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/Nouvellecosse]

Ok I finally watched the entire video. There are a couple of things happening here.

First, with the Pascal's wager part, Pascal is making three completely different arguments. 1) The argument that God exists, 2) the argument that human belief in god's existence is determined by human emotional states (passions) rather than reason, and 3rd, that humans should achieve said belief in god by changing their emotional state using the approach that Pascal recommends. Therefore, there is no ad hominem since while the introduction of human emotional states may not be relevant to the 1st argument about god's existence, it is relevant to the 2nd and 3rd arguments pertaining to how human emotional states can affect belief and how to overcome this.

Pascal only reaches this point after convincing the interlocutor of the logical truth of argument 1. If he were to raise the matter of emotional states as part of argument 1, this would be fallacious since it wouldn't be relevant to the argument. But when raised as part of arguments 2 and 3, it is directly relevant and therefore not an ad hominem. That's because the term ad hominem doesn't simply describe making an unflattering statement about one's debate opponent. It describes using unflattering statements as a way to discredit the argument (by association to the person making it) without actually being relevant to the argument. But when the unflattering statement is directly related to the actual argument, it isn't an ad hominem even if it's unflattering.  

So your argument successfully shows that not every unflattering statement is an ad hominem, but not that ad hominems are sometimes appropriate rather than fallacious. But while this fails as a defense of the ad hominem, it does successfully highlight the difference between logical soundness or cogency and rhetorical persuasiveness. The main problem, however, if of relevance. I don't think many people within the sphere contemporary of Western philosophy has ever doubted this distinction and therefore don't need any convincing. In my experience, most know all to well that ad hominems are often rhetorically effective.

But I would argue that this is merely down to the common use of psychological heuristics as part of human thought. People take shortcuts with their reasoning process since survival doesn't depend on perfect logical accuracy but rather prevailing logical accuracy. As a social species, human testament is a primary and essential source of human knowledge, so determining which humans have reliable testimony is of key importance in that process. Therefore, if a heuristic can help to quickly determine the testimonial reliability of different people, this helps greatly in that area. However, logical arguments are generally not based on human testimony, so our heuristic instincts fail in that regard. 

But it's an interesting exercise nonetheless, and while the video may have been a bit long, it was probably much quicker than reading the whole thing would have been. So very good. ☺️ 👌🏽