On 4/13/06, bitchlab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 08:21 PM 4/13/2006, Eubulides wrote: > >On 4/13/06, bitchlab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I like it best presented in fuller quote. But, I have a question, What > > > does > > > Marx mean by "demonstrates ad hominem"? > > > > > >==================== > > > >In some circumstances ad hominem means intratheoretic > >inconsistency[ies], or paradoxicalization as process. As KM seems to > >be fond of sociologizing paradox :-) it may be the manner of his usage > >in the context above. Large scale belief change on the path to > >collectively coherent behavior/action a la chaos theory enthusiasts > >language game.......... > > > >E > > > I have no idea what you just said!
========================= Aristotle -who did not regard the ad hominem as a fallacy, Sextus and, closer to our own time Locke had different meanings to/for the term ad hominem than the common meaning we take largely for granted today. The investigation of relevance and paraconsistent logics have raised yet again some of issues Greek philosophers dealt with at length regarding the ad hominem, tu quo quo, ex falso etc. Below is Locke's defining of the ad hominem in a taxonomy of argumentation practices that would lead to knowledge: <http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke1/Book4b.html#Chapter%20XII> 19. Four sorts of arguments. Before we quit this subject, it may be worth our while a little to reflect on four sorts of arguments, that men, in their reasonings with others, do ordinarily make use of to prevail on their assent; or at least to awe them as to silence their opposition. I. Argumentum ad verecundiam. The first is, to allege the opinions of men, whose parts, learning, eminency, power, or some other cause has gained a name, and settled their reputation in the common esteem with some kind of authority. When men are established in any kind of dignity, it is thought a breach of modesty for others to derogate any way from it, and question the authority of men who are in possession of it. This is apt to be censured, as carrying with it too much pride, when a man does not readily yield to the determination of approved authors, which is wont to be received with respect and submission by others: and it is looked upon as insolence, for a man to set up and adhere to his own opinion against the current stream of antiquity; or to put it in the balance against that of some learned doctor, or otherwise approved writer. Whoever backs his tenets with such authorities, thinks he ought thereby to carry the cause, and is ready to style it impudence in any one who shall stand out against them. This I think may be called argumentum ad verecundiam. 20. II. Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Secondly, Another way that men ordinarily use to drive others and force them to submit to their judgments, and receive their opinion in debate, is to require the adversary to admit what they allege as a proof, or to assign a better. And this I call argumentum ad ignorantiam. 21. III. Argumentum ad hominem. Thirdly, a third way is to press a man with consequences drawn from his own principles or concessions. This is already known under the name of argumentum ad hominem. 22. IV. Argumentum adjudicium. The fourth alone advances us in knowledge and judgment. The fourth is the using of proofs drawn from any of the foundations of knowledge or probability. This I call argumentum adjudicium. This alone, of all the four, brings true instruction with it, and advances us in our way to knowledge. For, 1. It argues not another man's opinion to be right, because I, out of respect, or any other consideration but that of conviction, will not contradict him. 2. It proves not another man to be in the right way, nor that I ought to take the same with him, because I know not a better. 3. Nor does it follow that another man is in the right way because he has shown me that I am in the wrong. I may be modest, and therefore not oppose another man's persuasion: I may be ignorant, and not be able to produce a better: I may be in an error, and another may show me that I am so. This may dispose me, perhaps, for the reception of truth, but helps me not to it: that must come from proofs and arguments, and light arising from the nature of things themselves, and not from my shamefacedness, ignorance, or error. Arguably, the person most responsible for transforming the meaning of the ad hominem is Johann Fichte. KM's use of the term is probably a veiled reference to the firestorm Fichte's "Science of Knowledge" precipitated amongst European intelligentsia. Info regarding Fichte's rhetorical strategies can be found at the below: <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/fichte.htm> A bit of a backgrounder that historicizes the term and the polysemy involved is at: <http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~walton/papers%20in%20pdf/04historical.pdf> Argumentation Schemes and Historical Origins of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem Argument Also well worth a look is "Paradox and Paraconsistency: Conflict Resolution in the Abstract Sciences" by John Wood [Cambridge U. Press]
