Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    An argument that serves legitimate dialectical purposes w... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Arguing from an opponent's own principles or concessions is not a fallacy but an acceptable mode of argumentation

    An argument that serves legitimate dialectical purposes without being deceptive is not fallacious

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Arguing from an opponent's own principles or concessions is not a fallacy but an...Such arguments can promote agreement or stall disagreement even if they do not a...The Lockean ad hominem presses an opponent with consequences drawn from their ow...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    Under the Pragma-dialectical approach, a fallacy need not be an argume...84%The appearance condition — that a fallacy must seem like good argument...80%When the sense that makes the premises true is adopted, the argument r...80%Arguing from an opponent's own principles or concessions is not a fall...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: fallacies
    View source passageHide passage
    The argumentum ad hominem, as Locke defined it, has subsequently developed into three different fallacies. His original description was that it was a way “to press a man with consequences drawn from his own principles or concessions.” That is, to argue that an opponent’s view is inconsistent, logically or pragmatically, with other things he has said or to which he is committed. Locke’s observation was that such arguments do not advance us towards truth, but that they can serve to promote agreeme

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective