Territories

Joined
05 Dec 05
Moves
20408
Clock
28 Jan 10
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
AH seems in a way to attach to Marshall McLuhan's 'medium is the message':


"The medium is the message is a phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan meaning
that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic
relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived."

-wiki
McLuhan so gets me.

P
Upward Spiral

Halfway

Joined
02 Aug 04
Moves
8702
Clock
28 Jan 10
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I guess I'm trying to underscore the distinction that logic concerns itself with the ideas and an AH argument doesn't--- or seemingly doesn't. Instead of considering the picture, it talks about the frame.
If you want to be polemical, I'd say that logic doesn't even really concern itself with the actual ideas. It's simply a method.

But...don't let me ruin your party. I'll get my coat.

Grampy Bobby
Boston Lad

USA

Joined
14 Jul 07
Moves
43012
Clock
28 Jan 10
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Blackamp
there is a wide gap between a 'courteous tactical pause', and 'deference'. i'd refer you to a dictionary, but you've made it clear you don't see their value.
In my forehead, there's also 'deference' linkage with both 'esteem' and 'regard'.

This conversation isn't the least bit competitive for yours truly. I'm in it to learn.

Grampy Bobby
Boston Lad

USA

Joined
14 Jul 07
Moves
43012
Clock
28 Jan 10
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
McLuhan so gets me.
Favorably or unfavorably? Either way, his "influences how the message is perceived" does seem germane to this dialogue.

F

Unknown Territories

Joined
05 Dec 05
Moves
20408
Clock
28 Jan 10
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Favorably or unfavorably? Either way, his "influences how the message is perceived" does seem germane to this dialogue.
Favorably.

The 'weakness' of the AH argument is that is is not thought of as speaking to anything but the frame, whereas all of the other arguments are thought of as speaking to the picture. AH rejects the frame without considering the picture--- frame only, which is why it has been hitherto fore been held to be a distraction from the actual argument.

My point is that perhaps a case could be made for the AH argument actually speaking to a bigger picture: one which houses both the frame and the picture in view, the idea behind the person.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.