My Critique of Ad Hominem Reasoning

Ideas Are Bigger Than Their Spokespeople

I asked Twitter the following question

Nearly 40% thought the author was a Christian monk. Only 20% guessed correctly—the author is William E. Connelly, left-leaning political science professor, from his book Identity/Difference.

What are we to make of this exercise?

• Lots of people have reason to dislike the state. In the abstract, we can’t tell who or why. A cynical interpretation of this is that people dislike the state when it’s against them and for it when it’s for them.

• As a matter of principle, suspicion of the state makes for strange ideological bedfellows. People of divergent political philosophies have more in common than is often thought.

• Ideas are not predictive of ideology. They can be applied in divergent ways. This is a strength, not a bug.

• If I told you that the quotation was by a left-leaning professor you’d be inclined to agree or disagree with it on the basis of whether you identify or disidentify with that archetype. But ideas should not be judged exclusively or even primarily on the basis of their proponents. Ad hominem reasoning impoverishes our ability to think creatively.

• Alternatively, you could say that the poll proves that context matters for interpretation. The same words mean something different when uttered by an anarchist, crypto billionaire, left-leaning professor, or Christian monk.

• Spiritually, I like to think that just because William E. Connelly happens to be a professor doesn’t mean that in another life, as it were, the same soul might not have found itself embodying the other three roles. Our titles tell only a fraction of our story. They are the vessels through which we convey a deeper point, a song we might need to sing no matter the circumstances.