Psychologizing


Recommended Posts

While taking a break from other chores, I thought I would pluck Phil from purgatory long enough to catch up.

Plus, Danny Dipschitz's intention is not of primary relevance. If his arguments are silly, you are free to simply ignore them. If they are plausible, but mistaken you can answer them.

This is the approach reputable academics take in journals in science or the humanities (or should). They don't assess the motives of their opponents, they simply refute them in careful, respectful responses.

They don't call their opponents dipshit or evader or the most evil man in history in the American Journal of Physics or the Proceedings of American Anthropology. It's not likely science and dispassionate inquiry would advance under those conditions.

,,,,,,,

feel free to ignore this until you have completed your magnum opus.

It is astonishing to me that Phil never seems to understand what is going on. He is like a kid in little league who can never, ever catch or field a ball, even if you throw it to him underhand from five feet feet away.

His reference to the approach taken by "reputable academics ...in journals in science or the humanities" reminds me of a guy who wears a tuxedo to the beach on a hot summer day and explains, "I would always wear a tuxedo to a formal dinner, and there is no essential difference between attending a formal dinner and spending a day at the beach."

Phil -- You will be pleased to learn that the next part of my series will be devoted to the character of "Billy Civility" -- a guy who likes to say ad hominem a lot, even in situations where it makes no sense.

Have you noticed how civil this thread has been, despite numerous misunderstandings, since you have been sitting on the sidelines? There is surely a lesson to be learned here. I wonder what it could be. Hmmmm...

Back to purgatory for you, m'boy. I will check on you in another few days to make sure you have enough food and water.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 202
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

George:

What is your evaluation of the influence of Masonism on the philosophy of the founders?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George:

What is your evaluation of the influence of Masonism on the philosophy of the founders?

Adam

I don't know if the Founders liked guitar music or not.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gSiqsCCnnHw?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Sorry, but I love his tune, and I've been looking for an excuse to post it. I was going to append it to one of my replies to Phil, but that was even more of a stretch than this is. :lol:

I know a little about Freemasonry, mainly via the excellent book, The Radical Enlightenment, by Margaret Jacob, but not enough to answer your question. I am not a conspiracy buff, however. Freemason groups in Europe often consisted of a bunch of freethinkers who met to get drunk and tell ribald stories -- rather like one of JR's old Beer Busts in SF. :lol:

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George:

What is your evaluation of the influence of Masonism on the philosophy of the founders?

Adam

I don't know if the Founders liked guitar music or not.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gSiqsCCnnHw?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Sorry, but I love his tune, and I've been looking for an excuse to post it. I was going to append it to one of my replies to Phil, but that was even more of a stretch than this is. :lol:

I know a little about Freemasonry, mainly via the excellent book, The Radical Enlightenment, by Margaret Jacob, but not enough to answer your question. I am not a conspiracy buff, however. Freemason groups in Europe often consisted of a bunch of freethinkers who met to get drunk and tell ribald stories -- rather like one of JR's old Beer Busts in SF. :lol:

Ghs

George:

Yes, one of my favorite instrumentals from that period.

I am a Mason, as was my father, and we are very aware of the number of Masons and the founders who "had Masonic 'ties.'"

Thanks for the reference because I have been meaning to look into this area this year.

Adam

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to get my hands on one of those cool apron-thingies.

And I must mention the the Phil/tuxedo thing stuck fairly deep into my cells; I will be, unfortunately, having that image for a good while to come.

So I guess that means you have great clarity in your writing, George. It's either that, or the Universe is coming after me because I created the Phil Temple<tm> then abandoned it after only a couple of re-visits. Some days, I guess even guys like me skip Sunday School.

rde

Next: The History of the Black Pope

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a Mason, as was my father, and we are very aware of the number of Masons and the founders who "had Masonic 'ties.'"

My father was a Mason as well. He always wore that ring with pride.

There is no question that many Founders were Masons. And insofar as many of the leading Enlightenment figures, American and European, were Masons, their influence is also beyond doubt. But I'm not aware of any distinctive Masonic philosophy per se, and that's how I understood your original question about "Masonism."

Of course, the Masons, along with the Illuminati, have been a favorite among conspiracy theorists of the French Revolution. Schmidt discusses this in his lectures on the Enlightenment. He points out that most European Masons probably were pro-French Revolution, and they may have talked about assisting the cause, but the idea that one group could engineer the complex events of the French Revolution is absurd.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, though, the thing is-- Shriners kind of have it more going on.

Not only do they do the cool fez dealio, but more than once I have observed that they get to drive these miniature cars as part of July 4th parades, and such.

That's a hard deal to beat, and I don't even think you have to deal with the degree thingie.

So you're in the Mystic Swords of Ali Babba Kazul. There's worse.

rde

Is that Celsius, or Fahrenheit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, though, the thing is-- Shriners kind of have it more going on.

Not only do they do the cool fez dealio, but more than once I have observed that they get to drive these miniature cars as part of July 4th parades, and such.

That's a hard deal to beat, and I don't even think you have to deal with the degree thingie.

So you're in the Mystic Swords of Ali Babba Kazul. There's worse.

rde

Is that Celsius, or Fahrenheit?

I've always been partial to the Order of the Friars of St. Francis of Wycombe, also known as the Hellfire Club. With the motto "Do What Thou Wilt," these 18th century clubs in Britain were devoted to drinking, whoring, and whatever else they could get away with. Years ago I read an account of how a London Hellfire club was closed down after a bear escaped and mauled several people while running through the streets. What those guys were doing with a bear was not explained.

John Wilkes and Lord Sandwich, two political enemies, were members of the same Hellfire Club in London. This gives some background to their famous exchange in Parliament, as Lord Sandwich was speaking for the faction that was attempting to get Wilkes expelled.

Sandwich: "You, Sir, will die on the gallows or of the pox."

Wilkes: "That depends, Sir, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A book that I really like is Jerome Huyler's Locke in America: The Moral Philosophy of the Founding Era (1995). I don't know much about Huyler, but he appears to be an O'ist of sorts. If so, it is very encouraging to know that O'ist historians have advanced beyond the level of Peikovian propaganda. Huyler's book is first rate.

There are a few other key texts that I will mention later. I have probably mentioned these books before on OL.

Ghs

I read Jerome Huyler’s magnificent Locke in America, and I agree that it represents a radical improvement over prior historical works from authors influenced by Objectivism.

Have you seen this interview with Huyler?

How Lockean Was the American Revolution?

An excerpt:

Navigator: One author that you deal with, James Tully, puts together a string of quotes to argue that Locke was a thoroughgoing altruist and social democrat. You have both a historical and a philosophical argument against that. I wonder if you could expound those.

Huyler: Let me first back up and say something about the methodological approach I employed in reconstructing Locke's social and philosophical thought and what makes the issue of methodology so important in my line of work. In summing up the state of the interpretive debate, I demonstrated that Locke has been read in every imaginable (not to mention imaginative) way. He has been variously portrayed as everything from an arch-individualist to a majority-rule collectivist; from a rapacious Hobbesian brute to a devoted Christian altruist; from an apologist for England's aristocratic elite to a radical insurgent bent on overthrowing the established aristocratic order; from a spokesman for capitalist exploitation to an anti-industrial agrarian. And, in truth, within Locke's vast literary corpus, at least some evidence for each of these positions can be adduced. This, in part, is what has given Locke the reputation of being so eclectic and incoherent a thinker.

Now Locke's interpreters vary in the method they use to reconstruct his social and philosophical thought. Whereas those who study the history (that is, "the great works") of philosophy generally rely on textual exegesis-conclusions drawn from a strict reading of this or that single text-intellectual historians usually opt for contextual placement. Among the contextualists, there are some who will read a given work in the context of earlier and later works belonging to a specific genre or tradition of discourse (for example, early modern natural law theories, the language of republicanism, Marxism, British political economy, German Idealism, and so forth). Others will read a work against the real-life concerns, commitments, or problems that prompted the writer to write.

I began my study convinced that if my reconstruction of Locke's thought was to be convincing, it would have to take into account everything germane to Locke's life, interests, historical commitments, and literary productions. I reasoned that such a comprehensive approach, if carried to fruition, would not only be abundantly persuasive but would furnish the means by which a given interpretative reading could be validated or dismissed. As I wrote: "It is precisely by invoking what we have learned from one contextual exploration that we can often raise serious questions or doubts about a conclusion drawn from the narrow inspection of another particular text or context." This is precisely what enabled me to rebut the highly influential but mistaken interpretation of Locke set out by Tully.

I am wondering if Huyler’s reference to “reconstructing Locke’s social and philosophical thought” using “everything germane to Locke's life, interests, historical commitments, and literary productions” is at all comparable to your agenda for your forthcoming book? Couldn’t such efforts at reinterpreting a thinker’s underlying intentions also be characterized as a (benign) form of “psychologizing”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

I have recently been reading Revolutionary Deists: Early America's Rational Infidels, by Kerry Walters. It discusses the philosophical odyssey of thinkers like Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Walters really tries to get into the head of men like Franklin, analyzing how their beliefs evolved over time.

Incidentally, it is interesting that Franklin did typesetting in London in 1725 for a book by William Wollaston—Religion of Nature Delineated. Walters argues that Franklin’s early work, Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain, was written in reaction to Wollaston with the intent of correcting Wollaston’s ideas about free will and the existence of evil. Of course, Ben Franklin’s ideas changed radically in subsequent years.

Again, isn’t this sort of project to dissect the origin of a thinker's beliefs and trace the evolution of their thought also a form of psychologizing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

I have recently been reading Revolutionary Deists: Early America's Rational Infidels, by Kerry Walters. It discusses the philosophical odyssey of thinkers like Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Walters really tries to get into the head of men like Franklin, analyzing how their beliefs evolved over time.

Incidentally, it is interesting that Franklin did typesetting in London in 1725 for a book by William Wollaston—Religion of Nature Delineated. Walters argues that Franklin’s early work, Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain, was written in reaction to Wollaston with the intent of correcting Wollaston’s ideas about free will and the existence of evil. Of course, Ben Franklin’s ideas changed radically in subsequent years.

Again, isn’t this sort of project to dissect the origin of a thinker's beliefs and trace the evolution of their thought also a form of psychologizing?

Your last two posts are getting into areas that really interest me, but I finally got around to writing another installment of my multi-part piece. I hope to finish and post that before I go to bed (though I may not make it), so I will take up your posts a litle later.

Meanwhile, this article may interest you, given your mention of Wollaston. This was the first "scholarly" article that I ever published.

https://mises.org/journals/jls/2_3/2_3_2.pdf

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope to finish and post that before I go to bed (though I may not make it), so I will take up your posts a litle later.

Thanks for reminding me. ...Yawn...

I'll have to check out that piece on Wollaston tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Have you noticed how civil this thread has been? [GHS, Post 51]

It was until you replied to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Have you noticed how civil this thread has been? [GHS, Post 51]

It was until you replied to me.

It is unconscionable the way some posters here treat Phil with such incivility. Their insults and vilifications hardly ever fail to take one's breath away.

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff,

George's point was about enjoying the civility. I merely pointed out where the responsibility lays this time for the move away from civility.

There have been 66 posts on this thread. Which ones have been uncivil?

And who is the -only- person who has been, who has taken (repeated) personal shots at someone?

Be honest now!!! -- I'll give you a hint: His initials are GHS.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis,

The kind of work that Huyle and Walters have set out to do is definitely "psychologizing" in George's sense.

If Ayn Rand hadn't liked some aspect of it, it would have been "psychologizing" in her sense as well.

In Jean Piaget's work, either on child development or on the evolution of scientific ideas, there's all manner of "psychologizing" going on.

As there is, on a much more modest scale, in my occasional efforts at history of psychology.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IV

BILLY CIVILITY AND HIS DANGLING AD HOMINEM

My story about Barbi Brilliant and Danny Dipschitz ended with this stern admonition from Billy Civility: "You need to learn to separate the argument from the person."

Why is this maxim so prized by Billy? Well, many years ago, perhaps while he was in college, Billy heard about the ad hominem argument; he heard that this argument is a fallacy (even if only an "informal" one); and he heard that this fallacy has something to do with calling people names, attributing motives to them, and so forth. Lastly, Billy heard that we can avoid the ad hominem fallacy if we separate the argument from the person who makes the argument.

This information proved very useful to Billy Civility, for it enabled him to forge a link between civility -- a subject near and dear to his heart -- and logic. According to his way of thinking, if you call people names or engage in psychologizing, then you are more than rude; you are also illogical.

This is why Billy Civility fell in love with the Latin phrase ad hominem . This means "to the man," i.e., aimed at, or directed to, an individual human being. An ad hominem argument is basically an argument that attacks a person. As traditionally understood, an ad hominem argument is a fallacy, because we cannot refute an argument by attacking the person who who uses it.

This brings us back, full circle, to Billy's beloved maxim: "You need to learn to separate the argument from the person." Of course, it is other people who need to learn this. Billy already knows what he needs to know, and it is his mission in life to teach other people what he knows, whether they want to be taught or not.

Things are not this simple, however, because the term "argument" may refer (1) to a abstract chain of reasoning or (2) to a particular concrete exchange, whether verbal or written, between two or more people. Consider:

(1) All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. The validity of this syllogism is determined by its logical structure. It does not matter who proposes this argument; it will still be valid. Suppose Hitler used this argument, and you responded by saying, "Your argument is invalid because you are a murderous dictator." Here you would be committing the ad hominem fallacy in its purest form.

(2) We can also mean something else by "argument." We can mean, not a series of logically connected propositions, but a type of communication between two or more people. In this sense, we have an argument, first, when two or more people disagree about x; and, second, when these people communicate with one another in an effort to resolve their disagreement (in some fashion) about x.

When we call a syllogism an argument, we are referring to an abstract chain of reasoning. When we say that people are arguing, or having an argument, we are referring to a type of psychological (as opposed to physical) interaction -- one that occurs between two or more concrete individuals. Hence, for the sake of verbal economy, I will use the tags abstract argument and concrete argument. (I am painfully aware of the inadequacies of these shorthand labels, but they are necessary for heuristic purposes.)

The differences between what I have called abstract arguments and concrete arguments are so obvious as to raise the following questions: Who would ever confuse them? Why all this fuss about a distinction that no reasonable person would ever deny? To answer these questions, let us return to Billy Civility's favorite maxim: "You need to learn to separate the argument from the person." Let us now apply this maxim to what I have called abstract arguments, and let us once again take the famous Socratic Syllogism as an exemplar of abstract arguments: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal.

The task of separation is absurdly easy in this case. It is difficult to imagine someone so philosophically inept as to attempt an ad hominem argument against the Socratic Syllogism, but if such an attempt were made it would look something like this: You claim that the Socratic syllogism is valid, but I can prove you wrong. You are a dishonest person; therefore, the Socratic Syllogism is not valid.

Billy Civility is about to enter pig heaven, for he can patiently explain that the allegation of your dishonesty is irrelevant to the validity of the Socratic Syllogism. The syllogism is valid and will remain valid, even if the allegation of your dishonesty is justified.

Billy is right, of course, but he is ecstatic for another reason, namely, that we supposedly have before us a perfect illustration of how an insult is illogical. The implication is clear, at least to Billy Civility: We should avoid insulting people not only because we should be civil but also because we should be logical.

This is why Billy says “ad hominem” whenever he can work it into a discussion. If, while engaged in a discussion with Billy, you call him a “jackass” or some other bad name, he will quickly claim that you have uttered an ad hominem. He will say the same thing if you call other people names. This insult is an ad hominem, and that insult is an ad hominem. You and people like you are the Great Ad Hominemers. You are ad homineming with gay abandon, and in doing so you are being uncivil and illogical. Thus each time Billy publicly identifies the double-sin of ad homineming, he is striking two blows – one for civility and one for logic. To transform Sin City OL into a place that is both polite and logical – well, what better cause could our crusading super hero ask for?

Unfortunately for us but perhaps fortunately for Billy Civility, it is not immediately obvious what ad hominem, when used standing alone, is supposed to mean. Literally construed, it would mean “to the man” – so when Billy says that to call him a jackass is an ad hominem, he is saying that to call him a jackass is “to the man.” But it is not clear how a prepositional phrase can adequately identify a grievous double-sin, so we need to inquire further.

"Ad hominem"” was traditionally construed as shorthand for an ad hominem argument. When a person said that x is an ad hominem, he normally meant that x is an ad hominem argument; and this meant that, in the opinion of the speaker, x is a fallacious argument.

Nowadays, however, people frequently use "ad hominem" to mean – well, to mean just about anything they don’t like. For example, if you call a person a name he does not like or attribute a motive to him that he does not like, he will complain that you have used an ad hominem. In this sloppy and annoying usage, there is no argument to which “ad hominem” can attach itself. Ad hominem just hangs out there, dangling and ready to be plucked by anyone who isn’t sure what in particular he wants to say, but who is sure that to say nothing in particular in Latin will sound much more impressive.

So what does Billy Civility mean when he uses the dangling “ad hominem”? He clearly wants to retain the traditional connection between “ad hominem” and a type of fallacious argument,” as we see in his insistence that Ad Hominemers are both rude and illogical. But he then engages in some linguistic sleight-of-hand by calling any insult or attribution of motives an “ad hominem,” even when the remark in question it is not part of an argument at all.

To call x a fallacious argument presupposes that x is an argument of some kind. If you simply call Billy a jackass, you may have insulted him, but you have not presented an argument. If you simply attribute evil motives to Billy, then, again, you may have insulted him, but you have not presented an argument. However rude or insensitive your remarks may be, they are not, and cannot be, the fallacious argument known as the ad hominem fallacy, because you have not presented an argument at all, much less an argument designed to refute another argument (which is the typical form of ad hominem arguments).

Consider these two statements: (1) Your argument is invalid because you are a jackass. (2) Your argument is wrong, and you are a jackass. The first sentence contains a fallacious ad hominem argument. The second sentence does not; rather, it makes two separate and logically distinct claims.

By using "ad hominem" to signify any insult or specific instance of psychologizing, even when no argument was involved, Billy Civility was hoping to cash in on the traditional association of "ad hominem" with ad hominem arguments. And since the ad hominem argument is a type of fallacy, Billy Civility hoped to leave the impression, however vague, that insults and psychologizing per se are intimately related to fallacious arguments, which they are not.

Having covered some background material in the first four segments of this series, I shall proceed to the subject of credibility in the next installment. No issue is more crucial than credibility if we wish to understand the proper role of psychologizing in argumentation. The distinction between abstract arguments and concrete arguments -- a distinction I sketched above -- will become especially significant when we consider the subject of credibility.

To be continued....

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> it is not immediately obvious what ad hominem, when used standing alone, is supposed to mean...[it] was traditionally construed as shorthand for an ad hominem argument....Nowadays, however, people frequently use "ad hominem" to mean – well, to mean just about anything they don’t like. [GHS]

"Ad hominem" is clearly used for more than an 'argument' and in a very precise way:

" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad+hominem --->

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.

2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument. "

In this dictionary, in fact, the broader meaning is the one that comes first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> it is not immediately obvious what ad hominem, when used standing alone, is supposed to mean...[it] was traditionally construed as shorthand for an ad hominem argument....Nowadays, however, people frequently use "ad hominem" to mean – well, to mean just about anything they don’t like. [GHS]

"Ad hominem" is clearly used for more than an 'argument' and in a very precise way:

" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad+hominem --->

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.

2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument. "

In this dictionary, in fact, the broader meaning is the one that comes first.

You conveniently left something out:

-–adjective

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.

2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

"Ad hominem" is an adjective. If you consult your Strunk and White, I think you will find that an adjective modifies a noun (or other substantive).

Thus if someone calls Billy Civility a "jackass" and he replies, "That's an ad hominem," curious minds will want to know: An ad hominem WHAT? What noun is being modified by the adjective "ad hominem?"

My point was that calling someone a name or attributing a motive to him is not an ad hominem argument. I wrote:

To call x a fallacious argument presupposes that x is an argument of some kind. If you simply call Billy a jackass, you may have insulted him, but you have not presented an argument. If you simply attribute evil motives to Billy, then, again, you may have insulted him, but you have not presented an argument. However rude or insensitive your remarks may be, they are not, and cannot be, the fallacious argument known as the ad hominem fallacy, because you have not presented an argument at all, much less an argument designed to refute another argument (which is the typical form of ad hominem arguments).

Of course, I was talking about Billy Civility, not you. You would never call an insult an "ad hominem" without specifying the noun modified by this adjective, or at least making the noun clear by implication. For you have read Strunk and White.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis,

The kind of work that Huyler and Walters have set out to do is definitely "psychologizing" in George's sense.

If Ayn Rand hadn't liked some aspect of it, it would have been "psychologizing" in her sense as well.

In Jean Piaget's work, either on child development or on the evolution of scientific ideas, there's all manner of "psychologizing" going on.

As there is, on a much more modest scale, in my occasional efforts at history of psychology.

Robert Campbell

Robert,

Psychologizing in the study of the human mind strikes me as being in a different category from psychologizing about the meaning of written historical texts. Then again, the overlap between the sciences of psychology and history is probably a lot greater than most people think.

The comprehensive approach taken by Huyler—“taking into account everything germane to Locke's life, interests, historical commitments, and literary productions”—definitely seems a radical departure from simply studying the texts and the historical context in which they were written. And Walters seems to be using a similar method by examining various biographical events that might have prompted Franklin and others to develop their deistic viewpoints.

It is certainly an ambitious approach to history considering the incredible amount of research involved. And it is absolutely fascinating. But you have to wonder to what extent it can be said to be accurate and objective, because the relevance of specific life occurences is so difficult to assess.

It’s similar to the difference between strict constructionism and originalism in Constitutional Law—interpreting the Constitution by applying the text exactly as written vs. trying to ascertain the always elusive 'intent of the framers'. The challenge for the originalists is that of determining which facts or events are significant and which are not; what concerns—personal, pragmatic, political--might have ultimately prompted Hamilton or Madison, et. al, to write the interstate commerce provision the way they did. Since the Federalist Papers were specifically written with an agenda in mind, you can question how much of their content is just propaganda. Unless all of the framers kept personal diaries during the Constitutional Convention, a fair amount of guesswork would seem to be involved in this type of speculation. (Some of them did take notes, obviously, but I don't personally know if those notes reflect thought processes or simple descriptions of what happened.)

And yet, reading Huyler, you can't help but be overwhelmed and fascinated by the scope of knowledge he used to reach the conclusions he came to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> "Ad hominem" is an adjective...Thus if someone calls Billy Civility a "jackass" and he replies, "That's an ad hominem," curious minds will want to know: An ad hominem WHAT? What noun is being modified by the adjective "ad hominem?" [GHS]

It's an ad hominem statement or an ad hominem tactic or an ad hominem approach to discussion. 'Statement' or 'tactic' or 'approach' are among the possible nouns being modified.

Dictionaries offer other categories of possible nouns -- besides your choice of 'argument' -- such as 'appeal' or 'attack'.

Pretty straightforward.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism, by George H. Smith. Forthcoming from Cambridge University Press.

Congratulations, by the way, on getting a book published by Cambridge University Press.

That's a major professional achievement and breakthrough.

Thank you, Phil. I would have responded earlier, but I am just now reading some of the earlier posts on this thread.

When I learned that my manuscript for Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism had been submitted to Cambridge, I figured I had two chances: fat and slim. Cambridge is probably the most prestigious publisher in the world in the history of political thought, and it never occurred to me that that they would publish a book in this field by a seriously uncredentialed writer.

I would have been less surprised if my book were a more-or-less standard historical introduction to classical liberalism, but it is nothing of the kind. Instead, it is a sprawling interpretative treatment of various themes that run throughout the history of liberal thought. What makes it different from other historical works is its focus on the ideological conflicts that arose within the ranks of classical liberalism, and how the failure to resolve these conflicts contributed substantially to the decline of liberalism in the late 19th century.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> "Ad hominem" is an adjective...Thus if someone calls Billy Civility a "jackass" and he replies, "That's an ad hominem," curious minds will want to know: An ad hominem WHAT? What noun is being modified by the adjective "ad hominem?" [GHS]

It's an ad hominem statement or an ad hominem tactic or an ad hominem approach to discussion. 'Statement' or 'tactic' or 'approach' are among the possible nouns being modified.

Dictionaries offer other categories of possible nouns -- besides your choice of 'argument' -- such as 'appeal' or 'attack'.

Pretty straightforward.

Fine, but none of the other meanings is relevant to the point I was making.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have been less surprised if my book were a more-or-less standard historical introduction to classical liberalism, but it is nothing of the kind. Instead, it is a sprawling, interpretative treatment of various themes that run throughout the history of liberal thought. What makes it different from other historical works is its focus on the ideological conflicts that arose within the ranks of classical liberalism, and how the failure to resolve these conflicts contributed substantially to the decline of liberalism in the late 19th century.

Ghs

One of the enjoyable aspects of writing Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism was that it gave me the opportunity to integrate history and philosophy. For example, Chapter 3 ("Liberal Ideology and Political Philosophy") explores the nature of an "ideology" -- a much abused concept -- and how the the liberal conception of "political philosophy," which departed dramatically from the classical notion, played a significant role in the defense of individual freedom. This chapter contains the following concise summary. (This excerpt lacks italics and the many elaborative footnotes):

When discussing the meaning of “liberalism,” it is useful to distinguish between (1) liberal sentiments, (2) liberal principles, (3) liberal theories, and (4) liberal ideologies.

(1) By “liberal sentiments,” I mean expressions of the value of freedom that are not formalized as general principles or justified as part of a general theory of liberalism. We often find liberal sentiments in the writings of philosophers and literary figures whose philosophical views on freedom and government would disqualify them as liberals in the strict sense. Montaigne is a good example of this. Although it would be problematic at best to classify Montaigne as a “liberal,” liberal sentiments recur throughout his Essays. For example:

No prison has received me, not even for a visit. Imagination makes the sight of one, even from the outside, unpleasant to me. I am so sick for freedom that if anyone should forbid me access to some corner of the Indies, I should live distinctly less comfortably. And as long as I find earth or air open elsewhere I shall not lurk in any place where I have to hide.

(2) By a liberal principle I mean a general statement of the value of liberty in a particular sphere of human activity for which some justification is offered. Like liberal sentiments, liberal principles need not signify a broader commitment to a liberal political theory. For example, it is not unusual to find defenders of absolute sovereignty, such as Jean Bodin (1530-96), who also defended the principle of religious toleration. A policy of religious toleration was sometimes recommended to absolute monarchs for its pragmatic value, as the best way to maintain peace and social order within their kingdoms; and in such cases this liberal (i.e, pro-freedom) principle was consistent with a belief in anti-liberal policies in other spheres.

(3) At a higher level of abstraction we find liberal theories. A liberal theory is an interrelated system of principles that defend individual freedom as the highest political value. Such theories typically include a moral defense of freedom and a normative theory of government, according to which the basic purpose of government is to protect individual rights. Hence liberal theories tend to fall within the province of political philosophy.

(4) More comprehensive still are liberal ideologies. By a liberal ideology, I mean an integrated system of theories in various intellectual disciplines (ethics, political philosophy, economics, sociology, etc.) that are connected, directly or indirectly, to the primary value of freedom. In short, a liberal ideology is a comprehensive, interdisciplinary belief system that revolves around the idea of freedom.

“Ideology” is a contentious term, one that has been used in a variety of ways for over two centuries. The word was coined around 1800 by the French liberal Antoine Destutt de Tracy....ETC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now