Ad Hominem Arguments and Personal Attacks

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Gee
Posts: 185
Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Ad Hominem Arguments and Personal Attacks

Post by Gee » February 25th, 2013, 1:58 pm

DonandVicki wrote::roll: All too often emotions are in the drivers seat when we are trying to think clearly and respond appropriately.
DonandVicki:

I have read statements like the one above many times, but this time, I will accept the challenge contained therein. Consider that if you are in the driver's seat, and see a very large truck sliding toward your vehicle, clear thinking does not always help you. In many instances your fear of death will trigger your instincts and flood your body with adrenaline, which in turn will stop clear thinking. Instead, instinctive reactions will automatically save you from death--and these instinctive reactions are caused by and work through emotion. So sometimes, it is important for emotion to be in the driver's seat.

There is a concerted effort to remove emotion from philosophy; to pretend that it is not necessary or relevant. But emotion is a fundamental part of what it is to be human, so to deny the relevance of emotion is to deny an aspect of humanity. I will grant that emotion is difficult to understand, but if we decide to deny it's existence or worth, are we doing it out of clear thinking? Or are we doing it out of confusion and fear because we do not understand it? I suspect that when we deny the value of emotion, the denial is based upon an emotional decision. There is probably an ad hominem rule regarding this kind of circular thinking--Scott would know.

Philobot;

I hope that you do not think that I am doing the challenge authority thing. Although ad hominems can not find truth, they are very good at finding falsehoods, so they do have value in philosophy. I just can't use them because I can't remember them. That is one of my many gifts from MS (multiple sclerosis), as it not only reduced my vocabulary to half of what it was, it also made it difficult for me to learn new terms. It is very frustrating. I can learn a new term, and one hour later, I don't know what it means. So I keep my Chamber's Concise Dictionary, the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, and a Thesaurus on hand, and look a lot of things up in Wiki. In the two years that I have been using Wiki, it has never disappointed, and when there is a question as to the validity of it's contents, it states as much within the text--so I trust it.

Gee

User avatar
Bermudj
Posts: 1370
Joined: December 17th, 2011, 1:28 pm
Location: West Hampstead, London, UK

Re: Ad Hominem Arguments and Personal Attacks

Post by Bermudj » February 25th, 2013, 2:07 pm

Gee wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


DonandVicki:

I have read statements like the one above many times, but this time, I will accept the challenge contained therein. Consider that if you are in the driver's seat, and see a very large truck sliding toward your vehicle, clear thinking does not always help you. In many instances your fear of death will trigger your instincts and flood your body with adrenaline, which in turn will stop clear thinking. Instead, instinctive reactions will automatically save you from death--and these instinctive reactions are caused by and work through emotion. So sometimes, it is important for emotion to be in the driver's seat.
I was watching a program on driving in difficult conditions and the instructor would advise to keep the foot on the accelerator, although the instinctive reaction would have been to apply the breaks suddenly.
Do whatever you do, do what a good man would do, and what is a good man?, I do not know, but at every point, every turn, do what a good man would do.

Jesús Antonio Bermúdez-Silva

Gee
Posts: 185
Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Ad Hominem Arguments and Personal Attacks

Post by Gee » February 25th, 2013, 10:46 pm

Bermudj wrote: I was watching a program on driving in difficult conditions and the instructor would advise to keep the foot on the accelerator, although the instinctive reaction would have been to apply the breaks suddenly.
Good point! I used to love to put my car in a spin in snowy weather and taught my daughters to handle slick conditions when they first started driving. None of us have ever had an accident due to inclement weather. I believe that instinctive reactions can be trained.

But I think we are getting off topic.

Gee

Post Reply