Abstract
There are two views of the ad hominem argument found in the textbooks and other traditional treatments of this argument, the Lockean or ex concessis view and the view of ad hominem as personal attack. This article addresses problems posed by this ambiguity. In particular, it discusses the problem of whether Aristotle's description of the ex concessis type of argument should count as evidence that he had identified the circumstantial ad hominem argument. Argumentation schemes are used as the basis for drawing a distinction between this latter form of argument and another called argument from commitment, corresponding to the ex concessis argument.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Aristotle: 1939, Topics, trans. E. S. Forster, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Aristotle:1928, On Sophistical Refutations, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Barnes, Jonathan: 1997, Logic and the Imperial Stoa, Brill, Leiden.
Barth, E. M. and J. L. Martens: 1977, “Argumentum Ad Hominem: From Chaos to Formal Dialectic”, Logique at Analyse 77 -78, 76 -96.
Brinton, Alan: 1985, “A Rhetorical View of the Ad Hominem”9;, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63, 50-63.
Brinton, Alan: 1995, “The Ad Hominem”9;, in Hans V. Hansen and Robert C. Pinto (eds.), Fallacies:Classical and Contemporary Readings, Penn State Press, University Park, PA, 213 -222.
Chichi, Graciela Marta: 2002, “The Greek Roots of the Ad HominemArgument”, Argumentation 16, 333 -348.
Freeman, James B.: 1995, “The Appeal to Popularity and Presumption by Common Knowledge”, in Hans V. Hansen and Robert C. Pinto (eds.), Fallacies:Classical and Contemporary Readings, The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA.
Hamblin, Charles L.: 1970, Fallacies, Methuen, London.
Hintikka, Jaakko: 1993, “Socratic Questioning, Logic and Rhetoric”, Revue Internationale de Philosophie 1, 5 -30.
Jevons, W. Stanley: 1883, The Elements of Logic, Sheldon, New York.
Locke, John: 1961, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding(1690), ed. John Yolton, Dent, London.
Mansfeld, Jaap: 1994, Prolegomena:Questions to be Settled Before the Study of An Author, or a Text, Brill, Leiden.
Nuchelmans, Gabriel: 1993, “On the Fourfold Root of the Argumentum Ad Hominem”9;, in Erik C. W. Krabbe, Renee Jose Dalitz and Pier A. Smit (eds.), Empirical Logic and Public Debate, Rodopi, Amsterdam, 37 -47.
Read, Carveth: 1901, Logic:Deductive and Inductive, Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent and Co., London.
van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst: 1993, “The History of the Argumentum ad HominemSince the Seventeenth Century”, in Erik C. W. Krabbe, Renee Jose Dalitz and Pier A Smit (eds.), Empirical Logic and Public Debate, Rodopi, Amsterdam, 49 -68.
Walton, Douglas: 1996, Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Walton, Douglas: 1998, Ad Hominem Arguments, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Walton, Douglas: 2001, “Searching for the Roots of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem”9;, Argumentation 15, 207 -221.
Whately, Richard: 1848, Elements of Logic(1826), 9th ed., Longmans, London.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Walton, D.N. Argumentation Schemes and Historical Origins of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem Argument. Argumentation 18, 359–368 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ARGU.0000046706.45919.83
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ARGU.0000046706.45919.83