Argumentum ad Hominem, Post Mortem
A post mortem ad hominem invents an insult a deceased thinker would direct at an opponent. The imagined authority’s personal attack does not address the argument, and its attribution may also be speculative.
THE IDEA
3.3 ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM, POST MORTEM
This fallacy uses an imagined personal attack by a deceased thinker to dismiss a present argument. For example:
-
Person A: (Offers an interpretation or idea about an issue.) Person B: (Responding) If Nietzsche were here, he would call you an idiot!
-
Person A: (States a critique of Plato’s philosophy.) Person B: (Responding) If Plato were here, he would say that your mind is not fit for learning and that you should simply be a laborer.
-
Person A: (Questions and objects to a Freudian idea.) Person B: (Responding) Well, Freud would say that you are a sexually repressed jackass!
The pattern can begin with, “If [person x] were here, he/she would say . . .” It substitutes an imagined insult for reasons that bear on the argument. Historical writings may support a careful reconstruction of a thinker’s views, but expertise does not establish their exact response to a new situation. Even an accurately attributed insult would not, by itself, refute the opponent’s reasoning.
When to use it
In a philosophy class, a student claims that Socrates would call the professor ignorant, using the imagined insult to dismiss the professor’s argument.
In a political debate, someone says 'If Thomas Jefferson were here, he would call your proposal un-American' instead of addressing the proposal on its merits.
In an online forum about ethics, a participant argues 'Aristotle would say you're being irrational' as a way to dismiss a point without reasoned analysis.
In a literary discussion, a commentator asserts 'Shakespeare would mock your interpretation' rather than offering textual evidence.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Example 1: Nietzsche
Person A offers an interpretation or idea about an issue. Person B responds: 'If Nietzsche were here, he would call you an idiot!'
Example 2: Plato
Person A states a critique of Plato’s philosophy. Person B responds: 'If Plato were here, he would say that your mind is not fit for learning and that you should simply be a laborer.'
Example 3: Freud
Person A questions and objects to a Freudian idea. Person B responds: 'Well, Freud would say that you are a sexually repressed jackass!'
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
When have you encountered someone using a post mortem ad hominem in a discussion? How could the fallacy have been avoided?
What evidence would support a reconstruction of a historical thinker’s views, and why would an insult still fail to answer an argument?
What makes this fallacy different from a legitimate appeal to authority where we use a thinker's actual written arguments?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Informal Logical Fallacies A Brief Guide