structure for 'Reason'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     unexpand these ideas

2. Reason / F. Fallacies / 7. Ad Hominem

[attacking an opponent's motives instead of their arguments]

5 ideas
Ad Hominem: press a man with the consequences of his own principle [Locke]
     Full Idea: The Argumentum ad Hominem is to press a man with consequences drawn from his own principles or concessions.
     From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.17.21)
     A reaction: This is a rather more plausible account of it than the alternative I have met, that it is just to attack to speaker instead of what they say. This version is at least an attempt to derive a contradiction, rather than mere abuse.
An ad hominem argument is good, if it is shown that the man's principles are inconsistent [Reid]
     Full Idea: It is a good argument ad hominem, if it can be shewn that a first principle which a man rejects, stands upon the same footing with others which he admits, …for he must then be guilty of an inconsistency.
     From: Thomas Reid (Essays on Intellectual Powers 6: Judgement [1785], 4)
     A reaction: Good point. You can't divorce 'pure' reason from the reasoners, because the inconsistency of two propositions only matters when they are both asserted together. …But attacking the ideas isn't quite the same as attacking the person.
An ad hominem refutation is reasonable, if it uses the opponent's assumptions [Harte,V]
     Full Idea: Judicious use of an opponent's assumptions is quite capable of producing a perfectly reasonable ad hominem refutation of the opponent's thesis.
     From: Verity Harte (Plato on Parts and Wholes [2002], 1.6)
We should always apply someone's theory of meaning to their own utterances [Liggins]
     Full Idea: We should interpret philosophers as if their own theory of the meaning of their utterances were true, whether or not we agree with that theory.
     From: David Liggins (Nihilism without Self-Contradiction [2008], 8)
     A reaction: This seems to give legitimate grounds for some sorts of ad hominem objections. It would simply be an insult to a philosopher not to believe their theories, and then apply them to what they have said. This includes semantic theories.
The Ad Hominem Fallacy criticises the speaker rather than the argument [PG]
     Full Idea: The Ad Hominem Fallacy is to criticise the person proposing an argument rather than the argument itself, as when you say "You would say that", or "Your behaviour contradicts what you just said".
     From: PG (Db (ideas) [2031])
     A reaction: Nietzsche is very keen on ad hominem arguments, and cheerfully insults great philosophers, but then he doesn't believe there is such a thing as 'pure argument', and he is a relativist.