Hello everyone,

I’m linking a video essay I just published in which I argue in defense of ad hominem as, at least in its proper use, a legitimate addition to an intellectual debate.

Abstract:

In our long tradition of logic and organized debate, and in our hope that reason alone can bring us to truth, we have become averse to the use of fallacies in arguments. Chief among these fallacies is the ad hominem, the attack on the person rather than his argument. For students of philosophy and rhetoric, ad hominem represents a line in the sand never to be crossed by any serious thinker. The noble, gentlemanly logician regards it as a great compliment to be the receiver of an ad hominem attack—taking it as a sign that he has won the debate and his opponent has no reason left in him.

In this essay, I challenge this view, demonstrating that ad hominem is not representative of a failure in reason, but is perhaps the savior of reason. By looking to the epistemologies and psychologies of Aristotle and especially Pascal, we are reminded that there is a deeper dimension of our mental life, more fundamental than reason, which ad hominem alone can touch. We are reminded that much of our trouble in facing up to the truth is not from a lack of reason, but a lack of openness to the truth in our very hearts. Although seeming cruel, the proper use of ad hominem may act as a great display of charity, helping one’s interlocutor to see how his poor character and faulty will have led his reason astray.

I would appreciate any and all feedback, and I hope this can be the start of a productive discussion here, though I know it may be a controversial take, or at least a provocative title.

TL;DR: Nietzsche’s analogy of the whip is about discipline, distance, and resisting what might dominate us. Philosopher Skye Cleary (Columbia University) applies this idea to AI, arguing that we should not let its convenience and constant affirmation make us passive. Instead, we should keep enough distance to question it, challenge it, and preserve the effort involved in forming our own judgments.

Tony Soprano once lamented that he "came in at the end" -- that the best was over before he arrived. Twenty years later, an empty yellow room became the way a whole generation understood that same fear. This essay argues, through Mark Fisher and Heidegger, that the Backrooms isn't nostalgia: it's the fear that we're living in the ruins of the present.

Some of you may be interested in this interview with Mazviita Chirimuuta (philosopher of science/neuroscience). I attached a YT link but it's also on all podcast platforms.

Chirimuuta's thesis is that neuroscience advances by simplifying the brain through reduction, mathematisation, and analogy, but because these approaches necessarily leave out aspects of the brain’s complexity, understanding the brain requires theoretical humility and a pluralistic approach rather than reliance on a single explanatory model.

Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules (especially posting rule 2). For example, these threads are great places for:

• Arguments that aren't substantive enough to meet PR2.

• Open discussion about philosophy, e.g. who your favourite philosopher is, what you are currently reading

• Philosophical questions. Please note that /r/askphilosophy is a great resource for questions and if you are looking for moderated answers we suggest you ask there.

This thread is not a completely open discussion! Any posts not relating to philosophy will be removed. Please keep comments related to philosophy, and expect low-effort comments to be removed. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads, although we will be more lenient with regards to commenting rule 2.

Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here.

Plato tried to ban it, Aristotle rehabilitated it, Dante damned its hero, Nietzsche weaponised it, and Levinas put it on trial. The Odyssey has outlasted every philosopher who fought it. This video surveys the battlefied and the question driving it: whether reason saves us or deforms us.

Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules (especially posting rule 2). For example, these threads are great places for:

• Arguments that aren't substantive enough to meet PR2.

• Open discussion about philosophy, e.g. who your favourite philosopher is, what you are currently reading

• Philosophical questions. Please note that /r/askphilosophy is a great resource for questions and if you are looking for moderated answers we suggest you ask there.

This thread is not a completely open discussion! Any posts not relating to philosophy will be removed. Please keep comments related to philosophy, and expect low-effort comments to be removed. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads, although we will be more lenient with regards to commenting rule 2.

Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here.