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?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Gee
Posts: 667
Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Ad Hominem Arguments and Personal Attacks

Post by Gee »

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 »

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: 667
Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Ad Hominem Arguments and Personal Attacks

Post by Gee »

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
Francis Kapola
Premium Member
Posts: 2
Joined: November 6th, 2023, 7:40 pm

Re: Ad Hominem Arguments and Personal Attacks

Post by Francis Kapola »

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.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7066
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Ad Hominem Arguments and Personal Attacks

Post by Sculptor1 »

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.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7066
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Ad Hominem Arguments and Personal Attacks

Post by Sculptor1 »

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.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3218
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Ad Hominem Arguments and Personal Attacks

Post by JackDaydream »

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.
User avatar
Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD
Posts: 230
Joined: December 14th, 2023, 6:07 pm
Favorite Philosopher: The BUDDHA
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Ad Hominem Arguments and Personal Attacks

Post by Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD »

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.


Dr. Bernardo Kastrup — Materialism is baloney!!! :D
Youtube. com/watch?v=FcPyTgLILqA

Dr. Jonathan Österman, Ph.D., ETH Zürich, Switzerland

Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021