This term came directly out of scholastic philosophy, where it has been used for 2,000 years in a precise technical sense that has never been in doubt.
Language is mutable and can change in any year if enough people start to use an old phrase in a new way. That could happen to "ad hominem" if people who have no interest in the rules of thinking decide it means "emotional" or "nasty to somebody". Or "bodacious tatas," for that matter. But it will never mean any of that when I use the term. There are already ample ways to say "emotional" or "nasty to somebody". There is only one way to describe an actual ad hominem argument. -- Tony West ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 8:46 AM Subject: Re: [UC] ad hominem It was in Frank's previoius message: <<Latin, literally ‘to the person.’ >> -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] Sent: Wed, 16 May 2007 8:35 AM Subject: Re: [UC] ad hominem This post is a classic. I would not say this often, but really examine this post. This post might help folks really understand the concept. 'Ad hominem' is a term used to describe the way you abuse ideas, not the way > you abuse persons The above statement from Mr. West is absurd. I forget the exact translation but it is something like "at the man" It's the complete opposite of West's statement. Glenn
