{"id":4579,"date":"2021-10-15T15:44:57","date_gmt":"2021-10-15T13:44:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=4579"},"modified":"2025-08-11T19:04:21","modified_gmt":"2025-08-11T17:04:21","slug":"ad-hominem-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/ad-hominem-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Ad hominem"},"content":{"rendered":"

AD HOMINEM<\/span><\/h1>\n

Latin homo<\/em>, \u201chuman being.\u201d<\/p>\n

1. Ad Hominem<\/em> as Personal Attack, Ad Personam<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n

Today, ad hominem<\/em> is commonly used to mean ad personam<\/em>, but classical ad hominem<\/em> argument is quite distinct from personal attack<\/em><\/a> (or ad<\/em> personam<\/em> attack), which seeks to disqualify the person in order to dismiss their arguments.<\/p>\n

2. Ad Hominem<\/em> as Self-Contradiction or Inconsistency<\/span><\/h2>\n

The concept of the ad hominem<\/em> strategy can be found in Aristotle’s Rhetoric<\/em>, scheme \u2260 22:<\/p>\n

Another line of argument is to refute your opponent’s case by noting any contrast or contradiction of dates, acts or words that it anywhere displays. (1400a15; RR p. 373).<\/p>\n

Under that name, Locke defines the ad hominem<\/em> argument as a discussion technique in which the speaker \u201c[presses] a man with consequences drawn from his own principles or concessions. This is already known under the name of argumentum ad hominem<\/em>\u201d ([1690], p. 411).<\/p>\n

The term \u201cprinciple\u201d can be taken in the moral or intellectual sense of \u201cfirst principles.\u201d In both cases, the speaker rearticulates the opponent’s system of beliefs<\/a> and values<\/a>, in order to identify a contradiction. Locke rejects this form of argument as fallacious, because it is based on a person’s specific belief structure, which is irrelevant to the truth of the debated: \u201c[it does not] follow that another man is in the right way, because he has shown me that I am in the wrong\u201d (ibid<\/em>.).
\nThe ad hominem<\/em> argument has no force and plays no role as an alethic instrument, in the process of establishing truth, see collections 3: modernity and tradition<\/a><\/p>\n

Regarding this definition, Leibniz notes that:<\/p>\n

The argument ad hominem<\/em> has this effect, that it shows that one or the other assertion is false and that the opponent is deceived whatever way he takes it. ([1765], pp. 576-577)<\/p>\n

Leibniz thus recognizes the merits of this form of argument in the context of a discussion, as an epistemic instrument, that urges a reorganization of a system of knowledge.<\/p>\n

According to Locke’s, the ad hominem<\/em> argument relates to explicit propositions as put forth in a knowledge-acquisition dialogue and is clearly deductive and propositional.
\nGnerally, ad hominem<\/em> argumentation occurs in dialogue when a speaker builds a discourse, that refers not only to propositional beliefs but also to an opponent’s \u00a0behavior and actions, in order to point out a contradiction. This embarrasses the opponent, causing them to reconsider their speech, positions, or actions.
\nAd hominem<\/em> argumentation typically results in the feeling of \u201cembarrassment<\/em>\u201d, which\u00a0 Ekman (1999, p. 55) considers as a basic emotion. This emotion is not an accidental byproduct of ad hominem;\u00a0<\/em>it is inherent to the argument, as revealed by the verb \u201cto press\u201d, meaning \u201cto assail, harass; afflict or oppress.\u201d \u201cEmbarrassment<\/em>\u201d is a cognitive-emotional feeling, as is the basic argumentative emotion, \u201cdoubt.\u201d However, ad hominem<\/em> is not emotional in the same vein as personal abuse can be, S. Personal Attack<\/a>.<\/p>\n

3. Setting up the Words Against the Words<\/span><\/h2>\n

We have an ad hominem <\/em>reply in the following case:<\/p>\n

Proponent:\u00a0\u2014\u00a0P<\/strong>. I propose<\/em> P.
\n<\/strong>Opponent:\u00a0\u2014 Before, you proposed entirely different things<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Issue: \u2014 Should the presidential term mandate, currently five years, be reduced to four years?
\n<\/em>Proponent (former president): \u2014 I am in favor of reducing it to four years.
\n<\/em>Opponent:\u00a0\u2014\u00a0But in an earlier statement, when you were president yourself, you argued that five years were necessary for the proper functioning of our institutions. Please, clarify.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

The quoted statement opposing the current one may come not only from what the opponent has said in the past, but also from what \u201chis or her people\u201d have said. \u201cHis or her people\u201d are members of the discursive community who share the same argumentative orientations.\u00a0 Such people may be members of the same party, religion or scientific trend, etc.. Such statements cannot easily be disavowed by another member.<\/p>\n

An ad hominem<\/em> reply allows the speaker to participate in the discourse as a third party, without committing himself to the substance of the debate. The speaker does not explicitly take on the role of an opponent, but rather speaks as a participant in good faith, seeking clarification.<\/p>\n

In an accusatory context, the charge of narrative incoherence enables the accused to reject the accusatory narrative, see consistency.<\/p>\n

Reactions to Ad Hominem<\/em> Refutation of What has been Said Before<\/span> <\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

The target of the ad hominem<\/em> argument may choose to sacrifice her former position, reject the contradiction, or accept it.<\/p>\n

(i) Sacrifice the former position:<\/em><\/p>\n

\u2014 Circumstances have changed, we must follow the times.
\n\u2014 I have developed my system.
\n<\/em>\u2014\u00a0I have changed, only madmen never change their minds. Do you prefer psychorigid people?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

(ii) Use a direct rebuttal.<\/em> The opponent points out the contradiction: \u201cYou say both A<\/strong> and Z<\/strong>, which is inconsistent.\u201d The force of this argument comes from the quotation mechanism. The proponent did not necessarily say A<\/strong> or Z<\/strong> but rather something else, A’<\/strong> or Z’<\/strong>, that the opponent paraphrases, rephrases or reinterprets as A<\/strong> or Z<\/strong>.
\nThe contradiction may therefore stem from a reworking of the speech, see straw man<\/a>.<\/strong> The proponent can then respond directly to the letter<\/em>, and reject the key ad hominem<\/em> phrase \u201cYou yourself admitted\u201d in their second turn:<\/p>\n

\u2014 You make me out to say what I have never said. You distort my words.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

In other cases, the precise relationship between A<\/strong> and Z<\/strong>\u2014that is, the nature and degree of the inconsistency\u2014may be debatable, see denying<\/a>; opposites.<\/a><\/p>\n

The ad hominem<\/em> imputation can be directly dismissed on these two counts.<\/p>\n

(iii) Accept the contradiction.<\/em> The ad hominem<\/em> reply seeks an individual who is free from contradiction. Using a classic maneuver of stasis theory, the recipient may choose to assume the very thing they have been criticized for, see stasis<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u2014 I fully accept my inconsistencies. I love rain and good weather.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

4. Setting Up the Beliefs of the Speaker Against Their Words<\/span><\/h2>\n

In the preceding case, there was direct opposition between a present claim and an earlier assertion. Consider the issue of withdrawing troops sent to intervene in Syldavia:<\/p>\n

Q: \u00a0\u00a0 \u2014Should we withdraw our forces from Syldavia?
\n<\/em>S1: \u00a0\u00a0 \u2014 Yes!<\/em><\/p>\n

However, let us suppose that S1<\/strong> has admitted A<\/strong>, B<\/strong>, and C<\/strong>; or, at least that S2<\/strong> speaks as if she sincerely believes that S1<\/strong> supports these propositions:<\/p>\n

S2:\u00a0\u2014 But you said yourself that (A) the Syldavian troops are poorly trained, and (B) that the political unrest in Syldavia is likely to spread to the whole region. There is a real contagion risk. You will agree that such an extension would threaten our own security (C); and no one denies that we must intervene if our security is threatened. Therefore, you have to admit that we have to stay in Syldavia.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

S1<\/strong> claims that P<\/strong>; S2<\/strong> argues ex datis<\/em>, that is, from the beliefs<\/a> held by S1<\/strong> (or attributed to him), and concludes not-P<\/strong>. This is the case considered by Locke. Does this mean that S1<\/strong> must admit that he has made an error, and that we shouldn’t withdraw our troops? Obviously not. S2<\/strong> merely showed through his objection that one cannot support both {A, B, C<\/strong>} and not-P<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Reactions to the Ad Hominem<\/em> Refutation of Reconstructed Beliefs<\/span> <\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

S1<\/strong> can adjust and rearticulate all the key components of S2<\/strong>‘s discourse. For example, she could argue that A<\/strong>, B <\/strong>and C<\/strong> are abusive reformulations of his beliefs, or that the full analysis of the Syldavian situation is much more complex than these three assertions suggest.<\/p>\n

If S1<\/strong> accepts this reconstruction of her speech and beliefs, then she must reject one or more of these propositions. She could reject the idea that the troubles in Syldavia could extend to the entire region.
\nS1<\/strong> is only expected only to correct, clarify or explain more thoroughly why this system of beliefs {A, B, C}<\/strong> cannot expand into non-P<\/strong>. This is precisely the point the ad hominem <\/em>argument is getting at. In this context, ad hominem <\/em>responses are a powerful educational tool.<\/p>\n

5. Setting up the Prescriptions and Practices Against the Words<\/span><\/h2>\n

A contradiction can also be raised between, on the one hand, what I require of others, what I prescribe or forbid them, and, on the other hand, what I do myself, that is, the kind of example I set. It is paradoxical to ask others not to smoke, while I smoke myself. In our culture, actions are considered \u201cto speak louder than words\u201d, and injunctions are systematically flouted if the speaker does not comply with them:<\/p>\n

Doctor, heal thyself!
\nHe’s not a good marriage counselor, he’s always arguing with his wife!
\nYou claim to teach argumentation, yet you can’t argue your own positions!!
\nYou advocate for women’s rights, yet you never do the dishes at home.<\/em><\/p>\n

The ad hominem<\/em> game is played in several moves:<\/p>\n

Question: Should hunting be prohibited?
\n<\/em>S1:\u00a0 \u00a0\u2014 Yes, hunters kill animals for pleasure.
\n<\/em>S2:\u00a0\u00a0 \u2014\u00a0But you eat meat, don’t you?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

S1<\/strong>‘s argument can be reconstructed as, \u201cWe must prohibit hunting, hunters kill for pleasure. That’s awful!<\/em>\u201d The opponent S2<\/strong>\u00a0 constructs an ad hominem<\/em> argument:<\/p>\n

You say that killing animals for pleasure is wrong. But you eat meat, which presupposes that animals are killed for you. You condemn the hunters but support butchers. There is a contradiction here<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

In his follow-up, S1<\/strong> could retort that there is a decisive difference. The hunter kills for pleasure, the butcher by necessity; and S2<\/strong> can refute this refutation by arguing that eating meat is unnecessary, whereas having fun is quite necessary.<\/p>\n

This last form of ad hominem<\/em> corresponds to what Bossuet calls an a repugnantibus<\/em><\/a> argument, or argument based on a contradiction: \u201cYour conduct does not suit your speech<\/em>\u201d ([1677], p.140).
\n<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The expression \u201ccircumstantial ad hominem<\/em>\u201d refers to cases in which the speaker the notices a contradiction between the opponent’s speech and their personal circumstances, material welfare, lifestyle or personal position, see circumstances<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Defense Against Such an Accusation \u2014 <\/strong>The preacher of virtue, to whom it is pointed out that her practices do not support her advice, finds support in the Lockian analysis of ad hominem<\/em>, which is declared inherently fallacious:<\/p>\n

My personal circumstances have no bearing on the truth or moral validity of my preaching.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Such a person may add that they have a divided personality<\/em>:<\/p>\n

It’s true, I am a sinner, but one feels the necessity of light best from the depths of darkness.
\nThis is natural, <\/em>the cobbler’s children go barefoot.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Nevertheless, preachers fear this form of argumentation because they are expected to preach by example<\/a> as well as by words and exempla<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The real impact of an ad hominem<\/em> argument is not on the truth of the claim, but on the of the person making the claim to do so. The next reply may be<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat you say is probably true and right, but you say everything and its opposite, so I do not want to hear it from you.<\/em>\u201d<\/span>
\n\u201cThat’s true, but it’s not your place to say so, since you’ve said the opposite<\/em>\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

6. Setting up Facts Against Words: \u00a0see Irony<\/a><\/span><\/h2>\n

7. Argumentation Upon the Beliefs of the Partner<\/span><\/h1>\n

While ad hominem<\/em> arguments t target inconsistencies in an opponent’s discourse, arguments based on an opponent’s or audience’s beliefs are a positive form of exploitation of the partner’s belief system, considered as a coherent whole, see ex datis<\/em><\/a>; ex concessis<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

AD HOMINEM Latin homo, \u201chuman being.\u201d 1. Ad Hominem as Personal Attack, Ad Personam Today, ad hominem is commonly used to mean ad personam, but classical ad hominem argument is quite distinct from personal attack (or ad personam attack), which seeks to disqualify the person in order to dismiss their arguments. 2. Ad Hominem as […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4579","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4579","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4579"}],"version-history":[{"count":16,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4579\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14670,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4579\/revisions\/14670"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4579"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4579"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4579"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}