Ad Hominem

[Volker.Doormann]

Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Three traditionally identified varieties include ad hominem abusive, ad hominem circumstantial, and tu quoque.

Ad hominem abusive usually and most notoriously involves merely (and often unfairly) insulting one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but damning character flaws or actions. The reason that this is fallacious is that--usually, anyway--insults and even damaging facts simply do not undermine what logical support there might be for one's opponent's arguments or assertions.

An example: "I obviously don't need to reply to Jones's arguments; everyone knows that he's a convicted felon."

Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he or she is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way.

For example: "You needn't bother to listen to the trial arguments of the tobacco companies; after all, they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."

It is important to note that the above argument is not irrational, although it is not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic.

Ad hominem tu quoque (literally, "at the person, you too") could be called the "hypocrisy" argument. It occurs when a claim is dismissed either because it is inconsistent with other claims which the claimant is making or because it is inconsistent with the claimant's actions.

An example: "You claim to be a fundamentalist Christian yet you support gay rights."


There was a question in a thread: “How exactly do fundies determine that the earth is approximately 6000 years old from the Bible?”

1. Volker makes claim X: “The simple truth behind this number (6000 years) is, that this 5763 years do not determine the age of the earth, it is simple the number of years counts in the Hebrew calendar. Because the Hebrew calendar is a moon calendar - most all of the Hebrew ritulals are coupled to moon phases (Passover) and are religious symbols of life and death, - Hebrew priest have back calculated the 235 lunation's of the nineteen-year cycles of eclipses to the year 3760 BCE October 7 (in the Julian proleptic calendar). Some stupid Hebrew scholars then have taken the myths from the Genesis (Hebrew: B'Reyshith, = Beginnings) which are of Sumerian and Indian origin 1.) (Vedas) and have coupled this 'Era of Creation' with the start of this calendar. But if in 3760 BCE there was a constant frequency in the 19 year cycle of sun and moon, it is no problem to counts the years in the Hebrew calendar Before That Era.”

2. RED DAVE makes an attack on Volker: “To Volker.Doormann: I find your tone of voice towards Jews ("stupdi"; "arrogant") to verge on antisemitism. Coming as you do from Germany, I would watch my words a little more carefully. And, as a German, you should be especially careful of your words with regard to Jews. My experience is that people who give elliptical, semi-incoherent answers to very pointed posts are hiding something. “

3. Therefore Volker’s claim, that it is stupid from ancient Torah scholars in the centuries BCE to claim the world is not older then 6000 years, is wrong.


Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I think, that the claim of the ancient Jewish Torah scholars in the centuries BCE, that the world is 6000 year old is stupid”
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a German."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a German, so you have to say that, that the claim of the Jewish scholars that the world is 6000 year old is stupid. Further, you are do not answer on Ad Hominems, so I can't believe what you say."

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

I have argued, that it is my understanding, that it is not in a respect of the forum rules, to argue Ad Hominem in this way in a forum of Biblical Critique & History.

Volker

[John Page]

But if a man is his thoughts, how can you attack them without attacking him? IMO this is why a lot of people get very touchy when talking about personal beliefs. I think the Ad Hom get out is only valid when the attck is irrelevant to the argument.

Example of 'valid" ad hom "But since you're a dyed in-the-wool materialist you'll never be able to appreciate the spiritual nature of the abstract."

Cheers, John

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by John Page I think the Ad Hom get out is only valid when the attck is irrelevant to the argument.
I agree.

Volker

[RED DAVE]

To Volker.Doormann:

I thought I was on your ignore list. But, since you have revived this discussion, I'll continue.

Your lengthy, somewhat incoherent, argument about ad hominim arguments is beside the point. I did not dismiss your argument, ad hominim. What I did was state a concern of mine about your use of certain words, "arrogant" and "stupid," towards people who are long dead, cannot defend themselves and did not have access to the range of information that we have.

Further, I felt that using such words, specifically, against Jews, was insensitive. And, further, since you are German, it is the general opinion in this country, and Germany, that special sensitivy is needed.

And, I hereby reiterate my points.

RED DAVE

[xorbie]

In case it matters, I am Jewish and Germany is my favorite European country.

[ftorresgamez]

Originally posted by John Page
But if a man is his thoughts, how can you attack them without attacking him? IMO this is why a lot of people get very touchy when talking about personal beliefs. I think the Ad Hom get out is only valid when the attck is irrelevant to the argument.

Example of 'valid" ad hom "But since you're a dyed in-the-wool materialist you'll never be able to appreciate the spiritual nature of the abstract."

Cheers, John

I DON'T agree.

The above "valid" ad Hominem is not an ad hominem, but an assumption: The person assumes that the other cannot appreciate spirituality just because he or she is a materialist.

The assumption is not in itself an ad hominem until the person uses that assumption to conclude another person's arguments are false. Volker.Doorman's examples show this fact well.

[DoubleDutchy]

Originally posted by RED DAVE
To Volker.Doormann:

And, further, since you are German, it is the general opinion in this country, .

RED DAVE
"Argumentum ad populum
This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People. You commit this fallacy if you attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often characterized by emotive language

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by xorbie
In case it matters, I am Jewish and Germany is my favorite European country. It does. You are wellcome. In case it matters, I do work on the same matter as
Rabbi Yonassan Gershom (http://www.pinenet.com/~rooster/) - Reincarnation. In the spiritual world is no place for a mind war. :)

Shalom

Volker

[John Page]

Originally posted by ftorresgamez
I DON'T agree.

The above "valid" ad Hominem is not an ad hominem, but an assumption: The person assumes that the other cannot appreciate spirituality just because he or she is a materialist.

The assumption is not in itself an ad hominem until the person uses that assumption to conclude another person's arguments are false. Volker.Doorman's examples show this fact well.
Oh but I must be allowed to use assumptions! I can and have been wrong about many things, why can't I be wrong about somebody's position? It might feel like an ad hom but its not.

Anyway, how does a materialst appreciate spirituality?

Cheers, John

[tribalbeeyatch]

Ummm...

Isn't it generally considered plagiarism when you quote other sources without naming them (or linking to them)?

The first quarter of the OP is here:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

And the second quarter is here:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[edited to fix first link]

[John Page]

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
In the spiritual world is no place for a mind war. :)
Who told you that? I believe it to be a lie of sorts.

Cheers, John

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by tribalbeeyatch
Isn't it generally considered plagiarism when you quote other sources without naming them (or linking to them)? Not really. I am interested in arguments to the subject. The Ad Hominem philosophy is classic. Maybe you have perceived that I have taken such classic examples and have loaded it with (my) new words. We are discussing here a philosophically theme (maybe). Naturally in this discussion I had given this links as references, after there would be disagreement with this initial statements, to show the acceptance of them in philosophy in general. This may be a tric. But we can speak on all - as long there are is a free speech - what is your thinking on the subject?

Volker

[tribalbeeyatch]

Volker,

I haven't read the thread that is referenced in your original post, so I am having some difficulty in spotting the alleged ad hominem. Is it this quote from RED DAVE, "My experience is that people who give elliptical, semi-incoherent answers to very pointed posts are hiding something."? It seems to me that he is referring to something else said in that thread and not included in your original post. Could this be the case?

I think that your point 3:

"Therefore Volker?s claim, that it is stupid from ancient Torah scholars in the centuries BCE to claim the world is not older then 6000 years, is wrong."

is not a reasonable interpretation of what RED DAVE actually said. It didn't appear that he weighed in on the accuracy of your claim regarding the beliefs of ancient Torah scholars at all. He seemed only to alert you to the fact that your choice of words with respect to these Torah scholars might be offensive to your Jewish readers.

So, no, I don't think this is an example of an ad hominem. I do think that you should be more careful in properly attributing quoted material in the future, though. This can both violate copyrights and undermine your credibility with your audience.

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by John Page
Who told you that? I believe it to be a lie of sorts. Oh John. No one cares on your believe. It is your very own individual busyness. But if people agree from their spiritual consciousness, that it is true, that a triangle has three sides without fighting a war, you can learn, that you are wrong. Whose nation own the 3 ? Like mathematicians always agree on the truth of one spirtual result one can also agree on other spiritual truth, because of knowledge.

A moderator has closed a thread today because of derailing. I would be thankful, if you take a little view on the subject of this thread. Feel free to start a new thread of your own.

Volker

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by tribalbeeyatch
He seemed only to alert you to the fact that your choice of words with respect to these Torah scholars might be offensive to your Jewish readers.

So, no, I don't think this is an example of an ad hominem. Thank you for your comment.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
Oh John. No one cares on your believe.
Wrong, I do.
Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
But if people agree from their spiritual consciousness, that it is true, that a triangle has three sides without fighting a war, you can learn, that you are wrong. Whose nation own the 3 ? Like mathematicians always agree on the truth of one spirtual result one can also agree on other spiritual truth, because of knowledge.
I cannot make sense of this.
Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
In the spiritual world is no place for a mind war.
This is your statement I objected to. IMO spirituality is something sensed by the mind, i.e. the spiritual world is a facet of mind/brain activity.

This being the case I cannot see how a mind war could take place in anything other than "the spiritual world".

Cheers, John

[demoninho]

Originally posted by RED DAVE
T What I did was state a concern of mine about your use of certain words, "arrogant" and "stupid," towards people who are long dead, cannot defend themselves and did not have access to the range of information that we have

In defence of Volker the words arrogant and stupid have slighty different connotations to them in german , with arrogant meaning more intelectually preconcieved than actually arrogant and stupid meaning more silly.

Sometimes it can be very hard to express clear and concise thoughts clearly and concise in another language.

[BDS]

Ad hominem arguments may be logically and rhetorically fallacious, but we all fix our belief systems based on ad homiem or ad populum arguments.

For example, I believe that tiny, microscopic helixes made of DNA encode information that determines human genotypes, which have an impact on human phenotypes. Why do I believe this? For the simple reason that a bunch of respected biologists agree that it is the case.

So an argument might consist of:

"Every scientist around agrees with me that genes have evolutionary effects."

"Not every one! Dr. X disagrees."

"Yeah. But Dr. X is a notorious fundamentalist."

What's wrong with that? The argument may be ad hominem, but, often, when we don't know enough about a subject to actually argue based on what we've seen ourselves through the microscope, the ad hominem argument is a perfectly reasonable one.

My point is that, in real life, ad hominem arguments are, if not logically capable of proving anything, certainly capable of adding credence to one side or the other.

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by John Page
I cannot make sense of this. IMO spirituality is something sensed by the mind, i.e. the spiritual world is a facet of mind/brain activity. This being the case I cannot see how a mind war could take place in anything other than "the spiritual world". Please start a new thread.

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by BDS ... My point is that, in real life, ad hominem arguments are, if not logically capable of proving anything, certainly capable of adding credence to one side or the other. Thank you for you comment.
My point would be, that a person never ever is wrong; it is its arguments, its behavior, its belief, its logic, etc. It is a mistaken, that the person is identically with its mind in total. It seems so, but the fact, that the mind is in general to be controlled by a consciousness, able to perceive ethical qualities without external references, shows that there is a hierarchy. If this would not be, there would no consensus on the truth of an ethical quality in general, also if some minds would reject this consensus by religious or other belief/war systems.

If somewhat in a person would not be holy - and I mean holy - then there would in this forum no rules to respect the person, also if the persons arguments are to be seen as wrong by many others. It is a still agreement all over the world.

There is ever an insight possible perceiving the simple truth of an item in each present, but it is never possible, that a mind, which is a dead memory, can create more insight out of this old memory, without external inputs.

This insight of the own consciousness is only possible in the respect of the holy part of the person, explaining to it in detail, what the true behavior, logic, etc, is, by arguments. It is not possible by a mind war (aka discussion), in that the winner claims the truth, leaving a being back.

Volker

[John Page]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Page
I cannot make sense of this. IMO spirituality is something sensed by the mind, i.e. the spiritual world is a facet of mind/brain activity. This being the case I cannot see how a mind war could take place in anything other than "the spiritual world".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Volker: Please start a new thread.

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
This insight of the own consciousness is only possible in the respect of the holy part of the person, explaining to it in detail, what the true behavior, logic, etc, is, by arguments. It is not possible by a mind war (aka discussion), in that the winner claims the truth, leaving a being back.

Volker:
You are a strange person. You ask me to start a new thread on spirituality vs. mind and then continue to sound off on the topic in your response to BDS!

If you don't care to respond to my point, at least can you expand and justify your claim "This insight of the own consciousness is only possible in the respect of the holy part of the person...." especially with a definition of a person's holy part.

Cheers, John

[RED DAVE]

This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People. You commit this fallacy if you attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often characterized by emotive language

No, this is what is known as having some decent concern for other people. You have used the words "arrogant" and "stupid" with regard to Jewish scholars. (Even if the words mean somethng different in German, we are writing English.) I have accused you, basically, of being insensitive to the possible feelings of Jewish (and other) people on this board. And I reminded you that, as a German, you should be expecially careful of how you express yourself on matters concerning Jews.

My points still stand.

RED DAVE

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by RED DAVE
My points still stand.

RED DAVE Guns, saber or nuclear? :p

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by John Page
quote: Volker: Please start a new thread. It seems, that you ignore thisVolker: You are a strange person. Yes. We can discuss this and more in your new thread.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
It seems, that you ignore this Yes. We can discuss this and more in your new thread.
What new thread? You do seem to be displaying an ubermensch mentality and a condescending opinion that people ought to do what you ask.

My question is entirely relevant to the OP - is an ad hom an attack on a person's ideas or an attack on their spirit?

[RED DAVE]

From Volker.Doormann:

Guns, saber or nuclear?

You still haven't answered my points. And your reference to sabrs is reminiscent of the fanatically nationalist, antisemitic German student dueling societies. You're still at it.

RED DAVE

[ftorresgamez]

Originally posted by John Page
Oh but I must be allowed to use assumptions! I can and have been wrong about many things, why can't I be wrong about somebody's position? It might feel like an ad hom but its not.

Anyway, how does a materialst appreciate spirituality?

Cheers, John

Point a) Nobody said you were not allowed to have assumptions, but before you can USE assumptions as counterarguments, it is your responsability to make sure they are valid or based on facts. Anyway, your assumption is one thing; thinking a person's argument is invalid, based on your flawed assumption, is fallacy. If you assume the other person's argument is not valid simply because that person's character is suspect, then yours is an ad hominem fallacy.

Point b) Define: "Appreciate" - what do you mean by "appreciate"? Also, you have to define in no uncertain terms what is this you call "spirituality".

Maybe a materialist cannot give a reasonable opinion on the subject because it has not been properly defined.

[John Page]

torresgamez:
Originally posted by ftorresgamez
Point a) Nobody said you were not allowed to have assumptions, but before you can USE assumptions as counterarguments, it is your responsability to make sure they are valid or based on facts. Anyway, your assumption is one thing; thinking a person's argument is invalid, based on your flawed assumption, is fallacy. If you assume the other person's argument is not valid simply because that person's character is suspect, then yours is an ad hominem fallacy.
And how does one test the validity of an assumption? If the other guy is assuming that my assumption is invalid but I think he's wrong that doesn't get anyone anywhere.

You are implying that I have assumed that Volker's character is suspect. How about proving your assumption? I think I make a valid comment about his attitude but made no reference to his character - you may be confusing me with someone else.
Originally posted by ftorresgamez
Point b) Define: "Appreciate" - what do you mean by "appreciate"? Also, you have to define in no uncertain terms what is this you call "spirituality".

Maybe a materialist cannot give a reasonable opinion on the subject because it has not been properly defined.
Sigh. Go back to Volker, he's the one making the assertions about materialists and spirituality. I'm merely asking an interrogatory question to elicit why he thinks spirituality and mind wars are so very distinct.

Cheers, John

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by John Page
You do seem to be displaying an ubermensch mentality and a condescending opinion that people ought to do what you ask 1.) Volker makes claim X1: “In the spiritual world is no place for a mind war.”

JOHN PAGE says: “I believe it to be a lie of sorts.”

Volker makes claim X2: “A moderator has closed a thread today because of derailing. I would be thankful, if you take a little view on the subject of this thread. Feel free to start a new thread of your own.”

2.) JOHN PAGE attack on Volker: “You do seem to be displaying an ubermensch mentality and a condescending opinion that people ought to do what you ask.”

3.) Therefore Volker’s claim X , ‘In the spiritual world is no place for a mind war … A moderator has closed a thread today because of derailing … I would be thankful, if you take a little view on the subject of this thread ….. Feel free to start a new thread of your own’, is wrong.

From Wikipedia, the freeencyclopedia. (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_attack)
Personal attack

“Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness of what the person said. It works on the reasoning that, by discrediting the source of an argument, e.g. the person making it, the argument itself can be weakened.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how morally repugnant a person might be, he or she can still make true claims.

Volker

[John Page]

Originally posted by John Page
What new thread? You do seem to be displaying an ubermensch mentality and a condescending opinion that people ought to do what you ask.

My question is entirely relevant to the OP - is an ad hom an attack on a person's ideas or an attack on their spirit?
Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
1.) Volker makes claim X1: “In the spiritual world is no place for a mind war.”

JOHN PAGE says: “I believe it to be a lie of sorts.”

Volker makes claim X2: “A moderator has closed a thread today because of derailing. I would be thankful, if you take a little view on the subject of this thread. Feel free to start a new thread of your own.”

2.) JOHN PAGE attack on Volker: “You do seem to be displaying an ubermensch mentality and a condescending opinion that people ought to do what you ask.”

3.) Therefore Volker’s claim X , ‘In the spiritual world is no place for a mind war … A moderator has closed a thread today because of derailing … I would be thankful, if you take a little view on the subject of this thread ….. Feel free to start a new thread of your own’, is wrong.

From Wikipedia, the freeencyclopedia. (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_attack)
Personal attack

“Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness of what the person said. It works on the reasoning that, by discrediting the source of an argument, e.g. the person making it, the argument itself can be weakened.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how morally repugnant a person might be, he or she can still make true claims.

Volker
Your arrangement of quotes is somewhat disingenuous and can be considered an ad hom, why not answer the question I posed rather than "use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness of what the person said." to quote from wikki?

Cheers, John

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by John Page ... why not answer the question I posed rather than "use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness of what the person said." to quote from wikki? Because I miss valid counterarguments in your post. Nothing. I have no interest in a mind war. It's not my world.

"Somebody came to the door of the beloved and knocked. A voice asked: Who is there? He answered: It is me. The voice said: Here is no place for me and you. The door was closed. After one year of loneliness and withdrawal, the man came again to the door of the beloved. He knocked. A voice of indoors asked: Who is there? The man said: It is you. The door was opened for him."
(Jelaluddin Rumi 30.9.1207-16.12.1273 CE)

[John Page]

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
I have no interest in a mind war.
Then why do you say things like this:
Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
1.) Volker makes claim X1: “In the spiritual world is no place for a mind war.”
and completely ignore my other question:
Originally posted by John Page
If you don't care to respond to my point, at least can you expand and justify your claim "This insight of the own consciousness is only possible in the respect of the holy part of the person...." especially with a definition of a person's holy part.

So, do you want to debate your OP or not? Some kind of relevant response would be helpful.

Cheers, John

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by John Page So, do you want to debate your OP or not? Not in this thread. Not in this form. Not in this forum. Not with you.

Volker

[ftorresgamez]

Originally posted by John Page
torresgamez:

And how does one test the validity of an assumption? If the other guy is assuming that my assumption is invalid but I think he's wrong that doesn't get anyone anywhere.

That has nothing to to with ad hominem fallacy. If you think the other guy's assumption is incorrect based on logical analysis or on testable facts, then your position is not fallacious. If on the other hand, you think the other guy is wrong because he has bad breath, or he is Irish, then you are thinking fallaciously.

You are implying that I have assumed that Volker's character is suspect. How about proving your assumption? I think I make a valid comment about his attitude but made no reference to his character - you may be confusing me with someone else.

No, I have not assumed anything of that sort. I have argued against the idea that a person is his/her ideas, and that an ad hominem argument can be valid. I argue that it cannot be valid, since ideas themselves can be tested for their validity, so there is no need to test the validity of the person.

Sigh. Go back to Volker, he's the one making the assertions about materialists and spirituality. I'm merely asking an interrogatory question to elicit why he thinks spirituality and mind wars are so very distinct.

If that is the case, I apologize. It is a long thread and I am reading this at the office during my lunch break.

Cheers, John

The same, and peace for all.

[BDS]

Ad hominem arguments are not "valid" in the formal sense, ftorrezgamez. However, as I pointed out before, they can be perfectly "reasonable".

Just to be clear, formally, "valid" means logically sound. The argument:

All children speak Farsi
The only beings who speak Farsi are alligators

Conclusion: All children are alligators

This argument is "valid", but of course it is nonsense, because the postulates are incorrect.

Let's look at an ad hominem argument:

Jose is a native Spanish speaker
Jose says that "de nada" means "you're welcome"

Conclusion: "de nada" means you're welcome.

This argument is not formally "valid", because the connection between Jose's ability in Spanish and his truthfulness, accuracy, ability in Englsh, etc. has not been formally made. However, the second argument is perfectly reasonable (although not valid) while the first is perfectly valid (although not reasonable).

[John Page]

Originally posted by John Page: So, do you want to debate your OP or not?
Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
Not in this thread. Not in this form. Not in this forum. Not with you.
Why not? Afraid of losing? Don't want to answer questions? :rolleyes:

[John Page]

Hi Gomez:

Thanks for your response.

But if a man is his thoughts, how can you attack them without attacking him?
....
Originally posted by ftorresgamez
That has nothing to to with ad hominem fallacy. If you think the other guy's assumption is incorrect based on logical analysis or on testable facts, then your position is not fallacious. If on the other hand, you think the other guy is wrong because he has bad breath, or he is Irish, then you are thinking fallaciously.
Please don't think I trying to plant your response as being directly related to my initial observation in the thread - I'm just trying to indicate where I was coming from on the ad hom debate.

Consider: Any so-called "logical analysis" is being performed in the mind of the commentator. But what happens when both proponents think they are making valid, tenable, accurate comments? Must we exclude Irishness as an influence to a person's behavior? Who is the arbiter of what is reasonable?

Example: Prove to me that a person's thinking is necessarily fallacious in ever concluding the other guy is "wrong" becase the other guy has bad breath, is Irish etc.

Back to the OP. It is possible that a theist is unable to grasp certain relativistic thought processes because of their belief in an absolute divine being. To accuse someone of theism may appear as a personal attack but may, in fact, be perfectly reasonable depending on the topic.

Now to Volker: Volker appears to be attacking materialists in general (based IMO on some spiritualistic mumbo jumbo) but refuses to debate the matter. He's either justified in his statements or, well, I'll leave you to fill in the blanks.

Cheers, John

[B612]

Hi, Volker!

I have been going through this thread and I was quite surprised- flabbergasted- seeing the attacks on your person and your rand arguments, based only on the fact that you are German (supposedly).

Do remeber that you can critizice catholics, lutherans, you name it, but never ever anything ever said by a persons of jewish faith...because you are German, you know... On such cases please be EXTREMELY careful with your words, as a German you should well know it. Maybe after 400 years, "we" will permit you to tell polish or jewish jokes, nowadays concentrate on spanish or italian ones.

After living in Germany for some 6 years, the only explanation I can think of your behaviour, is that you forgot for a second that you were german and you thought - mistakenly- for a second that you were not in Germany (in Germany you would not have forgotten, because everybody would have jumped on your throat, too) anymore but you thought that you were writing in a philosophical forum as a human being with no nationality or scarlett-letters / burdens that you have to carry for beeing born in the "wrong" place (you didn't chose the place of birth, did you?).

I can only symphatize with your last response to John Page.

Please do not forget your footnotes and references (it's not a Ph.D., but it matters altough I won't jump on your throat) and never use that funny, liberal tone when commeting anything related to jews (as if you were swedish or Woody Allen, and not the german you are), including if a jew rabbi or whatever happened to calculate the age of the planet at 6000.

If is a spanish jew, my jewish mother and Woody Allen might forgive you and laugh at it wotih you, but with me, Mr. Übermensch, is going to be guns,sabre and nuclear...and I'll look you up in Germany, if you dare!

Just a joke, Volker, of course ;)

[John Page]

Originally posted by B612
After living in Germany for some 6 years, the only explanation I can think of your behaviour, is that you forgot for a second that you were german and you thought - mistakenly- for a second that you were not in Germany........
You sympathize with him because he thought he wasn't in Germany?
Originally posted by B612
.....(in Germany you would not have forgotten, because everybody would have jumped on your throat, too).....
So that means there is a different standard of argumentation in Germany?
Originally posted by B612
I can only symphatize with your last response to John Page.

I see, you sympathize with Volker by attacking his behavior and making excuses on his behalf for the way he argues things. Brilliant! :D

I have never criticized Volker's nationality or his style of rhetoric. I have attacked him for the rude manners of not engaging in discourse on the topic which he posts.

Now if we could get back to the topic of ad hominem and address the issues of controversy rather than attacking each other....

Cheers, John

[Kalkin]

Red Dave, stop being paranoid. I see nothing in Volker's posts to imply that he's anti-semitic or a German nationalist. He attacks a couple ancient Hebrew scholars as "stupid?" So what? That's not an attack on Jews any more than me saying Pope whatever-his-name-was-who-at-least-temporarily-supported-Hitler was evil is an attack on Christianity. You're displaying a lot more prejudice against Germans than Volker is against anyone. Nazism isn't in control over there any more. Come on... mentioning "sabers" in a joke is now "reminiscent of the fanatically nationalist, antisemitic German student dueling societies?" :D Are you serious?

[RED DAVE]

From Kalkin:

Red Dave, stop being paranoid. I see nothing in Volker's posts to imply that he's anti-semitic or a German nationalist. He attacks a couple ancient Hebrew scholars as "stupid?" So what? That's not an attack on Jews any more than me saying Pope whatever-his-name-was-who-at-least-temporarily-supported-Hitler was evil is an attack on Christianity. You're displaying a lot more prejudice against Germans than Volker is against anyone. Nazism isn't in control over there any more. Come on... mentioning "sabers" in a joke is now "reminiscent of the fanatically nationalist, antisemitic German student dueling societies?" Are you serious?

Sorry, but I don't think I'm paranoid. You don't see possible antisemitism or German nationalism in Volker's posts? Well I do. His attacks on the "ancient Hebrew scholars," in my opinion showed insensitivity. So what? Maybe it's nothing to you. And as a matter of fact, saying that Pope Pius XII was a supporter of Hitler (and he way) is an attack on xtianity. And they deserve it.

Now, as to me showing "a lot more prejudice" than Volker, that's a nice tactic: claiming reverse racism. However, you're wrong! Naziism isn't in control over there, but there sure as shit are Nazis, and any German who crtiicizes Jews needs to be extremely creful in the same way that Jews, or any other group of Euros has to be very careful in criticizing African Americans.

As to the saber thing, the connection leaped immediately to my mind. I don't know what your bnackground is, Kalkin, but the connection between saber dueling, German nationalism and Naziism is a strong one.

There's a lot of shit that's floated under the bridges of history, and the stench doesn't vanish quickly.

RED DAVE

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by B612
...and I'll look you up in Germany, if you dare!
B612,
you are welcome. Thank you for your lines written well.

Some background to this phenomena. I have studied the Jewish scriptures in deep, and I think there are not many people in the world, who have an understanding for the hidden spiritual meaning of the Torah myths. There are some Rabbis - like Yonassan Gershom - who have studied this spiritual meaning and their meanings to the teachings of reincarnation and the existence of a soul from the Jewish mysticism Zohar, written by Moses ben Shem Tov of Leon, and as we know them in part from books from Aryeh Wineman (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0827605153/qid=1062163534/sr=12-1/102-0284447-5112108?v=glance&s=books). Nothing of the Torah myth have really historical basis; the figures are only symbols and heroes like Donald Duck or Cinderella. I have written a lot of articles about in this board. Next to this wonderful myths of the Torah there are plain social power claims in the Hebrew Text's, that have no spiritual meaning, but are commandments against the spiritual meaning of men. Since people have lost this spiritual meaning, and have started thinking in nationality and history claims, this has created a lot of wars between social clusters - called religions. This can be solved easy, if one separates the aspiritual inhuman power claims and supernatural claims in all religions from the very same spiritual understanding of nature, as it is a common sense in general all over the world, as it is known from the classic philosophy of ethic, for example taught by the Roman slave Epiktet, and many others. The main mistake in the religious thinking is the idea, that to be a member of a religion means, one can act on others beings, without to take the responsibility to that aspiritual acting as individual. But as we have learned from Epiktet, this is not. There are only the things happen to the own, and that, what happens to the other is his busyness, not that of the own. Philosophy means also to learn to distinguish this and to respect this while acting. No one is perfect in this imperfect world, but this world is a place to learn to distinguish between truth and untruth. And he, who is slave of the social commandments, cannot stand for truth. Either he stand for his recognized knowledge (Socrates), or not. This is the only point of relevance. 'There is no religion higher then truth', was a word of the Theosophical Society. It is the standing for the truth of a timeless universe, or the following as slave of the social commandment claims of a 'truth' of a 6000 year old sky and earth, which is relevant. Religions have to follow the truth, not the 'truth' has to follow the religions and their officers, with their hypocritical 'ethic'.

Volker

(I'm offline some weeks)

[DoubleDutchy]

Originally posted by RED DAVE


Sorry, but I don't think I'm paranoid. RED DAVE

Paranoïds never do.
Now, as to me showing "a lot more prejudice" than Volker, that's a nice tactic: claiming reverse racism.
It is more than that, it is to the point.

[RED DAVE]

From DoubleDutchy:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RED DAVE

Sorry, but I don't think I'm paranoid. RED DAVE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paranoïds never do.

Cute, but when a Jew is concerned about the attitudes of a German who uses words like "stupid" and "arrogant" when referring to Jews, concern in this regard is not usually considered paranoid


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, as to me showing "a lot more prejudice" than Volker, that's a nice tactic: claiming reverse racism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is more than that, it is to the point.

You'll have to prove that one. I think, again, that my suspicions are warranted. Germans still owe Jews (and the rest of the world) a hell of lot of caution when dealing with matters such as this. And to not recognize this is callousness blending into antisemitism.

RED DAVE

[John Page]

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
....Religions have to follow the truth, not the 'truth' has to follow the religions and their officers, with their hypocritical 'ethic'.

Agreed. Where does truth come from, how does it "appear"?

IMO the truth is manufactured by the mind/brain of the perceiver. We can share truths through the similarity of our thoughts/minds.

If this is so, then, following from "Religions have to follow the truth", one can say, "Religions have to follow the (truth) in the minds of man."

This goes back again to my response to the OP. I will not attack a person because of their beliefs (goodness knows I've been mistaken enough myself) but I know that when you attack their truth it will feel like an ad hom to them.

Cheers, John

[B612]

:cool:
Hi, John Page!

No, I do not sympathize with Volker becuase he tought he wasn't in Germany. What I said was that I sympathize with his answer to you.

No, there is no different standard of argumentation in Germany, but I learnt living there that you have to be extremely "politically correct" when talking about jews or nazis or anything related to them. Jewish or nazis jokes are out of the question, of course, but also rational or substantiated criticism to anyone or anything jewish...and I find this somehow funny (like any form of political correctness driven to a extreme) and also wrong, both in Germany and in this Forum.

If Volker finds that some ideas of ancient or present time jewish scholars are stupid and uses the wording "Some stupid Hebrew scholars...", I think he is entitled to use that wording, even if he is German, or despite of his being german.

I do not think that I attacked Volkers' behaviour. I was only looking for a possible explanation for his wording "some stupid Hebrew scholars", beeing Volker a german, and I was also beeing ironic at the same time, but I thing that you might have missed the second part.

"Political correctness" or "the ever-lasting burden of history, 2WW and the Holocaust" has led to the point that nobody in Germany - except neo-nazis, of course- dares to critisize or say anything negative about anybody or anything beeing hebrew or jew (even if it were). The german media would jump immidiately on Volkers throat for using the word "stupid" instead of "in my opinion, mistaken or false" or something other acceptable wording when related to a hebrew pradicate.

For that reason, I though that a possible explanation was that Volker forgot he was in Germany or that he was a German. At the same time, I was beeing ironic, because I do not really think that you have to be swedish, Woody Allen or a jew yourself to be able or have the permission to criticise something stupid or funny that a jewish person said or did.

It might sound too advanced for some people, very probably so for "Red Dave", but I think that even germans can criticise something a jew or a hebrew scholar said, granted that this criticism is substantiated and not "ad hominem", based on racist remarks or the like.

But, funny -or rather sad- as it is, Volker ended up, IMO, beeing attacked "ad hominem" in the thread he started to discuss the topic of "ad hominem" criticism !!

I was not trying at all to make excuses on Volkers or anybody's behalf. Volker could do that himself, if he had to.

IMO Volker was beeing indeed attacked based on his nationality. Volker was born in 1943 so I don't think he could be made responsible for anything the nazis did to the Jews or to the Russians, for that matter. Furthermore I do not think that Volker or anybody has to carry any burden, based on his beeing german, that limits his philosophical debates or his criticism to hebrew scholars.

I would not be interested in a further discussion either, if anybody says to me that I start displaying "an ubermensch mentality and a condescending opinion that people ought to do what you ask". What is an "ubermensch mentality"?

How would you feel, John, if somebody would say to you that you display an ubermensch mentality and a condescending opinion on people?

Cheers. :)

[B612]

Hi, Volker!

Thanks for your words! First, let me tell you, as I just told to John Page, that I was not trying to make an apology on your behalf.

I'm glad that you took some time to explain me your more basic beliefs and ideas. I had visited your web site already and found it very interesting. The myths one can find in the Jewish Scriptures, can be found in many other religions.

Personally I believe that we should take myths for what they are, respect science, but not to concentrate on a philosophical "truth" but more on "how should we act on this world/universe, regarding ourselves and other beings". Even some philosophers
thought the search for truth to be impossible for humans or within humans parameters, brains and language.

There is also a forum here regarding "Why A=A ist not valid" with almost 1600 views, and I guess they could be discussing it forever, every single sentence, word or definition. The search for "truth" will never end.

I think it was Erich Fromm who asked us not to seek truth, not to concentrate in "aristotelian logic" but accept "paradoxical logic" (after all, light itself is supposed to be both a wave and a particle), not to be sure that we'll ever reach "truth" but start following some guidelines in our lives, basically "love".

Well I am getting off the debate regarding "ad hominem"...

Take care and have a good holyday!

[John Page]

Originally posted by B612
I would not be interested in a further discussion either, if anybody says to me that I start displaying "an ubermensch mentality and a condescending opinion that people ought to do what you ask". What is an "ubermensch mentality"?
Ubermensch: Nietzsche's image conveying the idea of human life enhanced and transformed in a manner sufficient to render it worthy of affirmation, in contrast to all that is 'all too human' about it, dispensing with all other-worldly hopes and illusions, and overcoming all disillusionment. The apotheosis of human vitality and creativity, this image functions as a guiding idea by reference to which 'higher' and 'lower' human types can be distinguished, and as the locus of meaning ('the meaning of earth') in Nietzsche's naturalistic reassessment of this life in this world. It has élitist rather than racist overtones and implications for Nietzsche, emphasizing the importance of the respects in which human beings individually differ in their abilities, and of the manner in which their differing abilities are cultivated and employed.

In other words, Volker gave the impression that his opinions were better than anyone else's just because he is Volker. I don't buy it.
Originally posted by B612
How would you feel, John, if somebody would say to you that you display an ubermensch mentality and a condescending opinion on people?
Simple, I'd fell that they might just be right but I'd try and prove them wrong anyway just for the hell of it. But that's just my ubermensch mentality coming out.
;)

Cheers, John

"Whither is Logic," he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed it - you and I. All of us are murderers.... Logic is dead. Logic remains dead. And we have killed it ... " (Sartre's uber-logic for the French)

[John Page]

Originally posted by B612
I think it was Erich Fromm who asked us not to seek truth, not to concentrate in "aristotelian logic" but accept "paradoxical logic" (after all, light itself is supposed to be both a wave and a particle), not to be sure that we'll ever reach "truth" but start following some guidelines in our lives, basically "love".
Do you advocate the logic of love or the love of logic? Back to phenomenology....

Cheers, John

[B612]

Hi, John!

Well, to me Volker posts did not give the impression that his opinions were better than anyone else's just because he was Volker. Opinions have to be judged on its own merit; even persons like Sartre, Russell or Wittgenstein could produce a lot of bull....

Volker decided- as I probably would have- not to go on and try to prove you wrong, altough he did try at the beginning, but then you cannot go on this forever (like in the "A=A is not valid" thread), I think. Besides VOlker was beeing attacked from many sides at the same time and IMO "ad hominem". So we should respect his decision, too.

Besides I do not think that Volker has your ubermensch mentality
;) or "fighting irish" character.

Classic aristotelian logic might be dead, but sure there are many people try to bring it back to life. I read a lot of interesting things in the forum regarding logic and language, from Starboy and many others. I might post my ideas it when I have more time, and probably in another thread.

I have a lot of work this week; actually I have to fly to Hamburg, but just for work, not to beat Volker up for his remarks about the hebrew scholars (joke!).

Cheers!

[B612]

Hi, John!

I almost forgot. Regarding your last reply: none of the above. Bbut I'd rahter take "the logic of love" than the "love of logic".

Take care,
B612

[John Page]

Originally posted by B612
Bbut I'd rahter take "the logic of love" than the "love of logic".

Sehr gut, mein Herr!

[DoubleDutchy]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, as to me showing "a lot more prejudice" than Volker, that's a nice tactic: claiming reverse racism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is more than that, it is to the point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You'll have to prove that one. I think, again, that my suspicions are warranted. Germans still owe Jews (and the rest of the world) a hell of lot of caution when dealing with matters such as this. And to not recognize this is callousness blending into antisemitism.

OK, here we go.
What's racism ?
Judging people by the mere fact that they belong to an ethnic or racial group. There's more to it, but as a working definition this will do.
Volker (whose nickname, by the way, is Dutch, not German) , makes an argument about ancient Hebrew scholars, calculating the age of the universe from holy scriptures. He thinks they were stupid and arrogant. If, by newly found historical evidence, it turned out that these scholars were not Hebrew after all but Sumerian (or for that matter Dutch or Double Dutch), he would not have to change his argument a bit, it would stand exactly as good or bad as it is standing now.
You are making an argument about Volker. If he turned out not to be German your argument would collapse completely.
Your argument is racist, his isn't. Q. E. D.

Despite poor reasoning, your conclusion could still be right of course, but the circumstancial evidence isn't in your favour either:
according to you he is blending callousness into antisemitism.
and his reference to sabrs is reminiscent of the fanatically nationalist, antisemitic German student dueling societies.
Put shortly: he is a classical antisemite and, whatever he says, that's what actually makes him tick.
I don't see it. 'The eternal Jew' as pictured in classical antisemtism is shrewd and creepy (and vicious of course). As it comes to prejudices 'Stupid and arrogant' sounds more like a Hollywood-German to me.
As for the alternative 'Gun or Sabr', for me, as a contemporary European, this is reminiscent of a hillarious scene from the French comic strip Lucky Luke. Given LL's popularity among German intelectuals I would not be surprised if it was him who inspired Volker's little joke.

Finally, your argument that
'those scolars are dead and can't defend themselves' is a peculiar one. Joanne the Insane and Ivan the Terrible have been dead for quite some time now. Do you suggest that we ought to rewrite history ?

[RED DAVE]

To DoubleDutchy:

Let me make one point, clearly and simply. As a Jew, I was offended by Volker.Doormann's remarks about Jewish scholars. My opinions is that even in the year 2003, Germans, of whatever age, need to be super-cautious when criticizing Jews. Historically, the Holocaust was yesterday. It happened during Volker.
Doormann's and my lifetime.

I find his irrational defensiveness to be suspicious. And, frankly, I question your motives.

RED DAVE

[DoubleDutchy]

Originally posted by RED DAVE
To DoubleDutchy:
I find his irrational defensiveness to be suspicious. And, frankly, I question your motives.

RED DAVE

Why ? Because of my offensive rationality ?

par·a·noi·a
1--A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.


2-Extreme, irrational distrust of others.

I am afraid Kalkin hit the mark:
Red Dave, stop being paranoid

[RED DAVE]

To DoubleDutchy:

Thank you for sharing, but, frankly, I will continue to entertain my suspicions, especially about Volker.Doormann.

I'm not especially paranoid, but, again, I find his original wording and his hostile resonse to be very strange, indeed. I also find his intention to ignore me to be equally suspicious.

I've made my point. Let's move on.

RED DAVE

[DoubleDutchy]

OK. I made mine. Discussion closed.

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by B612

Personally I believe that we should take myths for what they are, respect science, but not to concentrate on a philosophical "truth" but more on "how should we act on this world/universe, regarding ourselves and other beings". Even some philosophers
thought the search for truth to be impossible for humans or within humans parameters, brains and language.

I think it was Erich Fromm who asked us not to seek truth, not to concentrate in "aristotelian logic" but accept "paradoxical logic" (after all, light itself is supposed to be both a wave and a particle), not to be sure that we'll ever reach "truth" but start following some guidelines in our lives, basically "love".

Well I am getting off the debate regarding "ad hominem"...

Hi B612,

Thank you for the insight in your thoughts about 'truth'. I think your thoughts are correct regarding the abstract term 'truth'. Abstract truth is a phantom. It is the standing for the naked truth against power claims of ideologies to suppress the recognized truth as you may know from people like Giordano Bruno, Socrates or many other individuals, which has a relevance - IMO. As the other 'leg' of philosophical relevance I do not see really a paradoxical logic, but simple love. Love is not to grasp by the mind and it's logic structure, but perceived by the inner soul, as we know from our soulful experiences with woman's. It is the ability of the perception of love of the own soul, not the love given to idiots. This is IMO the relevant couple, maybe meant by E. Fromm. If one (or both) of those two natural dimensions are missed, shit happens; Science is not able to perceive love and a loving soul cannot discriminate wrong actions from the true actions of an individual.

I think - and I have suggested it here several times - to invite to discussions about all that adequate, but it seems, that there is no really interest about such themes - leaving the person unhurt. :)

Best

Volker

[sophie]

Volker.Doormann,

greetings.

Is there such a thing as appeal to insanity, or appeal to the absurd, in the realm of Ad Hominem.

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by sophie
Is there such a thing as appeal to insanity, or appeal to the absurd, in the realm of Ad Hominem. No, like no one can appeal to the nonexistence to claim it as existence, and no one can appeal to the disorder to claim it as order. The order of beings is an order, not a disorder.

Volker

[B612]

Hi, Volker!

I think you should start a thread abouth those themes.

I am not so sure if the soul is something different from our thoughts. I have asked myself this question many times. Is there really something (a soul, a gut-feeling) that instinctivelly tells us what is "right" or "wrong" ? I recall Aristotle thought so, for example. Or are all these relative moral judgements that we attach to actions based on our own upbringing, on inherited or learnt beliefs, values?

For example, I do feel that protecting life is good, and destroying life is bad, in principle. But I'm not sure or cannot explain that it has to be this way, the opposite or any other way in between. One could argue that it's not possible to tell logically, if it is a good, bad or insignificant thing, if our whole universe were to dissapear.

In my opinion, either we say nothing about things being "right" or "wrong", and then everything is relative, or we start judging things as right or wrong, based on certain values, on our "soul" so to speak.

What do you exactly mean with our soulful experiences with woman's or with the love given to idiots? Or that a loving soul cannot discriminate wrong actions from the true actions of an individual? I perceive true actions of an individual which I would classify as wrong, at the same time, from a moral perspective.

Were you trying to say that we need both natural dimensions?

Take care,
B612

* Had a great time in Hamburg-Uhlenhorst and around HH, altough I didn't see many people eating out or in bars/ Kneipen. The Euro, they complained.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
No, like no one can appeal to the nonexistence to claim it as existence, and no one can appeal to the disorder to claim it as order. The order of beings is an order, not a disorder.

Perhaps sophie was thinking about the disorder within a protaganists mind, their sanity or insanity, as related to ad hominem attacks. e.g. "You must be mad".

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by B612
Hi, Volker!

I think you should start a thread abouth those themes.Hi B612,

my experience here is, that there is no really interest in dialogs about the spiritual side of nature. Moreover, please read the restrictions keeping a thread in this forum of philosophy. Ignoring this, the thread will moved to 'Nirvana'. Free speech? I think not. I am not so sure if the soul is something different from our thoughts. I have asked myself this question many times. Is there really something (a soul, a gut-feeling) that instinctivelly tells us what is "right" or "wrong" ? There is a soul in each being, which can be aware of the spiritual dimensions, but this awareness is in it's gradual state different in each being. Spiritual knowledge is not to take from a CD-ROM; it is the very own individual himself, who has to learn his own imperfections in his consciousness. The most limiting factor is the always busy educated thinking. A busy mind cannot listen, but only judge. Children and sages, without an educated mind may able to perceive injustice from an inner reference. This reference is remembered from the soul consciousness, as it is also shown by Socrates. Each recognized truth is a remembering of a prior known truth or justice. Why we can acknowledge truth or justice in general? Because we have known it before we was born. We only do remember - re_member. Who is that, who is able to acknowledge truth or justice? I recall Aristotle thought so, for example. Or are all these relative moral judgements that we attach to actions based on our own upbringing, on inherited or learnt beliefs, values? The very simple point is, that cognition is not to be transferred; it must be grow in each individual as an own individual consciousness of the own soul consciousness. If this is not, a mind is only a robot processing dead rules. All religions and their leaders have mistaken this spiritual soul consciousness to slave 'religious' robots. For example, I do feel that protecting life is good, and destroying life is bad, in principle. But I'm not sure or cannot explain that it has to be this way, the opposite or any other way in between. One could argue that it's not possible to tell logically, if it is a good, bad or insignificant thing, if our whole universe were to dissapear. I think, a view on the reality helps. Physical life comes and goes. Each being can only exist, because other beings - animals or plants - must die. If a dead being is given to earth, a lot of micro organism can live until their bodies will taken from other plants or animals. All atoms of our bodies are ancient and have a history prior to our own existence. We have this physical body, but we are not this physical body. In the same way a physical body depends on air or food from other beings, the soul depends on a physical body to act in this world. The soul as well as its present physical body is taboo and holy and to respect that the soul can act and recognize of its own. The kernel is the soul, which is holy, not really the mortal body of ancient atoms and water coming from French sources. No one can distinguish a dead body from a living body by scientific methods. From this one can follow, that there is no different in the respect of a living fleshly body to a dead fleshly body from the scientific point of view. If this would be the only criteria to act, we can produce humans for dog food. The fact, that most people respect beings, shows that materialists dealing with an obscure 'humanism' (animals are food only), are hypocrites regarding their respect to living humans; they do respect the holy soul of a human, but they do not acknowledge it. In my opinion, either we say nothing about things being "right" or "wrong", and then everything is relative, or we start judging things as right or wrong, based on certain values, on our "soul" so to speak. I think there is never a need to say, never a need to judge, but ever a chance to recognize. What do you exactly mean with our soulful experiences with woman's or with the love given to idiots? Or that a loving soul cannot discriminate wrong actions from the true actions of an individual? Exactly? See, you do know the cave allegory from Socrates written down by Plato. It is not possible to transfer experience. Idiots? Kabir says: "Don't discuss knowledge with those who can not understand it." and "Don't open your diamonds in a vegetable market. Tie them in bundle and keep them in your heart, and go your own way." and "A Diamond was laying in the street covered with dirt. Many fools passed by. Someone who knew diamonds picked it up". Knowledge is spiritual knowledge. Spiritual knowledge is not to grasp by the intellectual mind, not knowing what love is. Love is a state of the soul, if the mind is still, and it ask not for reasons. This love we can learn from woman's. The point is, that it is a crime if we give not back knowledge and truth to this love. If a mind is not willing to respect love, it does isolate it himself from spiritual knowledge, because spiritual knowledge is only to be grasp with love. I perceive true actions of an individual which I would classify as wrong, at the same time, from a moral perspective. As Epiktet has written, there is no need to classify the actions of others, and morality is not equal to ethic; morality is a mode of time and culture, ethic is a natural law of the immaterial spiritual nature, which is to be recognized by the individual soul. There is no need to control others. Religions have ignored the natural laws of ethic, interfering their social power claims to the individual (Giordano Bruno, Jesus, etc.). Were you trying to say that we need both natural dimensions? I think it is helpful to solve things adequate. You cannot solve math with love an cannot solve a lack of love with logic. * Had a great time in Hamburg-Uhlenhorst and around HH Yeah, that is a fine place and it is about 5 km south of our apartment http://doormann.tripod.com/balkon.jpg
in Borchertring 27. You are welcome. :)

Best

Volker

[B612]

Hi, Volker!

Thanks for your reply and for the picture. Very interesting and nice flowers. It's 00:40 here and I am quite tired today (Mondays are hard) and going home before it rains again.

B612

PS: I have no idea when I'll be back in Hamburg. I used to go there mostly because of a company, but last weekend we changed the "sitz" to Regensburg!! Anyway an ex-girl-friend still lives in Lattenkamp, I believe...;)