Advertisement

The History of the Argumentum Ad Hominem Since the Seventeenth Century

  • Frans H. van EemerenEmail author
  • Rob Grootendorst
Chapter
Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA, volume 27)

Abstract

In this paper, we present an historical and systematic overview of the study of the argumentum ad hominem since the seventeenth century. We discuss the main pre-Hamblin approaches (Locke, Whately, Schopenhauer, Perelman, Johnstone), the Standard Treatment (Hamblin, Copi, Rescher, Kahane), and recent post-Hamblin developments (formal dialectics, pragma-dialectics, Woods and Walton).

Keywords

Critical Discussion Personal Attack Circumstantial Variant Universal Audience Successful Argumentation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank Hans Hansen for his useful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

  1. Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1978). Formele3 dialectiek: instrumententer beslechting van conflicten over geuite meningen (Formal3 Dialectics: Instruments for the Resolution of Conflicts about Expressed Opinions). Spektator, 7, 307–341.Google Scholar
  2. Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue. A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Walter de Gruyter: Berlin and New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barth, E. M., & Martens, J. L. (1977). Argumentum ad Hominem: From chaos to formal dialectic. The method of dialogue-tableaus as a tool in the theory of fallacy. Logique et Analyse, Nouvelle Série, 20, 76–96.Google Scholar
  4. Beardsley, M. C. (1950). Practical logic. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Biro, J. & Siegel, H. (1992). Normativity, argumentation and an epistemic theory of fallacies. In: van Eemeren et al. (eds.) (1992), pp. 85–103.Google Scholar
  6. Black, M. (1952). Critical thinking: an introduction to logic and scientific method (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. (1st Ed. 1946).Google Scholar
  7. Brinton, A. (1986). Ethotic argument. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 3, 245–258.Google Scholar
  8. Broyles, J. E. (1975). The fallacies of composition and division. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 8, 108–113.Google Scholar
  9. Carney, J. D., & Scheer, R. K. (1964). Fundamentals of logic. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, M. R., & Nagel, E. (1934). An introduction to logic and scientific method. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  11. Copi, I. M. (1972). Introduction to logic (4th ed). New York, etc.: Macmillan (1st Ed. 1953, 8th Ed. (with C. Cohen) 1990).Google Scholar
  12. Drop, W. (1979). Het argument ad hominem als tegenargument (The argumentum ad hominem as Counterargument). Tijdschrijft voor taalbeheersing, 1, 113–129.Google Scholar
  13. Fearnside, W. W., & Holther, W. B. (1959). Fallacy. The counterfeit of argument. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Finocchiaro, M. A. (1974). The concept of ad hominem argument in Galileo and Locke. The Philosophical Forum, 5, 394–404.Google Scholar
  15. Gerber, D. (1974). On argumentation ad hominem. Personalist, 55, 23–29.Google Scholar
  16. Govier, T. (1981). Worries about tu quoque as a fallacy. Informal Logic Newsletter, 3, 2–4.Google Scholar
  17. Govier, T. (1982). What’s wrong with slippery slope arguments? Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 12, 303–316.Google Scholar
  18. Govier, T. (1988). A practical study of arguments, 2nd ed. Belmont, Cal.: Wadsworth (1st Ed. 1985).Google Scholar
  19. Grootendorst, R. (1987). Some fallacies about fallacies. In: Van Eemeren et al. (eds.) (1987), pp. 331–342.Google Scholar
  20. Gutenplan, S. D., & Tamny, M. (1971). Logic. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  22. Johnstone, H. W, Jr. (1952). Philosophy and argumentum ad hominem. The Journal of Philosophy, 49, 489–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnstone, Jr., H. W. (1959). Philosophy and argument. Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kahane, H. (1973). Logic and philosophy (2nd ed.). Belmont, Cal.: Wadsworth (1st ed. 1969).Google Scholar
  25. Kahane, H. (1976) Logic and contemporary rhetoric. The use of reason in everyday life (2nd ed.). Belmont, Cal.: Wadsworth (1st ed. 1971).Google Scholar
  26. Lambert, K., & Ulrich, W. (1980). The nature of argument. New York and London: Macmillan/Collier Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Locke, J. (1961). Of reason. In: J. W. Yolton (Ed.), An essay concerning human understanding. London: Dent (1st ed. 1690, Book IV, Ch. 17).Google Scholar
  28. Michalos, A. C. (1970). Improving your reasoning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  29. Oesterle, J. A. (1952). Logic: The art of defining and reasoning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  30. Perelman, Ch., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique (vol. 2). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France (English translation: The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, Indiana and London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969.).Google Scholar
  31. Purtill, R. L. (1972). Logical thinking. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  32. Rescher, N. (1964). Introduction to logic. New York: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  33. Salmon, W. C. (1963). Logic. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall (3rd Ed. 1984).Google Scholar
  34. Schipper, E.W. and E.W. Schuh (I960). A first course in modern logic. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  35. Schopenhauer, A. (1818–1830). Eristische Dialektik. In: A. Hübscher (Ed.), Der handschriftliche Nachlass, III: Berliner Manuskripte. Frankfurt am Main: Waldemar Kramer, pp. 666–695.Google Scholar
  36. Sellars, R. W. (1917). The essentials of logic. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  37. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1978). Argumentatie en rationaliteit (Argumentation and rationality). Spektator, 7, 227–306.Google Scholar
  38. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1982). Regels voor redelijke discussies. Een bijdrage tot de theoretische analyse van argumentatie ter oplossing van geschillen (Rules for rational discussions. A contribution to the theoretical analysis of argumentation directed towards conflict resolution). Dordrecht and Cinnaminson: Foris.Google Scholar
  39. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht and Cinnaminson: Foris.Google Scholar
  40. Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1986). Drogredenen. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
  41. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1987). Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 1, 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1988). Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 2, 271–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1989). A transition stage in the theory of fallacies. Journal of Pragmatics, 13, 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1991). The study of argumentation from a speech act perspective. Pragmatics at issue, 1, 151–170.Google Scholar
  45. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992a). Argumentation, communication and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992b). Relevance reviewed: the case of argumenturn ad hominem. Argumentation, 6, 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa and London: Alabama University Press.Google Scholar
  48. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1987a). Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht and Providence: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  49. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. Blair, J. A., & Willard, Ch.A. (Eds.) (1987b). Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline. Proceedings of the conference on argumentation 1986. Dordrecht and Providence: Foris.Google Scholar
  50. Walton, D. N. (1985). Arguer’s position. A Pragmatic study of ad hominem attack, criticism, refutation, and fallacy. Westport, Connecticut and London, England: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  51. Walton, D. N. (1987a). The ad hominem as an informal fallacy. Argumentation, 1, 317–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Walton, D. N. (1987b). Informal fallacies. Towards a theory of argument criticisms. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  53. Walton, D. N. (1992). Types of dialogue, dialectical shifts and fallacies. In: Van Eemeren et al. (eds.) (1992), pp. 133–147.Google Scholar
  54. Whately, R. (1848). Elements of logic (9th ed.). London: Longmans. (1st ed. 1826).Google Scholar
  55. Woods, J., & Walton, D. (1972). On fallacies. Journal of Critical Analysis, 5, 103–111 (Reprinted in Woods and Walton (1989), pp. 1–10.).Google Scholar
  56. Woods, J., & Walton, D. (1977). Ad hominem. The Philosophical Forum, 8, 1–19 (Reprinted in Woods and Walton (1989), pp. 55–73.).Google Scholar
  57. Woods, J., & Walton, D. (1982). Argument: The logic of the fallacies. Toronto, etc.: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.Google Scholar
  58. Woods, J., & Walton, D. (1989). Fallacies. Selected Papers 19721982. Dordrecht and Providence: Foris.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, Faculty of HumanitiesUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations