The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Argumentum ad hominem > Comments

Argumentum ad hominem : Comments

By Jennifer Wilson, published 1/2/2011

Writing is a creative act between the writer and the reader. Ad hominem comment threads brutalise that relationship.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. All
Sorry Jedimaster, I was stupidly trying to be facetious and shallow. I'll read all of the posts above more thoroughly.

But just to put my 2 cents' worth in, we all at various times hold to illusory notions, and these illusions can easily be transformed into delusions. For example, for most of human history, people have had the illusion that the sun rises in the east, as the earth revolves towards the east. Most of us have acted as if this illusory perception was correct, i.e. acted on a delusion. It does not necessarily mean that we and our ancestors have been delusional. merely that with the best 'science' around and with no particular malice aforethought, we have acted as if this delusion was true, even testable. No big deal: once the illusion is explained, most of us become aware of our mistaken notions. Those who persist in a mistaken belief and act on it, are indeed delusional. It would not be an ad hominem attack to say so.

Popper wrote a lot about the impossibility of justifying a belief, and the need to test and to try to falsify them instead. To the extent that I accept a belief which has been falsified unbeknownst to me, I may be harbouring an illusion, and if I act on it, then I am acting under a delusion. But I am not necessarily thereby delusional. If someone points out my delusion, that is not an ad hominem attack: it is a critique of my mistaken belief and quite justified. If they declare that I am thereby delusional, then yes, it may be. If I persist in the belief knowing of the critique, then yes, I am delusional, and it would not be an ad hominem attack for anyone to say so: it would be quite justified.

2 cents: time's up.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 13 February 2011 6:54:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth- you're redeemed! :-)

I think that the important aspect of this is the difference between "deluded" and "delusional". I might be (as loudmouth describes) deluded about something. This does not mean that I deluded about all things (delusional). Ad hominems seem to categorise people as permanently in an incorrigible state (eg delusional, denialist, craven etc) rather than tackling the particular issue, about which they may have an incorrect view.

So ad hominems aren't just "tackling the person, not the issue", but using language that condemns the person totally and forever, rather than pointing out particular foibles with the hope and intention that they are corrigible.

That's why I am averse to any labelling ending in "-ist" and "-ism", with the possible exception of "empiricist". The rest are categories of condemnation.
Posted by Jedimaster, Sunday, 13 February 2011 9:07:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy