, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 333–348

The Greek Roots of the Ad Hominem-Argument

  • Graciela Marta Chichi


In this paper, I discuss the current thesis on the modern origin of the ad hominem-argument, by analysing the Aristotelian conception of it. In view of the recent accounts which consider it a relative argument, i.e., acceptable only by the particular respondent, I maintain that there are two Aristotelian versions of the ad hominem, that have identifiable characteristics, and both correspond to the standard variants distinguished in the contemporary treatments of the famous informal fallacy: the abusive and the circumstancial or tu quoque types. I propose to reconstruct the two Aristotelian versions (see sections 1 and 2), which have been recognized again in the ninteenth century (sec. 3). Finally, I examine whether or not it was considered as a fallacious dialogue device by Aristotle and by A. Schopenhauer (sec. 4).

argumentum ad hominem argumentum de personam Aristotle dialectics Schopenhauer 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abagnano, N.: 1963, Diccionario de Filosofía, Buenos Aires-México, Fondo de Cultura Econó mica, first ed. 1961.Google Scholar
  2. Alexandri Aphrodisiensis in Aristotelis Topicorum Libros octo Commentaria, edit. M. Wallies, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. Consilio et auctoritate Academiae litterarum Regiae Borussicae, Berolini; Berlin, 1891, vol. II 1–2 (= CAG).Google Scholar
  3. Alexandri quod fertur in Aristotelis Sophisticos Elenchos Commentarium. edit. M. Wallies, CAG, Consilio et auctoritate Academiae litterarum Regiae Borussicae, Berolini; Berlin 1898, vol. II 3 (= CAG).Google Scholar
  4. Aristó teles, Organon, Traducido por M. Candel San Martín, Madrid, Gredos, 1982; vol. I.Google Scholar
  5. Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations, translated by E.S. Forster, Page, T.E. (ed.), The loeb Classical Library, Cambridge-London, 1955.Google Scholar
  6. Aristotle, Topics, Books I And VIII, transl. with a commentary by Robin Smith, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. Ayala, F. (1986) (ed.) J. Bentham, Tratado de los sofismas políticos, Buenos Aires, El Ateneo, 1986.Google Scholar
  8. Battaglia, F. et al. (ed.): 1957, Enciclopedia Filosofica, Venezia-Roma, Instituto per la Colaborazione culturale, vol. I.Google Scholar
  9. Blair, J.A.: 1998, ‘The Limits of the Dialogue Model of Argument’, Argumentation 12, 325–339.Google Scholar
  10. Blair, J.A. and R. Johnson: 1987, ‘Argumentation as Dialectic’, Argumentation 1, 41–56.Google Scholar
  11. Chichi, G.M.: 1996, La técnica de discusió n en Los Tó picos de Aristó teles (343 pgs., unedited mss., Ph.D. at University Buenos Aires, Argentine).Google Scholar
  12. Copi, I.: 1974, Introducció n a la ló gica, Buenos Aires, Eudeba, fourth ed. 1972, 1974.Google Scholar
  13. Düring, I.: 1966, Aristoteles und sein Denken, Heidelberg, Carl Winter Verlag, 1966.Google Scholar
  14. Ebbessen, S.: 1981, Commentators and Commentaries on Aristotle's Sophisticis Elenchis, Leiden-N. York, De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  15. Edwards, P.: 1967, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, N. York, Crowell Caollier & Mac Millan, vol. III.Google Scholar
  16. Eemeren, F.H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussion. A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed Towards Solving Conflict of Opinion, Dordrecht-Cinnaminson, Foris.Google Scholar
  17. Eemeren, F.H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1987, ‘Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective’, Argumentation 1, 283–301Google Scholar
  18. Eemeren, F.H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1992, ‘Relevance Reviewed: The Case of Argumentum Ad Hominem’, Argumentation 6, 141–159.Google Scholar
  19. Eemeren, F.H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1993, ‘The History of the Argumentum Ad Hominem Since the Seventeenth Century’, in E.C.W. Krabe, R.J. Dalitz and P. Smit (eds.), Empirical Logic and Public Debate, Amsterdam-Atlanta, Rodopi, 49–68.Google Scholar
  20. Ferrater Mora, F.: 1984, Diccionario de Filosofía, Madrid: Alianza, fifth ed. 1984; first ed. 1976, Pennsylvania, vol. I.Google Scholar
  21. Flashar, H.: 1983, Ñberweg, Grundiss der Geschichte der Philosophie, Basel-Stuttgart, Schwabe, 1983, vol. III.Google Scholar
  22. Green-Pedersen, N.: 1984, The Tradition of The Topics in the Midle Ages, München-Wien, Philosophia.Google Scholar
  23. Hamblin, C.L.: 1998, Fallacies, Newport News, Vale Press, first ed., 1970.Google Scholar
  24. Hansen, H.V.: 1996, ‘Whately on the Ad Hominem: A Liberal Exegesis’, Philosophy and Rhetoric 29(4), 400–415.Google Scholar
  25. Hintikka, J.: 1987, ‘The Fallacy of Fallacies’, Argumentation 1, 211–238.Google Scholar
  26. Hintikka, J.: 1993, ‘Socratic Questioning, Logic And Rhetoric’, Revue Internationale de Philosophie 1 184, 5–30.Google Scholar
  27. Hintikka, J.: 1997, ‘What was Aristotle doing in His Early Logic, Anyway? A Reply to Woods and Hansen’, Synthese 113, 241–249.Google Scholar
  28. Jacob, A. (ed.): 1990, Encyclopédie philosophique Universelle. Les notions philosophiques, Paris, Presses Univ. de France, 1990, vol. II.Google Scholar
  29. Johnstone, H. W., Jr.: 1996, ‘Locke and Whately on the Argumentum Ad Hominem’, Argumentation 10, 89–97.Google Scholar
  30. Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M.L.: 1989, ‘Dialogue Games in Aristotle’, in M. Kusch and H. Schröder (eds.), Text - Interpretation-Argumentation, Hamburg, Helmut Buske Verlag, 221–272.Google Scholar
  31. Lagerspetz, E.: 1995, ‘Ad Hominem Arguments in Practical Argumentation’, Argumentation 9(2), 363–370.Google Scholar
  32. Lalande, A.: 1953, Vocabulario técnico y crítico de filosofía, Buenos Aires, El Ateneo, vol. I.Google Scholar
  33. Nuchelmans, G.: 1993, ‘On the Fourfold Roots of the Argumentum Ad Hominem’, in E.C.W. Krabe, R.J. Dalitz and P. Smit (eds.), Empirical Logic and Public Debate, Amsterdam-Atlanta, Rodopi, 37–47.Google Scholar
  34. Perelman, Ch. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1971, The New Rhetoric, Notre Dame-Londres, Univ., of Notre Dame Press, first ed. 1958: Presses Univ. de France.Google Scholar
  35. Scriven, M.: 1976, Reasoning, New York-St. Louis, Mac Graw Hill, Inc., 1976.Google Scholar
  36. Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy and Other Posthumous Papers, transl. By Bailey Saunders,London (Swan Sonnenschein & Co.) and New York (Macmillan & Co.) 1896.Google Scholar
  37. Arthur Schopenhauer, Der handschriftliche Nachlass, edited by A. Hübscher, Frankfurt a.M., Waldemar Kramer; 1970, vol. III, pp. 666–695: Berliner Manuskripte; ‘Die Manuskriptbücher, 1. Teil’ (1818- 1830): Eristische Dialektik (= ED).Google Scholar
  38. Aus Arthur Schopenhauers Handschriftlichem Nachlass, edit. J. Frauenstädt, Leipzig, 1864, pp. 3–35.Google Scholar
  39. Slomkowski, P.: 1997, Aristotle's Topics, Leiden, New York, Köln, Brill.Google Scholar
  40. Walton, D.: 1987, ‘The Ad Hominem Argument as an Informal Fallacy’, Argumentation 1, 317–331.Google Scholar
  41. Walton, D.: 1995, A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy, Tuscaloosa-London, Univ. of Alabama Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  42. Walton, D.: 1996, Fallacies Arising From Ambiguity, Dordrecht-Boston-London, Kluwer.Google Scholar
  43. Woods, J. and H. Hansen: 1997, ‘Hintikka on Aristotle's Fallacies’, Synthese 113, 217–239.Google Scholar
  44. Zadro, A.: 1974, Aristotele, I Topici. Napoli, Bibliopolis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Graciela Marta Chichi
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Filosofíade la Universidad Nacional de La Plata y CONICETLa PlataArgentina

Personalised recommendations