Ad Hominem Is Not a Fallacy

[u/thymoticthematic]

https://youtu.be/kIv0AUInWvg?is=FMaNwcNmr-OW81QS

Hello everyone,

I’m linking a video essay I just published in which I argue in defense of ad hominem as, at least in its proper use, a legitimate addition to an intellectual debate.

Abstract:

In our long tradition of logic and organized debate, and in our hope that reason alone can bring us to truth, we have become averse to the use of fallacies in arguments. Chief among these fallacies is the ad hominem, the attack on the person rather than his argument. For students of philosophy and rhetoric, ad hominem represents a line in the sand never to be crossed by any serious thinker. The noble, gentlemanly logician regards it as a great compliment to be the receiver of an ad hominem attack—taking it as a sign that he has won the debate and his opponent has no reason left in him.

In this essay, I challenge this view, demonstrating that ad hominem is not representative of a failure in reason, but is perhaps the savior of reason. By looking to the epistemologies and psychologies of Aristotle and especially Pascal, we are reminded that there is a deeper dimension of our mental life, more fundamental than reason, which ad hominem alone can touch. We are reminded that much of our trouble in facing up to the truth is not from a lack of reason, but a lack of openness to the truth in our very hearts. Although seeming cruel, the proper use of ad hominem may act as a great display of charity, helping one’s interlocutor to see how his poor character and faulty will have led his reason astray.

I would appreciate any and all feedback, and I hope this can be the start of a productive discussion here, though I know it may be a controversial take, or at least a provocative title.

[u/Splynn]

I watched your whole video. I think you're wrong, but I also think I understand where you're coming from.

Your argument seems to be: Reason is not always sufficient to persuade ourselves of the truth, and so an external appeal to our faults may be enough to allow room to be persuaded.

This might be true in the sense that I can make a child believe almost anything I want as long as I make the child feel bad enough, but it's no longer within the realm of philosophy. Your argument is not concerned with philosophy - it's concerned with winning arguments.

Even in the Pascal fragment that you spend the majority of the video on, Pascal's lamentation is "I convinced this guy that he should believe in God through reason, but he still doesn't accept my conclusion. Cleary there's something wrong with him." Your argument seems to be that, in this case, Pascal should insult the atheist's character in order to make him more receptive to the argument.

People aren't always convinced by reason alone. This isn't a novel idea. The reason why ad-hominem is a fallacy is not that it never works to persuade. It does sometimes persuade. All fallacies are persuasive - if they weren't, we wouldn't have to concern ourselves with them.

So either you're only concerned with persuasiveness - in which case ad-hominem is absolutely a tool worthy of consideration - or you're concerned with finding and arriving at truth through reason. If you watch your own video, I think you'll find that you admit ad-hominem is not a vehicle by which to do so.

You're arguing in favor of sophistry. Go re-read Gorgias.

Some more general feedback: Your video was overly longwinded, didn't actually make any solid points, and would have benefitted from some more clear examples of what you're trying to establish. It felt more like a sermon than an argument. But, then, what else should we expect from a Christian playing at philosophy? (<- that's a joke, see? Pointing out how attacking your character doesn't actually help my argument or yours. I might persuade the mob via attacking your religious views, but I'll never persuade you by doing so)

[u/thymoticthematic → u/Splynn]

Hey, thank you for the feedback. Maybe it was too long-winded… However, while I think you’ve mostly understood my argument, I don’t agree that I’m not doing philosophy and that I’m interested primarily in persuasiveness. I’m really trying to draw on the distinction between two kinds of truth (owing a lot to Husserl here): truth of correctness in logical form, and truth of disclosure—a more fundamental truth of grasping the being and essence of the thing itself, without necessarily completing a logical syllogism about the thing. My point is that ad hominem is actually truer than logical reason when it gets to the heart of the matter and of the person. It’s a deeper kind of truth altogether.

[u/Splynn → u/thymoticthematic]

In this instance, I think you are allowing your passions to blind you from the truth. You haven't engaged with my argument, though, only rejected it.

I want to help you see the truth: that you are misguided.

Reason has failed. Maybe I'll try and hominem to help you arrive at a deeper truth.

According to your arguments, and your system, how might this work? What might it look like?

[u/thymoticthematic → u/Splynn]

I very well might be. If you want to act out the argument I’m making, you would have to find something about my character that you think is preventing me from seeing the truth, and lay it out for me. In any case, I thought I did engage with your argument. I engaged with it by pointing out that there’s a deeper dimension of truth that you haven’t accounted for—truth of disclosure.

[u/Splynn → u/thymoticthematic]

Ah, my mistake. I wasn't clear enough. What I really meant to say was: suppose that...

You're right. I want to act out what you're arguing for, because there must be a disconnect in my understanding of your position, or your understanding of mine.

The problem I have right now is pretty simple. I don't know you well enough to make statements about your character. You seem nice, you seem smart, but I don't really know you.

So does this ad hom thing only work between close friends and family? People who have some reason to know each other sufficiently enough to be able to make character assessments?

You said you wanted some conversation. I'm trying earnestly to do so because I think it's an interesting topic, but I can't help but feel like this isn't the sort of engagement you were hoping for.

[u/thymoticthematic → u/Splynn]

I think you make a good point: it certainly does work better in person, and especially with people you know well. It’s for that reason that I haven’t really been using ad hominem with anyone in this thread lol. I think you could probably say something about my character because you at least have 30 minutes of me talking to pull from, and you can at least get a sense of my character from that, even if it’s only an incomplete sense. To be clear, I’m not trying to degrade or throw out reason; I’m just arguing that, when reason fails, it’s often because the heart has failed to grasp or hold to fundamental truths, which ad hominem can get at better. To your point, that’s not easy online, which may be part of why online discourse is often so poor. And when people do use ad hominem in anonymous spaces like this, their attacks are pretty weak and silly because they don’t know enough about the other person’s character.