| > It doesn't matter what you were trying to do. Thank you, that is exactly right, and my entire point. The ad hominem is in referring to the person making the argument rather than speaking to the argument. It doesn't matter why (even if the only possibly reason is to invalidly undermine argument), it is still ad hominem. > By this logic No it isn't, because Socrates is not the man, here. The man, in this context, is whomever is making the argument. The mistake there instead is a category error. > You introduced ambiguity between the purpose of a statement itself -- its role in an argument -- and purpose of a person in making that statement, also known as intent. Hello. First of all, no I did not, but more importantly, this could not be equivalence because purpose and purpose are the same words with the same meaning. You are trying to split hairs that will not split, and you are also begging the question (petitio principii) in attempting to so narrowly define an ad hominem (it is what it is what it is is called circular reasoning). An ad hominem is any reference to the man, usually in the form of a personal attack, but not necessarily so. One can even start an argument with an ad hominem, so there is no preexisting argument to undermine. |
You've almost got it. The key thing you're missing is: "in a context where you are implied to be speaking to the argument". It's fallacious because it attempts to treat something that is not an argument as being one, not because the category "statements that aren't arguments" is automatically fallacious in all contexts.
If I said, "your argument is wrong because it's raining", that would be fallacious (unless your argument actually relied on the weather in some way). On the other hand, if I interjected, "it's raining!", that would just be an off-topic comment, not a fallacy. Same idea.
>No it isn't, because Socrates is not the man, here. The man, in this context, is whomever is making the argument.
That certainly can be Socrates. For example:
Socrates: I am immortal!
Interlocutor: Actually, Socrates, all men are mortal, and you are a man. Therefore, you are mortal.
Is the interlocutor committing a fallacy? Or how about here:
Socrates: Apples grow from trees. This oak tree is a tree. Therefore apples grow from this oak tree. That was a valid syllogism.
Interlocutor: Actually, Socrates, that was an example of affirming the consequent. A valid syllogism looks like this: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal.
>First of all, no I did not, but more importantly, this could not be equivalence because purpose and purpose are the same words with the same meaning.
Again, you're unnecessarily preoccupied with the definition of the word "purpose". I've already given you an example (that you failed to address) where it clearly means something different from "the intent of a person" -- the plant leaves -- but if you insist that it can't be used that way, fine; the author used a word incorrectly; whatever. Just substitute the word "function" and move on to addressing the substance of the matter instead of the definition of a word.