{"id":4589,"date":"2021-10-15T15:55:02","date_gmt":"2021-10-15T13:55:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=4589"},"modified":"2025-09-22T07:56:47","modified_gmt":"2025-09-22T05:56:47","slug":"4589-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/4589-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Ad populum"},"content":{"rendered":"

AD LAPIDEM<\/span> argument <\/a><\/strong><\/em>\u25ba<\/a> <\/strong><\/em>DISMISSAL<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/h2>\n
\n

AD LITTERAM<\/span> argument <\/a><\/strong>\u25ba<\/strong><\/a>Appeal to the LETTER<\/a><\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n

AD ORATIONEM<\/span> argument \u25ba<\/em>MATTER<\/a> \u2013\u00a0STRICT MEANING<\/a><\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n

AD PERSONAM<\/span><\/em>\u00a0\u25ba AD HOMINEM<\/a> \u2013\u00a0<\/em>PERSONAL ATTACK<\/a><\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n

AD POPULUM<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n

Latin populus<\/em>, \u201cpeople\u201d.<\/p>\n

1. Populist Speech<\/span><\/h2>\n

The label \u201cpopulist speech\u201d is both descriptive and evaluative. Such speech is stigmatized and is widely considered to be used to promote negative values, xenophobia and other irrational and brutal social phobias; to call for action based on uncontrolled emotion and poor analysis rather than cold rational conclusions; and to make indiscriminate promises, suggesting that the proposed solutions are the only possible ones, easy to implement, that they will work miracles, with no negative consequences.<\/p>\n

Populist discourse appeals to immediate gratification, and is opposed to the hardship discourse of perseverance and slow improvement: \u201cIf you vote for me, you will have to accept sacrifices. But, later, maybe\u2026<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cPopulist\u201d is the new label for ancient and modern demagogic speech, that develops fraudulent discourse for the sake of purely short-term electoral gain.<\/p>\n

1. Appeal to the Beliefs of a Group<\/span><\/h1>\n

The ad populum<\/em> argument can be defined as an argument that starts from premises that are accepted by the audience, rather than from universal premises. Such an argument aims to obtain adherence rather than truth (Hamblin 1970, p. 41, Woods & Walton 1992, p. 211).<\/p>\n

According to the Socratic critique of assembly discourse as focusing on social persuasion when addressing the audience about their everyday affairs, to the detriment of transcendental truth, and moral rectitude, all political speech would be inherently populist, see probable<\/a>. In this sense, all rhetorical or dialectical arguments would be ad populum<\/em>. Thus, the ad populum argument<\/em> is no different from an argument based on the audience’s interests, beliefs<\/a> and passions of the audience, i.e., an ex concessis<\/em>, ex datis<\/em>, or ad auditores<\/em> argument.<\/p>\n

2. Appeal to Emotion<\/span><\/h1>\n

We can define the paralogism known as argumentum ad populum<\/em> as an attempt to win the popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the emotion and enthusiasm of the masses (Copi 1972, p. 29; cited in Woods and Walton 1992, p. 213).<\/span><\/p>\n

The ad populum<\/em> argument is negatively related to hatred and fanaticism, and not always positively related to enthusiasm: it gets caught in the general condemnation of passions, without taking into account the fact that on the one hand, emotions may or may not be justified, and that, on the other hand, good and bad arguments may be based on strong emotions, see Emotion<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This definition corresponds to the expression ad captandum vulgus<\/em> \u201cplaying to the gallery\u201d, i.e., to theatrical oratory, which is not an exclusive characteristic of politicians. The speaker becomes an actor. The criticism of ad populum<\/em> joins the moral criticism of flattering discourse, and the criticism of enthusiasm, conformism and group effects in general, as \u201cbandwagon fallacies\u201d and alignment with the majority crowd (ad numerum<\/em>), see Pathos<\/a>; Emotions<\/a>; Laughter<\/a>; Consensus<\/a>.<\/p>\n

As in all cases of appeals to the passions, a substitution of the passions for the logos, and thus a lack of relevance may be suspected (Woods, Walton 1992, p. 215), see Vicious circle.<\/a><\/p>\n

3. The argumentative orientation of the word people<\/em><\/span><\/h1>\n

The word people<\/em> can have two opposing argumentative orientations. The individualist, who believes that all virtue resides in the individual, can use the scheme\u00a0 of the opposites<\/a> to conclude\u00a0 that the crowd is inherently corrupt, and that any argument that appeals to popular sentiment <\/em>is therefore fallacious. The people are always the populace, the madding crowd.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, the adage vox populi vox dei<\/em>, \u201cthe voice of the people, is the voice of God,\u201d gives the people a kind of infallibility. The popular corruption<\/em> argument mirrors the ad superbiam<\/em> fallacy, that is the charge of pride (ad superbiam<\/em>), a sin committed by\u00a0 those who consider themselves superior to an inherently corrupt people, see Dismissal<\/a>; Collections (2)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Boldly relying on an effect of compositional<\/a> effect, supported by two analogies, Aristotle supports the superiority of the many over the one:<\/p>\n

According to our present practice assemblies meet, sit in judgment, deliberate, and decide, and their judgments all relate to individual cases. Now, each member of the assembly, taken separately, is certainly inferior to the wise man. But the state is composed of many individuals. And just as a feast to which all the guests contribute is better than a banquet furnished by a single man, so a multitude is a better judge of many things than any individual.<\/span><\/p>\n

Again, the many are more incorruptible than the few; they are like the greater quantity of water, which is less easily corrupted than a little. The individual is liable to be overcome by anger or by some other passion, and then judgment is necessarily perverted; but it is hardly to be supposed that a great number of people would all be overcome by a passion and go wrong at the same moment. (Aristotle, Politics<\/em>, III, 15. Jowett, p. 99)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 Perhaps \u201chardly to be supposed\u201d, but historically well documented.<\/p>\n

4. Populum<\/em> and plebs<\/em>: The people and the crowd<\/span><\/h1>\n

In Republican Rome, the appeal to the people, provocatio ad populum<\/em>, was a right of appeal (jus provocationis<\/em>) in criminal trials, a basic human right of the accused. As a last resort, an accused Roman citizen could take his case to the populus<\/em>. The populus<\/em> is the assembled people, constituted as a political-judicial body, in the comitia centuriata<\/em>, the solemn assembly of the people, in which full citizens vote and make decisions. In these assemblies, the gods themselves speak through the voice of the people<\/em>. The populus<\/em> is thus very different from the vulgus<\/em> or the plebs<\/em> as random, unorganized whole.<\/p>\n

This right is linked to Republican<\/em> institutions: \u201cTradition claims that the provocatio ad populum<\/em> was created by a law of the consul Publicola the same year the Republic was founded.\u201d (Ellul [1961], p. 278). With the Empire, \u201cthe provocatio ad C\u00e6sarem<\/em> evicted the provocatio ad populum<\/em>\u201d (Foviaux 1986, p. 61), that is, that Caesar replaced the People.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

AD LAPIDEM argument \u25ba DISMISSAL AD LITTERAM argument \u25baAppeal to the LETTER AD ORATIONEM argument \u25baMATTER \u2013\u00a0STRICT MEANING AD PERSONAM\u00a0\u25ba AD HOMINEM \u2013\u00a0PERSONAL ATTACK AD POPULUM Latin populus, \u201cpeople\u201d. 1. Populist Speech The label \u201cpopulist speech\u201d is both descriptive and evaluative. Such speech is stigmatized and is widely considered to be used to promote negative […]<\/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-4589","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4589","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=4589"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4589\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14686,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4589\/revisions\/14686"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4589"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4589"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4589"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}