Abstract
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).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Abagnano, N.: 1963, Diccionario de Filosofía, Buenos Aires-México, Fondo de Cultura Econó mica, first ed. 1961.
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).
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).
Aristó teles, Organon, Traducido por M. Candel San Martín, Madrid, Gredos, 1982; vol. I.
Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations, translated by E.S. Forster, Page, T.E. (ed.), The loeb Classical Library, Cambridge-London, 1955.
Aristotle, Topics, Books I And VIII, transl. with a commentary by Robin Smith, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1997.
Ayala, F. (1986) (ed.) J. Bentham, Tratado de los sofismas políticos, Buenos Aires, El Ateneo, 1986.
Battaglia, F. et al. (ed.): 1957, Enciclopedia Filosofica, Venezia-Roma, Instituto per la Colaborazione culturale, vol. I.
Blair, J.A.: 1998, ‘The Limits of the Dialogue Model of Argument’, Argumentation 12, 325–339.
Blair, J.A. and R. Johnson: 1987, ‘Argumentation as Dialectic’, Argumentation 1, 41–56.
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).
Copi, I.: 1974, Introducció n a la ló gica, Buenos Aires, Eudeba, fourth ed. 1972, 1974.
Düring, I.: 1966, Aristoteles und sein Denken, Heidelberg, Carl Winter Verlag, 1966.
Ebbessen, S.: 1981, Commentators and Commentaries on Aristotle's Sophisticis Elenchis, Leiden-N. York, De Gruyter.
Edwards, P.: 1967, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, N. York, Crowell Caollier & Mac Millan, vol. III.
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.
Eemeren, F.H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1987, ‘Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective’, Argumentation 1, 283–301
Eemeren, F.H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1992, ‘Relevance Reviewed: The Case of Argumentum Ad Hominem’, Argumentation 6, 141–159.
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.
Ferrater Mora, F.: 1984, Diccionario de Filosofía, Madrid: Alianza, fifth ed. 1984; first ed. 1976, Pennsylvania, vol. I.
Flashar, H.: 1983, Ñberweg, Grundiss der Geschichte der Philosophie, Basel-Stuttgart, Schwabe, 1983, vol. III.
Green-Pedersen, N.: 1984, The Tradition of The Topics in the Midle Ages, München-Wien, Philosophia.
Hamblin, C.L.: 1998, Fallacies, Newport News, Vale Press, first ed., 1970.
Hansen, H.V.: 1996, ‘Whately on the Ad Hominem: A Liberal Exegesis’, Philosophy and Rhetoric 29(4), 400–415.
Hintikka, J.: 1987, ‘The Fallacy of Fallacies’, Argumentation 1, 211–238.
Hintikka, J.: 1993, ‘Socratic Questioning, Logic And Rhetoric’, Revue Internationale de Philosophie 1 184, 5–30.
Hintikka, J.: 1997, ‘What was Aristotle doing in His Early Logic, Anyway? A Reply to Woods and Hansen’, Synthese 113, 241–249.
Jacob, A. (ed.): 1990, Encyclopédie philosophique Universelle. Les notions philosophiques, Paris, Presses Univ. de France, 1990, vol. II.
Johnstone, H. W., Jr.: 1996, ‘Locke and Whately on the Argumentum Ad Hominem’, Argumentation 10, 89–97.
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.
Lagerspetz, E.: 1995, ‘Ad Hominem Arguments in Practical Argumentation’, Argumentation 9(2), 363–370.
Lalande, A.: 1953, Vocabulario técnico y crítico de filosofía, Buenos Aires, El Ateneo, vol. I.
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.
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.
Scriven, M.: 1976, Reasoning, New York-St. Louis, Mac Graw Hill, Inc., 1976.
Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy and Other Posthumous Papers, transl. By Bailey Saunders,London (Swan Sonnenschein & Co.) and New York (Macmillan & Co.) 1896.
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).
Aus Arthur Schopenhauers Handschriftlichem Nachlass, edit. J. Frauenstädt, Leipzig, 1864, pp. 3–35.
Slomkowski, P.: 1997, Aristotle's Topics, Leiden, New York, Köln, Brill.
Walton, D.: 1987, ‘The Ad Hominem Argument as an Informal Fallacy’, Argumentation 1, 317–331.
Walton, D.: 1995, A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy, Tuscaloosa-London, Univ. of Alabama Press, 1995.
Walton, D.: 1996, Fallacies Arising From Ambiguity, Dordrecht-Boston-London, Kluwer.
Woods, J. and H. Hansen: 1997, ‘Hintikka on Aristotle's Fallacies’, Synthese 113, 217–239.
Zadro, A.: 1974, Aristotele, I Topici. Napoli, Bibliopolis.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chichi, G.M. The Greek Roots of the Ad Hominem-Argument. Argumentation 16, 333–348 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019967112062
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019967112062