Informal Logic 21 (1) (2001)

This is a critical examination of Johnstone's thesis that all valid philosophical arguments are ad hominem. I clarify his notions of valid, philosophical, and ad hominem. I illustrate the thesis with his refutation ofthe claim that only ordinary language is correct. r discuss his three supporting arguments (historical, theoretical, and intermediate). And r criticize the thesis with the objections that if an ad hominem argument is valid, it is really ad rem; that it's unclear how his own theoretical argument can be ad hominem; that if an ad hominem argument is really valid, it would have to be based on the proponent's own assumptions; and that the thesis is not true of philosophical arguments that are constructive rather than critical
Keywords ad hominem, validity, philosophical argument, metaphilosophy, Henry W. Johnstone Jr
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 50,147
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

View all 12 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Equivocating the Ad Hominem.Daniel Putman - 2010 - Philosophy 85 (4):551-555.
Hume's Arguments Concerning Causal Necessity.Henry W. Johnstone - 1955 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 16 (3):331-340.
Lightening Up on the Ad Hominem.John Woods - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (1):109-134.


Added to PP index

Total views
46 ( #201,716 of 2,324,608 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
8 ( #91,028 of 2,324,608 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes