> On 4/13/06, bitchlab wrote: > > I like it best presented in fuller quote. But, I have a question, What > does > > Marx mean by "demonstrates ad hominem"?
I wrote: > I'm not a Marx scholar, but in this context, but I think that "ad > hominem" means "to people." So it's "theory is capable of gripping the > masses as soon as it demonstates its truth to people, and it > demonstrates its truth to people as soon as it becomes radical > (revealing the roots of social phenomena)." On 4/14/06, michael a. lebowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nah, it's got to mean more than that: here's another use from a letter to > S. Meyers, 30 April 1867: > Volume I comprises the 'Process of Production of Capital'. As well as > setting out the general theory, I examine in great detail the conditions of > the English agricultural and industrial proletariat over the last 20 > years, ditto the condition of Ireland, basing myself on official sources > that have never previously been used. You will immediately realise that all > this serves me solely as an argumentum ad hominem. so what _does_ it mean, Chairman Mike? -- Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles
