Philosophy Discussion Forums

Posted: **February 25th, 2013, 1:58 pm**

DonandVicki wrote: 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

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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

Posted: **November 15th, 2023, 6:10 am**

For a philosophical forum aiming to distinguish itself, it's advisable to center discussions on the topic rather than opposing individual opinions. Focus on critiquing or supporting the subject matter itself to foster a more constructive and meaningful exchange of ideas.

Posted: **November 15th, 2023, 6:23 am**

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑May 8th, 2012, 8:07 pm The problem with ad hominem arguments in the context of philosophy and debate isn't simply the potential emotional offense it may cause on the allegedly weak victim but rather the simple fact that it it is logical fallacy and irrelevant to the discussion.

That's what I like about the video in my previous post. It's a blatant ad hominem argument, but is funny since the insulted character doesn't even feel truly offended because it is so absurd. It's not offensively illogical in that situation but rather hilariously illogical.

There is a question of probability.
If an uneducated person expresses an opinion upon a topic he cannot possibly know anything about, people are more likley to listen to and "expert" in the field, rather than he.
Though the matter at hand cannot be sorted by argumentum ad authoritatum/vericundium, in most cases the expert tends to be right or carry more weight
Since almost no one on this Forum has the sort of authority to opine upon the sort of topics we commonly discuss then the use of authorities (thought they may be flawed) is a common enough practice.
An ad hom (when not confused with a plain insult) is nothing more than the converse fallacy of the argumentum ad verecundiam.
You all do it.

Posted: **November 15th, 2023, 6:24 am**

Bermudj wrote: ↑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.

But that would be nothing more than a appeal to authority and as such I invoke the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy.

Posted: **November 15th, 2023, 8:24 am**

As far as I see it, ad hominem attacks are about the abuse of power. It may be in connection with claims about knowledge. This whole area involves the nature of credibility, which includes sociopolitical aspects of knowledge and understanding.

Until I began writing on philosophy forums, just over 3 years ago, I had not come across the idea of ad hominem 'attacks'. Having written on this site and one other philosophy site, I see ad hominem attacks as a 'below the belt' aspect of rational argument, in which aspects of one's own approach to philosophy are used, and probably abused, as a way of over generalisation, to discredit another person's thinking, its genuineness, and the foundation of all arguments.

Posted: **December 17th, 2023, 9:26 pm**

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑March 12th, 2008, 11:38 pm Philosophical Discussion: Ad Hominem Arguments and Personal Attacks
by Scott Hughes

Philosophical discussions generally consist of productive debate in which two or more people attempt to rationally argue for different sides of a question. They each try to think up and explain a logical argument in support of their position while constructively trying to offer logical rebuttals of the other person's position. Though called arguments, the philosophers generally have a lot of respect for each other and enjoy having the discussion in a friendly tone. In fact, it becomes very difficult to have a worthwhile philosophical discussion without a lot of respectfulness and friendliness.

Unfortunately, sometimes one person may use an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument consists of replying to a person's argument by merely attacking the character of the person making the argument. An ad hominem argument is also called a personal attack or an irrelevant insult. For example, if Joe claims that the sky is blue, Bob would be making an ad hominem argument if he responded by saying, "No, it isn't because you are an ugly moron."

An ad hominem is a fallacy, and it is illogical. Worse yet, it may cause the discussion to break down into an unproductive name-calling contest.

You may have trouble distinguishing an ad hominem argument from a non-fallaciously offensive statement. A claim or argument may not be an ad hominem argument just because somebody feels insulted or offended by it. You can figure out whether a statement is an ad hominem or not by asking yourself if the statement is truly relevant to the discussion. If the statement is evidence of the person's position about the topic, then it may not be an ad hominem even if it could be offensive. Nonetheless, if the statement just attacks the other person in the discussion, then it is an ad hominem. Generally, name-calling of any kind is an ad hominem. Additionally, saying that the other person is ignorant, stupid, or such will also almost always be an ad hominem.

You can avoid using ad hominem arguments by trying to stay on-topic in any discussion. Additionally, try to speak as nicely, politely, and respectfully as possible. If you constantly try to remain as nice and polite as possible, you will probably not slip up and make an ad hominem. To that end, avoid discussing anything while angry. If you feel angry or emotional, make sure to take extra care to speak or write in as nicely and respectfully of a tone as possible. Focus on making points only about the main topic, and do not comment on the other person's character or abilities (unless you wish to give them an honest compliment).

If someone calls you names or insults you, do not respond by doing the same. It is no less fallacious for you to return a personal attack than it was for them to make one. I find it most effective to just ignore insults in a philosophical discussion. If you try to mention the other person's ad hominem and reply to it, you will often end up getting into an off-topic and personal discussion. If you feel the need to reply to an ad hominem, simply and politely tell the person that the ad hominem remark is irrelevant. Talking about the fact that an off-topic remark is off-topic will bring you further off-topic. Just let it go and focus on the topic.

Calling someone a hypocrite is almost always an ad hominem fallcy. In fact, it is specifically referred to as an ad hominem tu quoque. It is fallacious. For example, if Mark claims that smoking cigarettes is wrong, and Mary tries to rebut it by accusing Mark of smoking cigarettes, Mary has probably made an ad hominem tu quoque fallacy. The fact that Mark smokes cigarettes does not disprove the claim that smoking cigarettes is wrong.

Also, calling the person who makes an argument biased is almost always an ad hominem fallacy. It is specifically referred to as an ad hominem circumstantial argument. Pointing out that someone has a reason to want a conclusion to be true is not a valid rebuttal to their argument.

Most importantly, you want to avoid making irrelevant insults. Do not call names. If you do, you are committing a fallacy, and you have greatly hindered the ability for the discussion to remain productive. Remember, the point of philosophical discussion is to have productive and constructive discussions about philosophical topics; it is not to have name-calling contests and insult each others' personal qualities.

What do you think?

I do sincerely and completely agree with all of the above.

Philosophy Discussion Forums

Ad Hominem Arguments and Personal Attacks

Re: Ad Hominem Arguments and Personal Attacks

Re: Ad Hominem Arguments and Personal Attacks

Re: Ad Hominem Arguments and Personal Attacks

Re: Ad Hominem Arguments and Personal Attacks

Re: Ad Hominem Arguments and Personal Attacks

Re: Ad Hominem Arguments and Personal Attacks

Re: Ad Hominem Arguments and Personal Attacks

Re: Ad Hominem Arguments and Personal Attacks