If all philosophy, theology etc. is a form of biography then, have we come to a point where all debate is ad hominem?
By a “form of biography” I’m following in the footsteps of William James McLendon and many others who are helping us appreciate that that people engaged in such work are particular people with real limitations; they are of particular cultures, located in body, time, and place, with unique narratives and experiences.
As you know ad hominem arguments are not “permitted” in debates or in the academy (yeah right) as they appeal to a person’s feelings or prejudices more than one’s intellect; often directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
“My social construct is better than yours.” ?????
If our beliefs, thoughts, articulations, etc. are a type of biography inextricably bound to one’s social construct, might that be why it hurts us so much when someone criticizes one of our ideas or thoughts? They are challenging our self-concept, our best articulation of what is real. And what then is the “point” of dialogue… I think the point of dialogue is not arriving at abstracted “truth” or even agreement, but becoming a people of love.
Peace, dwight
