Talk:Jacques Derrida/Ad hominem

message: What's this all about? Does somebody here want Admin / Mediator help? Uncle Ed July 5, 2005 18:07 (UTC)
:Yes, please. I've made a mediation request and left messages on your talk page and that of the party with whom I've requested mediation. Buffyg 5 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)
Well, my first suggestion is to avoid making any personal remarks yourself. Leave the admonishing to me and the other admins, okay? Just talk about Derrida here. And stay off the talk page of anyone who's not being nice to you. Try this for a week, and see what happens. You got nothing to lose, right? Uncle Ed July 7, 2005 00:06 (UTC)
:Point taken. Buffyg 7 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)
Again, what's all this about?  It appears that the original context that resulted in this RfC has been archived.  I see various comments about arguments as to whether Derrida was a charlatan, but not the original statement.  In the absence of the original statement, how am I expected to comment on whether an argument was ad hominem, otherwise fallacious, insulting, or anything?
Robert McClenon 21:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A request for some focus

message: There are two meanings of "ad hominem argument": the first involves attacking a view by attacking its holder (a typical, if condensed version would be to argue against vegetarianism on the grounds that Hitler was a vegetarian); the second involves attacking a view by bringinout a contradiction between it and another view held by one's interlocutor.  (The former is always unacceptable, the latter is acceptable in certain specific circumstances.) The latter is the more common meaning wehn the term is used in philosophical contexts (probably because the former is so obviously fallacious).
Calling Derrida a charlatan isn't ad hominem unless the inference is drawn that his views are therefore false.  In this case there's no indication that this is the case.  It's not clear to me that it's an insult, either; it's a negative opinion, certainly, and in the right (or wrong) context it would be an insult — but to call it one here is needlessly emotive and strongly suggestive of a particular point of view.
The passage in question is:
"Outside this circle Derrida's work has often been at least as controversial as within; many analytic philosophers and scientists, some going so far as to regard it as pseudophilosophy, even engaging in ad hominem attacks against him, calling him a 'charlatan'."
The terms "ad hominem" and "attacks" are both mischaracterisations suggesting a clearly pro-Derrida PoV, and "insult" would be the same.  This is independent of whether or not one agrees that he's a charlatan, etc. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 19:27, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: comments 

message: As I've been asked to comment, here are my thoughts.  "x is a charlatan, therefore what x says should be taken with a grain of salt" isn't circular (because you can't go from the consequent to the antecedent), but it is a tautology (because by definition what any charlatan says should be taken with a grain of salt; a charlatan is someone who professes knowledge or expertise that he doesn't have).
The only exception to that would be, for example, if x were a medical charlatan and he offered advice on the best way to get from Athens to Larissa; one might still be less than completely trusting (someone dishonest in one area might be dishonest in another), but the charlatanry in medicine doesn't logically imply charlatanry in directions-giving. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 09:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circularity