tmoody@sjuvax.UUCP (T. Moody) (10/22/85)
[]
Recently, Rich Rosen made the following remark, in defense of his
penchant for ad hominem argumentation:
Allow to explain something here. When all you have to support your assertions
is your "I say so, these are my values, these are my beliefs, how DARE you
question them?", and when beliefs founded only on such assertions become
the status quo in a society and impinge upon the lives of human beings, then
those who would not have such beliefs be the controlling force in their lives
have a right to ask why those beliefs are held, to question the assumptions
that go behind them, to ask what (even subconscious) motives one might have
for holding such beliefs given those assumptions. [Rosen]
If a person makes a claim, in the course of a philosophical
discussion, it is indeed appropriate to ask that person what evidence
there is for it. If the person can muster no evidence, it is indeed
appropriate to point that out. These practices are appropriate
because they are conducive to understanding and, in the long run (one
hopes) truth.
One has the *right*, I suppose, to ask anything else one pleases.
But certain questions and comments are logically incapable of
clarifying, confirming, or disconfirming the claims under discussion;
they can only make the philosophical atmosphere more threatening by
making the participants more defensive and acrimonious. I am
referring, of course, to ad hominem arguments.
The motives one has for believing anything are strictly
irrelevant to the truth or falsity of that belief, because these are
the *causes* of the belief, not the *reasons* for it. To "ask why
those beliefs are held" ought to be -- in the context of philosophy --
to ask for reasons. To seek, or impute, causes is psychoanalysis.
While one has a right to practice this, it is both irrelevant and
counterproductive in philosophy. It is irrelevant, for reasons
adumbrated in the paragraph before this one. It is counterproductive,
because it tends to turn argumentation into symbolic violence. While
some symbolic violence may be unavoidable in philosophy, it seems to
me that it is best to minimize it.
Todd Moody | {allegra|astrovax|bpa|burdvax}!sjuvax!tmoody
Philosophy Department |
St. Joseph's U. | "I couldn't fail to
Philadelphia, PA 19131 | disagree with you less."rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/04/85)
>>Allow to explain something here. When all you have to support your assertions >>is your "I say so, these are my values, these are my beliefs, how DARE you >>question them?", and when beliefs founded only on such assertions become >>the status quo in a society and impinge upon the lives of human beings, then >>those who would not have such beliefs be the controlling force in their lives > have a right to ask why those beliefs are held, to question the assumptions >>that go behind them, to ask what (even subconscious) motives one might have >>for holding such beliefs given those assumptions. [Rosen] > If a person makes a claim, in the course of a philosophical > discussion, it is indeed appropriate to ask that person what evidence > there is for it. If the person can muster no evidence, it is indeed > appropriate to point that out. These practices are appropriate > because they are conducive to understanding and, in the long run (one > hopes) truth. > One has the *right*, I suppose, to ask anything else one pleases. > But certain questions and comments are logically incapable of > clarifying, confirming, or disconfirming the claims under discussion; > they can only make the philosophical atmosphere more threatening by > making the participants more defensive and acrimonious. I am > referring, of course, to ad hominem arguments. > The motives one has for believing anything are strictly > irrelevant to the truth or falsity of that belief, because these are > the *causes* of the belief, not the *reasons* for it. To "ask why > those beliefs are held" ought to be -- in the context of philosophy -- > to ask for reasons. To seek, or impute, causes is psychoanalysis. And perhaps that is appropriate in the case of beliefs that are obviously completely without foundation, rooted in wishful thinking, based on assumptions specifically designed to force the arrival at desired conclusions. "Reasons" stem from reason, assuming a logical flow from one "reason" to the next by means of reasoning or logic. But when you get back to the thing for which there is no reason, and there is no evidence of any kind to support the notion, the time has come to ask other questions. I do not consider this "ad hominem" in the sense of it being directed at the person rather than the notion at hand; it is directed at the foundations of the notion. > While one has a right to practice this, it is both irrelevant and > counterproductive in philosophy. What is "irrelevant and counterproductive to philosophy" is your behavior in the article of yours I responded to earlier (wherein you stated that the substantive content of my comments was zero, not based on any debunking of my arguments, but based on your "dislike" for some of them). Nevertheless, despite your claims, questioning motivations for believing things that are without foundation may be counterproductive for certain philosophies, but (as you say yourself) it is conducive to finding truth, it is both relevant and productive. It is only counterproductive when it lowers to the level of insult, which you so eminently displayed yourself in your article <2447@sjuvax.UUCP>. > It is irrelevant, for reasons adumbrated in the paragraph before this one. > It is counterproductive, because it tends to turn argumentation into symbolic > violence. Symbolic violence occurs when the exploration into motive turns into insult (as your own aforementioned article did), not as a result of the exploration itself. > While some symbolic violence may be unavoidable in philosophy, it seems to > me that it is best to minimize it. Obviously you are not interested in this (judging from that article). I frankly must wonder why you felt the need to make these comments, in light of your own use of the techniques you claim to despise, in the most insulting way. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr