Auslegung 27 (2):1 - 16 (2005)

Joel Buenting
University of Alberta
I have argued for the conclusion that nonfallacious ’ad hominem’ arguments are desirable and to commit them is to commit acts of intellectual responsibility. Arguing against a person, when legitimate, is the prerogative of any rational being. Hume commits himself to the argument and commits himself to it only as a judicious inquisitor responsible for the veracity of his own beliefs. The desirability of nonfallacious ’ad hominem’ ’attacks’ is clear from their extensive use and rhetorical power in courts of law. (edited)
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.17161/AJP.1808.9534
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,219
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Against Miracles.John Collier - 1986 - Dialogue 25 (2):349-.
Ad Hominem Fallacies, Bias, and Testimony.Audrey Yap - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):97-109.
Prophecy, Early Modern Apologetics, and Hume's Argument Against Miracles.Peter Harrison - 1999 - Journal of the History of Ideas 60 (2):241 - 256.
A New Interpretation of Hume's 'Of Miracles'.Chris Slupik - 1995 - Religious Studies 31 (4):517 - 536.
The Credibility of Miracles.Ruth Weintraub - 1996 - Philosophical Studies 82 (3):359 - 375.


Added to PP index

Total views
31 ( #350,889 of 2,448,397 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #304,462 of 2,448,397 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes