Argumentation 18 (3):359-368 (2004)

Abstract
There are two views of the ad hominem argument found in the textbooks and other traditional treatments of this argument, the Lockean or ex concessis view and the view of ad hominem as personal attack. This article addresses problems posed by this ambiguity. In particular, it discusses the problem of whether Aristotle's description of the ex concessis type of argument should count as evidence that he had identified the circumstantial ad hominem argument. Argumentation schemes are used as the basis for drawing a distinction between this latter form of argument and another called argument from commitment, corresponding to the ex concessis argument
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1023/B:ARGU.0000046706.45919.83
Options
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: 53,497
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Fallacies.C. L. Hamblin - 1970 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 160:492-492.
Ad Hominem Arguments.Douglas Walton - 1998 - University Alabama Press.
A Rhetorical View of the Ad Hominem.Alan Brinton - 1985 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63 (1):50 – 63.

View all 13 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Ad Hominem Fallacies, Bias, and Testimony.Audrey Yap - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):97-109.
Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton, Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - Cambridge University Press.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-08-24

Total views
109 ( #85,952 of 2,348,160 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #57,154 of 2,348,160 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes