Ad hominems versus Analysis of writings and speeches

Post Reply
User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Ad hominems versus Analysis of writings and speeches

Post by Maria »

What are the differences between the use of the ad hominem fallacy versus the analysis of writings and speeches?

Here at E Cafe, we have a much broader definition of ad hominems in our rules, which include a ban on personal insults too. Furthermore, our rules here at E Cafe prohibit the use of any ad homimens and personal insults anywhere on this board, whether in the public or private forums.

While the Intra-TOC Polemical forum exists so that issues which would disturb the general public can be viewed by genuine inquirers, catechumen, and members of the True Orthodox Church, our Political and Social Private Forum exists so that Orthodox Christians who wish to be more prayerful and who know that we are in the last days can better prepare for Eternal Life by unceasing prayer, repentance, and avoidance of politics and current events. Even though these two forums are hidden from the general public does not mean that ad hominems will be tolerated there. In fact, those two forums often incur many more warnings due to the increased use of ad hominems, along with baiting and flaming.

Examples of ad hominems would be A = B
The person is attacked.

  • 1. He is crazy and a conspiracy theorist. Look, he even wears a tin-foil hat.

    1. How could he have earned his many degrees? He is a stupid person.
    2. He is very arrogant.
  • Ad hominem (Latin) means “against the man”. As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent to undermine him instead of his arguments.

    There are cases where consciously or unconsciously people start to question the opponent or his personal association rather than evaluating the soundness and validity of the argument that he presents. These types of arguments are usually mistaken for personal insults but they are somehow different in nature and the distinction is very subtle.

    Arguers who are not familiar with the principles of making logical arguments commonly end up saying something that would draw the audience’s attention to the distasteful characteristics of the individual. Such people use this fallacy as a tool to deceive their audience. Making such a blatant personal comment against somebody makes it hard for people to believe it isn’t true. Typically, even the arguer himself believes that such personal traits or circumstances are not enough to dispose of an individual’s opinion or argument. However, if looked at rationally, such arguments even if true never provide a valid reason to disregard someone’s criticism.
    http://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/

Ad hominems can be the use of a meme to attack a person. It can also be the use of rumors or gossip.

On the contrary, the analysis or criticism of someone's writings or speeches involves looking at the development of a thesis statement (main theme), the points made to prove the thesis, the use and/or abuse of rhetorical devices such as metaphors and similes, the use and/or appropriateness of logical fallacies, the literary styles employed, the overall presentation and its effect on the readers, and whether a proper conclusion is made.

Below are three examples of constructive criticism:

  • 1. MIchael Whelton's almost exclusive use of encyclopedias as references in his book, Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition and the many misspellings in the text give the impression that this 215 page book was poorly researched and hastily conceived and written.

    1. Throughout his essay and in his conclusion, there is no overall thesis statement, thus his essay tends to ramble.

    2. His encyclicals employ the use of strawmen to attack anyone who would dare oppose him, thus he effectively silences his opposition.

On the other hand, someone could say that he is presenting a constructive criticism of a book or essay, but upon a closer examination, it becomes apparent that he is using an ad hominum, which indirectly attacks the writer. Nevertheless, these types of uncharitable posts are not encouraged as they are crossing the line into baiting and badgering. They are also considered to be "flaming." Below are two examples of flaming.

  • 1. His writings seem filled with pointless paranoid conspiracy theories. [Here, the writer is being indirectly accused of being paranoid.]

    1. His flowery elegance and verbosity show his arrogance. [Here, the writer is being judged as arrogant].

In conclusion, analysis of encyclicals, essays, books, and speeches are encouraged to arrive at the truth, but use of ad hominems to attack a member or public figure are forbidden. In Christian charity, we should not even be attacking public figures such as the Patriarch of Constantinople or the President of the USA, yet we can and should critique their writings, speeches, and actions, such as kissing the Quran, bowing before an Imam, or engaging in acts of heresy, schism, or war.

This thread is open for discussion, and I would value your input as I am not infallible, and my examples may be poor. If you can offer better examples, kindly do so.

Thanks.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

Matthew
Protoposter
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sat 21 January 2012 12:04 am

Re: Ad hominems versus Analysis of writings and speeches

Post by Matthew »

I agree quite a bit with what you have written and feel we should strive to keep the standards you have outlined. However, I feel it might be too much to put everyone in a straight jacket. Christ countered the pharisees with ad hominem words: "Pharisees, Hypocrites! ...whitewashed sepulchres, sons of Satan" and I think The apostle paul and Church fathers did make ad hominem references.

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: Ad hominems versus Analysis of writings and speeches

Post by Maria »

Matthew wrote:

I agree quite a bit with what you have written and feel we should strive to keep the standards you have outlined. However, I feel it might be too much to put everyone in a straight jacket. Christ countered the pharisees with ad hominem words: "Pharisees, Hypocrites! ...whitewashed sepulchres, sons of Satan" and I think The apostle paul and Church fathers did make ad hominem references.

We can point out theological errors (in the appropriate forums) in the writings of clergy and laity. However, we should be careful not to use the word "heretic" in the public or private forums. We can say that their writings are heretical, but calling someone a heretic, unless they were officially condemned as heretics like Arius, Origin, or Martin Luther, is not allowed by the rules here.

For example, the heresy of Name-Worshiping has been condemned. Therefore, we can say that "Bishop" Gregory Lourie who was defrocked by ROAC is teaching heresy. Was Gregory Lourie condemned by the ROAC Synod as a Name-worshiping heretic? Is a synodal condemnation sufficient to condemn someone as a heretic? I am not a canon lawyer, so I need to ask these questions for clarification.

Likewise, we can post that both HOCNA and the Makarios Synod are preaching the Name Worshiping Heresy, which has been condemned by both the EP in 1913 and by the MP.

In addition, we can point to the writings of Elder Sophrony and say that he likewise taught the Name Worshiping Heresy in his writings. Since he was never condemned by his Synod in World Orthodoxy for his writings, can we call him a heretic? Nevertheless, it is true that Elder Sophrony was preaching heresy in his many books, and that he died outside the True Orthodox Church.

So, what is worse: being a heretic or remaining in schism from True Orthodoxy? Will not either action separate a person from Christ and from His Holy Church?

  • + +

Again, I am not a theologian or canon lawyer. I remain a member of the laity of the Genuine Church of Greece under Archbishop Stephanos, so if there are writings from a notable canon lawyer or Church Father who might help me and ohers to understand the fine points of canon law, please post that information. Thank you.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

Matthew
Protoposter
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sat 21 January 2012 12:04 am

Re: Ad hominems versus Analysis of writings and speeches

Post by Matthew »

Agreed. I was not disagreeing, but only saying that we should not go so far as to ban, in every case across the board, language that is termed "ad hominem". I agree that we should strive to avoid using language if we can say the same thing without offending, but we must be free to use words that some people will only ever classify as "ad hominem" because these words sometime must be used to speak the truth and not dilute it. That is all I was trying to say. Forgive me if I was in error or unclear.

Post Reply