Ad Hominem Attacks - background

Logic - Ad Hominem

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html

Ad Hominem arguments attack the person rather than the idea.  

Here are some examples from the linked site:

1. Student: Hey, Professor Moore, we shouldn't have to read this book by Freud. Everyone knows he used cocaine.

Yes, Freud used cocaine.  It was legal at that point in time and many used it (and it was part of the Coca Cola formula).  

But, Freud’s work has to stand on its own - no on the man.  (And, if you will, no man is perfect.  If Freud didn’t use cocaine, he may have been an alcoholic or obese or scared of thunderstorms)

And, indirectly the student was attacking the professor for suggesting that reading Freud was a good plan.

2. Socrates' arguments about human excellence are rubbish. What could a man as ugly as he know about human excellence.

The little we know of Socrates is that he existed.  Was he really ugly?  Who knows and who cares?  And, don’t judge a book by its cover!!!

Changing the argument - from the value of Socrates to his appearance is ad hominem - an attack on the person.

3. Of course, Marx's theories about the ideal society are bunk. The guy spent all his time in the library.

Libraries are a good place!  And, a question for this student: how does he or she know that he spent all his time in the library?  What generalization does the student use to say that libraries are bad.  (For my dissertation, I spent a lot of time in the library.  Now, I can spend that time doing research on my home computer.

Attacking Mark’s theories by not discussing the theories but attacking the man.

The student is also attacking recycling. It was thought of by a bunch of hippie communist weirdos.  Wow - generalization and no relationship.  Are there responsible scientists saying recycling is a valid method of reusing.  And, I knew some hippies (I might have been on the periphery) and very few were communists!!!

4. I was assigned a personal trainer at the Rec, and he gave me a new workout program. But I don't have any confidence in his expertise, since he has obvious trouble controlling his own appetite.

This might have some relevance.  This might be like the statement “Beware of a skinny cook” - which implies that good cooks need to test their own cooking by eating and sampling their work.

But it doesn’t look at the validity of the new workout program and instead focuses on the teacher/trainer.  

*****

I find that ad hominem attacks seem to be ‘judgemental’ in nature.  

I fall back on some trite statements: “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all”; “If you can be anything, be nice”, and a Biblical one “Judge not lest you be judged”.  “When you view another person’s speck in their eye and ignore the log in your own eye.”

We need to be patient and understand - because LOVE WINS!!!

Tomorrow, I'm going off the deep end with political ad hominem attacks.

Hugs!!

Karen White

5. No, I will not reply. I see no need to defend my views against the objections of ignoramuses.