Argumentation 16 (3):333-348 (2002)
|Abstract||In this paper, I discuss the current thesis on the modern origin of the ad hominem-argument, by analysing the Aristotelian conception of it. In view of the recent accounts which consider it a relative argument, i.e., acceptable only by the particular respondent, I maintain that there are two Aristotelian versions of the ad hominem, that have identifiable characteristics, and both correspond to the standard variants distinguished in the contemporary treatments of the famous informal fallacy: the abusive and the circumstancial or tu quoque types. I propose to reconstruct the two Aristotelian versions (see sections 1 and 2), which have been recognized again in the ninteenth century (sec. 3). Finally, I examine whether or not it was considered as a fallacious dialogue device by Aristotle and by A. Schopenhauer (sec. 4)|
|Keywords||argumentum ad hominem argumentum de personam Aristotle dialectics Schopenhauer|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
D. N. Walton (2004). Argumentation Schemes and Historical Origins of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem Argument. Argumentation 18 (3):359-368.
D. N. Walton (2001). Searching for the Roots of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem. Argumentation 15 (2):207-221.
Audrey Yap (2013). Ad Hominem Fallacies, Bias, and Testimony. Argumentation 27 (2):97-109.
Moti Mizrahi (2010). Take My Advice—I Am Not Following It: Ad Hominem Arguments as Legitimate Rebuttals to Appeals to Authority. Informal Logic 30 (4):435-456.
Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen & Bert Meuffels (2012). The Disguised Abusive Ad Hominem Empirically Investigated: Strategic Manoeuvring with Direct Personal Attacks. Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):344 - 364.
Joel M. Buenting (2005). The Rejection of Testimony and the Normative Recommendation of Non-Fallacious 'Ad Hominem' Arguments Based on Hume's 'Of Miracles' and Canadian Law. Auslegung 27 (2):1 - 16.
Douglas N. Walton (1987). The Ad Hominem Argument as an Informal Fallacy. Argumentation 1 (3):317-331.
Christopher A. Pynes (2012). Ad Hominem Arguments and Intelligent Design: Reply to Koperski. Zygon 47 (2):289-297.
Brian Zamulinski (2003). Religion and the Pursuit of Truth. Religious Studies 39 (1):43-60.
Adam J. L. Harris, Anne S. Hsu & Jens K. Madsen (2012). Because Hitler Did It! Quantitative Tests of Bayesian Argumentation Using Ad Hominem. Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):311 - 343.
Michael Veber (2012). “People Who Argue Ad Hominem Are Jerks” and Other Self-Fulfilling Fallacies. Argumentation 26 (2):201-212.
Stephen Anderson (2002). Rehabilitating the Ad Hominem Argument. Philosophy Now 37:36-37.
Nikk Effingham (2009). Universalism, Vagueness and Supersubstantivalism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (1):35 – 42.
C. Swoyer (2001). The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument; Ad Hominem Arguments. Philosophical Review 110 (2):291-295.
Added to index2010-09-11
Total downloads12 ( #101,123 of 722,826 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,826 )
How can I increase my downloads?