Attacking someone with words to a vicious extent is not fallacious if one does not believe that it is contempt for the person that makes their philosophy false or demonstrates its falsity, as opposed to hating, mocking, or attacking them (verbally) because they are in error. Committing the ad hominem fallacy is not the same as being aggressive towards irrational people or, once they reveal their ideological stances, pouncing on both assumptions or impossibilities in their worldview as well as the person himself or herself. This misunderstood fallacy is rejecting a position because of the person associated with it, who might not even accurately, consistently hold to the concept they think they do. Otherwise, it is thinking that an irrelevant deficiency in their reasoning (which has to deviate from alignment with the objective truths of reason to be flawed) or character is why they are wrong.
You can insult people very aggressively as long as the insults are accurate, like "You are a fucking idiot for believing that reason is false while still inescapably relying on reason", without being irrational or even doing anything immoral by Biblical standards. It is not fallacious just to insult someone; it depends on how and why, such as if someone thinks their insult makes their own philosophical position on an issue being discussed true and refuses that of the other party. If no slander is involved and there are no assumptions or errors on the part of the person making the insult, including insults for irrelevant, non-problematic things (like for someone's subjective style preferences for their clothing rather than whatever genuine stupidity they just articulated), then there can be nothing invalid about the insult on any level.
The ad hominem fallacy is far narrower than what some present it as. A person can go so far as to gleefully insult irrational people in very personal ways without falling into this fallacy, such as by drawing mocking attention to mental health problems they have brought on themselves because they hold to false and destructive ideologies that happen to make their lives miserable. They might hate you or react vehemently, but if you are not literally incorrect in your assessment of their beliefs and psychology, then they are the one in error and not you. Not liking insults is not the same as not deserving them or as them not being accurate. Kindness is of no relevance whatsoever to simply being rational in recognizing what does or does not logically follow from one thing or another, so not even apathetically hurting someone's feelings is a sign of a fallacy in this regard (and there are ways to do this that are like driving psychological daggers into fools [1]).
Rejecting a person is not the same as rejecting the logical possibility, if applicable, or the truth or knowability of their proposed philosophy. Using one's words to beat down their stupidity in a way that hurts them as a person even purposefully does not mean one has disregarded their full humanity or embraced any concept which is either epistemologically uncertain or logically impossible. People will probably not appreciate it, but reality does not hinge on their wishes or beliefs, and there is no error of sheer rationality in being willing or eager to direct insults, aggression, and emotional devastation towards the unyielding non-rationalist. The real ad hominem fallacy is not one of merely issuing insults to people and not just their worldviews. Misconceptions of this matter are not a shield that protects someone from a genuine truth.
[1]. For elaboration, see here:
No comments:
Post a Comment