Your inability to function - much less think - without a mythic crutch does not warrant an arrogation of this impotence to cosmic proportions. Much less make the basis of rendering judgements upon other modes of ethics that do not find their raison d'etre in a dearth of imagination. — StreetlightX

And yet all this self-reliance and self-sufficiency of the areligious individualist is built on the work of so many that came before him, including the religious. He didn't invent himself out of nothing.
Individualists are really just thankless brats, refusing to acknowledge their sources, viewing such acknowledgment as a weakness.

For me atheism is experiencing the radical absence of any transcendent guarantee. It comes with no pangs of dread or emptiness and absurdity makes only an occasional appearance. — Tom Storm

Of course. But atheism is predicated on relative material wellbeing. It's a fairweather friend.

Your not, that's my point. It oughtn't be profound that what's at stake in terms of meaning is only considerable if you already are biased about what that meaning is. From within a particular ideology that makes claims about meaning, those meanings are important. But outside, other meanings are important, or none are important. — Kenosha Kid

Of course.

What's at stake is relative to what you believe.

But this thread is about the proverbial foxholes, those challenging situations that put to the test what one believes and holds dear.

You cannot compare the meaning of life as understood by a creationist to that of a Buddhist, or an atheist, or a simulationist, since the values of each kind of meaning differ from reference frame to reference frame.

Sure, and if a person can firmly hold their peace-time beliefs also once they are in a foxhole, then there's no problem for them.
But what if they can't?

The Buddhist meaning of human life is comparable to the Christian one: both are transcendental, involving ascensions for the ethical and devout, which is unsurprising as both religions concern how the existence of different kinds of afterlife should dictate how we behave in this life. Remove that afterlife and the meaning disappears: the meaning only had value in those religious belief structures. Wayfarer believes this is a loss, and I'm just trying to get him to see that it could only be a loss if you believe in that meaning, in which case nothing is lost. — Kenosha Kid

Of course, but, again, we're talking about the proverbial foxholes.

Since your idea of philosophy is ad hominem, i.e. largely to quote somebody important saying the thing you want others to believe — Kenosha Kid

Does he simply want others to believe it?
Or is that your projection?

The point of my conversation with Wayfarer is that he believes these sorts of meanings, where there is some higher purpose intended and some ultimate goal to aspire to, have values generally, such that to be without such a meaning is a loss. — Kenosha Kid

Actually, I'm not so sure he does believe them, because I think that if he did, he wouldn't be discussing them here, in such a manner. Personally, I think that if I would believe those things, I wouldn't be discussing them at a forum like this.

So that sounds like you think prearranged status runs everything and there's no hope. Why would you still participate? — Tom Storm

Because even hobitses are a pugilistic species, what to speak of humanses!

You started with a speculation, and I added to it. In search of a good idea.
*shrug*

So, the way I view things is that absolute freedom is the default position, and from there any laws, restrictions, etc. need to be justified. I see it the same way in this case. Whichever media outlet starts with absolute freedom of speech, and then needs to justify their reasons for excluding certain types of speech. — Pinprick

Have there ever been any media outlets that started with absolute freedom of speech?

To the best of my knowledge, all media outlets have always been the means for promoting a particular ideology. That they characterize themselves with epithets like "the only news outlet interested in telling the truth" or that they are "defenders of free speech" is just part of their ideology.

Mr. Clark: I'd like to see your med school diploma please. — T Clark

It seems your issue is specifically with appeal to authority (implicitly on your part!), because this same theme keeps coming up in your posts.

As I've said, because the forum is informal and lots of stuff gets discussed here, many of the questions hinge on questions of fact. When that happens, a persons qualifications, experience, or education may be relevant. Example - people keep claiming that Einstein was wrong about the speed of light because the big bang happened 14 billion years ago but the universe is 45 light years across. I've read explanations of why this is, and I sort of understand them, but it still bothers me. If, in response to one of these claims, I say "I don't really understand all of this, but I don't think you do either, so, I'll stick with Einstein." That is an ad hominem argument which I think is appropriate. — T Clark

I don't know how to say this nicely, but you sound a bit ... naive. A bit like a kid in a candy store who can't decide what to choose.

That's the main question I'm trying to get at - when is it reasonable to raise questions about something personal about someone as an argument. — T Clark

It's rather that you don't raise enough questions about yourself and about why you're reading ro discussing something.
Part of thinking critically is determining your own intentions and your own reasons for reading something or engaging in discussion about it. But given what you say above, you seem like someone who has a chaotic, unsystematic approach to reading and discussing. No amount of other people proving their credentials, or you proving their lack of those can make up for your own lack of clarity about what you want to get out of a conversation.

What's the difference between saying that someone is not worth listening to, and saying that their arguments are vacuous, and thus refuted? — Janus

Do you mean invalid or unsound, or in fact vacuous?

If the latter, then your pair above means roughly the same.

But the ad hominem fallacy is usually committed in contexts where there is no definable of certifiable expertise, or at least not the kind of expertise which guarantees or at least produces tendencies towards consensus of opinion. — Janus

In the above example with the doctor, the patient would commit an ad hominem fallacy (specifically, a fallacious argument from authority), if he concluded that any advice given by the doctor is good and should be followed, regardless of how absurd it may seem, on account that docotrs must be unquestioningly trusted and their advice followed.


Here's a real example:
A couple of years back in Slovenia, a case became public where a child was born with a rare foot deformity, and a doctor apparently advised the parents to amputate the foot. They were upset and turned to the media and the public for help. Gradually, it became known that there exist specialists for this type of deformity, just not in Slovenia and that health insurance doesn't cover the treatment. It's one of those rare medical conditions for which one has to seek treatment in a bigger country.

What we don't know is how the initial conversation between the parents and the doctor went. We don't know whether he said something like
"Amputation is the only option"
or
"In this country, with your medical insurance, amputation is the only option".

Given how callous and legalistic some doctors can be, the former is possible. In this case, if the parents went with the doctor's advice and had the child's foot amputated, they would be commiting a fallacious argument from authority (for concluding that a doctor's advice must be followed, regardless of how absurd it may seem). But if he said that, and they sought a second opinion and other help, they wouldn't commit such a fallacy.

If, however, the doctor qualified his statement, implying that treatment is available, just not in this country and with this medical insurance, that would change the whole situation.

Hot-cold, Good-bad, Tall-short, Big-small, male-female, up-down, left-right, but more importantly, something you for certain will understand: is (p) and is not (~p). — TheMadFool

But there are also at least such triplets:
hot - lukewarm - cold
good - neutral - bad
big - medium - small
male- hermaphrodite - female
up - middle- down
left - center - right
etc.
and quadruplets:
South - North - East - West

It's not that thinking in opposite pairs is a given, or somehow inherent. We formulate groups of competing concepts depending on our needs. For example, to orient ourselves geographically, we need at least 4 determinants.

It may be valid, but the truth of it a different matter.
— tim wood

I can live with that. — TheMadFool

No, you shouldn't.

All pigs can fly.
Aristotle is a pig.
Aristotle can fly.

Valid, but not sound.

No, I was discussing an epistemological issue.

And when the mothership comes to save us, you're not invited! Mwhaha!

The fallacy of the artificial example. Some things just don't happen in the real world. Keep it real.

Is it ever based on competence? — Tom Storm

How could it possibly be, when we're embedded in some form of social hierarchy and competition or other? Even at an online discussion forum, if the mods and the Old Boys come in and tell you you're wrong, then you're wrong. If you still believe you're right, there will be no place for you at such a forum.

Some kind of competence is only significant when all the people involved are well-intended enough toward eachother, so that they suspend their usual commitment to hiearchy and competition. Ideally, a team that is working together on solving a problem is like that.

Further, for all practical intents and purposes, competence includes reading the social system correctly and responding accordingly.
For example, a student majoring in philosophy has to be careful not to disagree with their philosophy teacher, regardless of the good arguments the student believes to have. Because such disagreement could cost them a good grade or worse. (It's why a formal study of philosophy is a contradiction in terms.)

If someone were to say "Einstein was wrong about the speed of light," I think it would be reasonable for me to ask how the person is qualified to make that statement. — T Clark

I see no need to make it personal like that. If one is so inclined to have a conversation on the topic of Einstein being wrong about the speed of light, one can simply summon the claimant to elaborate, explain, and then take it from there.

If, however, one were to assume that a person's academic credentials or lack thereof is a reason to dismiss their claim at the onset, then one is venturing into the territory of the fallacious ad hominem.

As you well know, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. — T Clark

But MP taught us to.

So why cast an insult as a response to an argument being made if it's not an attempt to invalidate the argument that they made? — Harry Hindu

Sometimes (often), the insulting party expects that the insultee will infer the intended argument, based on the discussion thus far. People usually don't speak in concise syllogisms, but use other forms of discourse, often skipping some steps (under the assumption that the reader will be able to correctly infer them themselves). When a discussion begins to contain insults, this can be taken as a clue to infer what argument is actually being made prior to that, it tends to be possible to (re)construct it.

Of course you have the freedom to say what you want. But others have the freedom not to accomodate you.
Your freedom of speech doesn't obligate others to provide the material means for your speech (tv channel, radio station, publishing books and magazines, etc.). Those material means you need to fund yourself.

Why should they accomodate you? Can you explain?

Don't have enough time and money to do philosophy

What are you trying to get out of doing philosophy? What do you hope to achieve by it?

Why limit yourself with reason. Transcend reason. Be a force of nature
— Wittgenstein
I don't want to. — Wheatley

Then you will be trod upon.
Just because philosophizers don't use AK 47s doesn't mean they aren't engaging in battle.

I didn't mean to be cynical. But in general, human interactions are hierarchical and/or competitive. Setting oneself up as the authority on what should count as standards of rationality (and on what is real) is a matter of social hierarchy and competition.

We can go back and forth in deciding when a personal attack is an appropriate argument. It would just be easier if people were clearer and didn't use jargon like "ad hominem." Instead of saying "That's an ad hominem argument," say "My educational status is not relevant to the argument I am making." The idea of a logical fallacy makes it easy for people on both sides not to face the real problems with inappropriate arguments. — T Clark

Well, this is just a philosophy discussion forum, not the Holy Inquisition. So, no pressure.

But I really don't see why we should buy into the notion that going green will harm our economy or weaken our country.
This is straight out of conservative media. — Xtrix

Not for me, though. I'm extrapolating from my own example. For instance, in terms of clothing: I buy about 5 quality clothing items per year and I intend to be able to wear them for at least three years. And once the clothes are so worn that they can't be mended and worn for dirty work around the house and in the garden anymore, I make blankets for cats out of them or use them as cleaning rags. I do this not out of frugality, nor out of concern for ecology, but out of an old-fashioned sense for making good use of things. I extrapolate that if more people would do that, the textile industry as we know it (which is a major polluter, and employer) would collapse, because people would buy only a fraction of the clothing items they do now.

It's similar with other products. For example, I expect washing machines and refrigerators should last at least 10 years. And there was a time when they did, they lasted even 20 or 30 years. But this way, too few were sold to keep the industry profitable, so the manufacturers began to decrease the quality and build in weaknesses, so that now, we're lucky if a washing machine lasts 5 years. But they get to make more money!

So how do you propose to change this?

It's not like we're at a philosophy forum or anything, dude.

the worst of all is the overbearing belief that some people have in their own superiority. — Sir2u

Will the irony never end!


Anyway, I'd like to see the OP's reply -- ! -- that's why I posted in this thread to begin with.

Which brings us back to my original concern - What should be considered an ad hominem argument and when, if ever, is it appropriate. — T Clark

(See the linked resources above.)

Non-fallacious ad hominems can often be found and made when it comes to issues of morality, religion, and spirituality.

Some more resources:


In brief, if the characteristics of a person constitute a disconfirming instance of what that person claims, then an argumentum ad hominem is not a fallacious. If the person making a claim individually embodies a counterexample which disproves that person's own claim, then it is not a fallacy to point out this fact to that person. At the same time, many ad hominem arguments provide some evidence and in those cases cannot be considered completely irrelevant arguments.

https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

(See list of examples)

* * *

The major difficulty with labeling a piece of reasoning an Ad Hominem Fallacy is deciding whether the personal attack is relevant or irrelevant. For example, attacks on a person for their immoral sexual conduct are irrelevant to the quality of their mathematical reasoning, but they are relevant to arguments promoting the person for a leadership position in a church or mosque.

https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AdHominem

I am really sorry to say that this makes no sense. If people don't have characteristic that would exist regardless of the observer then there is nothing to talk about here. — Sir2u

One can always talk about one's own perceptions and formulate one's verbal expressions accordingly. It's a whole other world of interacting with people.

Also, "aggravating" is not the same kind of personal characteristic like "Caucasian".
— baker

Both are descriptive of people, one is physical the other is personality. Did you just figure that out or do you think I am not able to recognize the difference.

That's not the difference I'm talking about.
Whether someone is Caucasian or not is not up to you (except if you were in some racial identity comission or some such).
But whether someone "is" aggravating or not is 1. up to you, and 2. how you interact with that person.

The same person can "be" aggravating or not, possibly depending on how one treats them. Which just goes to show that it's not their personal characteristic, but an interactional one.

You're externalizing, you talk of other people as if you're the one who decides who they really are or what is true about them.
— baker
Exactly where did I say something like that?

In the way you formulate your statements.
As if "Tom is aggravating" would ontologically and epistemologically be the same type of statement as "A cube has 6 surfaces."

I am the one that decides what I think about them, or is that not obvious to you?

Except that you don't formulate it as your thought, as your opinion, but as if it were an objective fact about the other person.

You use you-messages, not I-messages. Most people are like that. But it still makes for very low quality interactions.
— baker
Again I do not understand what you are trying to say. Maybe you could give an example of what I have said that makes you think something like this.

Have you read the link?

You said things like "this makes no sense", "people that ask pointless questions". You didn't say "I don't understand this" (until now, after all my trying to change the mode of the conversation).

Given people do precisely this, it must be true. I think for all the lofty talk about meaning requiring some transcendent foundation, I believe people obtain meaning from being in the world, interacting and doing things. Possessions, nature, music, food, friends, family, home, whatever you are into is where your meaning comes from. I believe this is true for theists and atheists alike. — Tom Storm

Of course, but this thread is about the proverbial foxholes. Ie. those times and places when health and wealth are gone, when friends, family, home are gone.

But then decides that they are both arseholes — Sir2u

So what? If they don't think they are arseholes, they are wrong, in denial?

We're talking past eachother ...

I'm saying that other people don't have characteristics that would exist or have relevance regardless of the observer.
Also, "aggravating" is not the same kind of personal characteristic like "Caucasian".

You're externalizing, you talk of other people as if you're the one who decides who they really are or what is true about them. You use you-messages, not I-messages. Most people are like that. But it still makes for very low quality interactions.

It seems to me that by nature, people wouldn't just take from others and they would show a measure of consideration for others. It takes some kind of ideology that makes them override those natural impulses. You can observe the genesis of such an ideology with Nazism: It seems that merely saying "We Germans have more right to existence than other nations" wasn't enough to move people into action, so they invented a whole ideology of Aryan supremacy that made it seem justified to invade other countries and take their resources.

Here’s what Wikipedia says. — T Clark

I look at this Wiki page at least a few times a year, and I can say it has been changed a lot over time. Have you read the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Criticism_as_a_fallacy and the references for it?

I have trouble with so-called “logical fallacies.” A lot of them don’t make sense to me. I think they disallow what seem to me to be perfectly reasonable arguments. They are also often, usually? misused by people who don’t understand them. They whip them out like yellow cards as if they are the referee. As if it makes them seem like they know what they are talking about. — T Clark

Some old textbooks (not in English) on the topic of "introduction to critical thinking and informal logic" had a nice introduction where the context of informal fallacies was explained -- when is it appropriate to call something a fallacy and when not. Unfortunately, while there are many resources for informal fallacies on the internet, I don't know of any that would have such an introduction like those old textbooks. I'll keep looking though, because it would often come handy.

But in general, unless someone writes out their argument in the form of a concise syllogism, the conversation should be counted as a discussion, a work in progress, a mutual effort, and while it is still just that, it would be overreaching to already call out fallacies.

Accept the way things are. Know what difference one can make. Be content with what one does and/or has done. — creativesoul

This sounds awfully abstract.

I also don't understand this idea of being "frugal." — Xtrix

To protect the environment, people would need to radically decrease consumption in general and establish ways to produce less harmful and longer lasting products.

It has to do with legislation and trillions of dollars of investments. — Xtrix

How? By inventing new ways of producing electrical energy, inventing wrapping materials that aren't as harmful as plastics, and such?

The way I see it, the problem is in the ordinary greed and gluttony of the everyman, the end consumer. Legislation has no power over those.

The game is played using one's free play of imagination and understanding, one's reason and logic in harmony with one's irrationality and intuition. In this foxhole of sometimes crisis and chaos, rather than timorously looking outwards for imagined support and consolation, to look courageously inwards in order to find the strength in the reality of one's own existence.

IE, meaning comes from playing the game using the human spirit of imagination and understanding. — RussellA

But the religious can actually say the same thing!

Of course it has something to do with them both. One has a low tolerance for a specific characteristic of the other. For example, I have a low tolerance for people that ask pointless questions, therefore those that have a tendency to do that irritate me. — Sir2u

So you neither feel nor take any responsibility for how you feel about (and react to) others.

It must be terrible to have one's state of mind so affected/directed by others.

Looking at the list in Wikipedia, it seems to me that most wars are caused by empire building — T Clark

Sure, but whence this desire to build an empire, whence the motivation for it, whence the justification for the killing, raping, and pillaging?

It does seem that it is religion that gives people those: "You are God's chosen people, therefore, you can take from others, even with lethal force, but others may not take from you."

But it's not happening quickly enough — Xtrix

Exactly.

Lastly, talking about risking the economy "collapsing" is ridiculous. We have an asteroid heading to Earth, and we're worried about whether the cost of blowing it up will sink the economy? It's completely insane.

Your precious economy doesn't mean shit if we're all dead.

People generally seem to believe there is an important difference between intentionally doing something that can result in outcome X, as opposed to going on as usual and letting outcome X happen on its own.

Intentionally becoming frugal is a deliberate attack on the economy that will likely result in its collapse, and relatively quickly at that. This is something people will feel responsible for.
Whereas doing "business as usual", even though it will probably also result in economical collapse, is not such an attack. This is something people will not feel responsible for.

People could probably adapt and become more frugal, and theoretically, this might even be possible to do gradually enough to prevent the economy from collapsing. But by then, it'll probably be too late for the planet.

Who decides what is justified and what is not? — Wheatley

Those who are superior to you in a particular context. E.g. your teacher in school, or your boss at work.

What standard do we have to judge whether a believe is justified?

The standard of the person who has more power in the institutional hierarchy than you.