Skip to content
May 29, 2013 / compassioninpolitics

Answering Nietzsche and Ad Hominum Attacks

Calling this an ad hom fallacy misunderstands the notion of ad hom fallacies. They exist to avoid calling people -isms and “stupid.” Or just labeling someone a “radical.” This implicates his philosophy & his ideology & worldview.

This can be used to prove other arguments in debate–which isn’t what ad homs exist to prove.

This is semi-analogous to Ayn Rand’s use of social services. That seems to prove her philosophy isn’t realistic–if
it caused her to compromise her entire life’s advocacy.

Or Hitler killed lots of jews…oh thats an ad hom. Nope. Its a form of bias and it provides terminal impact for where his philosophy leads (ie consequences)

Or for instance….Timothy Leary was on drugs when he wrote his books. Thats just an ad-hom. Nope–it probably implicates his assumptions and biases–and maybe even what his philosophy leads to.

And yes…this calls into question Nietzsche’s sanity….he did die of Syphilus…..which is known to warp your ability to
make cogent, coherent, and reality based claims about how people should or should not direct their lives.

Or for instance if the other team re-frames your argument or answers your argument with impact calc or say an add-on advantage….its pretty meaningless to label those arguments “red herrings.”

And your interpretation of ad-homs lets authors get off the hook for their arguments–especially ones which implicate their ideology.

This also understands how logical fallacies should function in argument, logic, and life. For instance, there is the logical fallacy of composition or division–thats still relevant–its just a question of determining representativeness of examples–not an outright rejection of the use of examples in debate and logical argument. Logical fallacies exist as rules of thumb or heuristics–not out of hand rejection of arguments. There are limited cases when they do–if its an absolutely meaningless argument.

I think this card can potentially prove two things:
1. empirically the philosophy results in bad stuff which turns the individualism and creativity claims (or whatever your terminal impact is)
2. the totalitarian interpretations of Nietzsche are true–prefer our interpretations of his philosophy.
Either way–our Nazism turns are a disad to your alternative–straight turning every reason to vote negative. Nietzchian philosophy is a cul-de-sac–a dead end. Its try or die for us.

Thats not a top level–reject the argument out of hand. Its using the constellation of reality or picture the evidence suggests.

In a world of Nietzsche aren’t logical fallacies good???? Logical fallacies exist to police rationality and logic. Being bound by those precepts denies the ubermench & the greatness and excellence of humanity. Nietzsche looked down on that.

I would think that people’s spin on this may get down to–if they ran or their teams run Nietzsche or not.

To be fair, the evidence is less than perfect for doing the work I describe above….but is an interesting historical notion/truth/fact.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: