"Being Logical" is a very simple, yet profound, book. I've been reading it on and off for months. This one section presented below brought me to a much better understanding of the fact that the debates we are having now in politics, on all sides of the spectrum, have indeed become non-productive smoke-screens; sadly personal and destructive. We all say that all the time, but this explains why in non-partisan cognitive terms. I'm exiting that political fray right now out of a sheer desire to move towards better emotional health, and honestly, because it's not cognitive, substantive, and productive anymore for me. I feel guilty over the things I say and do that only cast doubt on the opponents, but fail to really face the issues; keeping in mind that all sides have weaknesses. It had become like religion to me; like trading one ideology for another.
I will vote and I do care about the issues; but I don't think we are dealing with THE issues and this explains excerpt explains why, in my opinion. We are gossiping and tearing each other apart, and I think the fabric of our culture will suffer great consequences if we don't change. This book is helping me come to a greater and more cognitive understanding about "thinking" itself, and how it really works. We need to take the policies apart and discuss them, not tear each other apart by questioning patriotism, righteousness, or other traits; always looking for enemies or threats among us and inside our own government. It won't change until we demand better. Until it does, I won't no part of it accept to remain socially responsible. You'll be hearing more from me about life, music, food, health, philosophy and any other subjects that lift, raise, create, and add to life.
Enjoy..
The Fallacy of 'Ad Hominem" in Argumentation
by D.Q McInerny
To repeat an important rule: In argumentation we respond to the argument, not to the person behind the argument.That rule is broken when the argument is ignored and the person responsible for the argument is deliberately attacked. When that happens the "ad hominem fallacy" is being committed. {Ad hominem, in Latin, means "against the person.") The thrust of this illogical ploy is the making public of certain negative information about the personal life of one's opponent that, though irrelevant to the issues being argued, is emotionally volatile. The intention of the perpetrator of this fallacy is to divert an audience's attention from the argument, usually because the perpetrator is getting the worst of it. If my only purpose is to win an argument, the ad hominem fallacy can effectively advance that cause. It can turn an audience against my opponent, but for reasons irrelevant to the argument; through it I can find favor with the audience, for reasons similarly irrelevant. In the aftermath I might congratulate myself that I won the argument, but that is precisely what I did not do—not in any logical sense, at any rate. My dubious victory was not based on the merits of my ideas, but on my ability to prevent the argument of my opponent from getting a fair hearing.
No comments:
Post a Comment