As a general rule, you should never use a dictionary definition to back up a claim of current usage. You’ll always lose, as you have with this one.
While we’re at it, intersubjective is not generally used in the mundane sense of consensus agreement on subjective opinions that you intend here, either, although of course I understood you.
Your claim that this is “semi-archaic usage” is false. Indeed, the dictionary explicitly states this is “current usage” (demonstrated below). Further, I would note that it’s common for lexicographical controversy (i.e. disagreement between dictionaries) to exist. The most authoritative dictionaries can differ in the ways in which they define words, both in terms of semantics as well as the number of senses provided. They don’t always differ materially but there’s nothing unusual about this happening. The Oxford Dictionary has long been very highly regarded. In terms of perceived lexical authority, I would posit the theory that its only serious rival is Merriam-Webster. Hence, there is no reasonable basis for you to insist this definition is somehow invalid, archaic or deprecated.
This also appears to be false. Where did you get the idea this definition is a “narrow and highly specific meaning, similar to ad hoc”? The definition is much more abstract and does not reflect this at all. The example cited in the dictionary merely shows a syntactic example (i.e. using ad hominem as an adverb). Example sentences in dictionaries do not change the definitions provided; they are merely examples of usage. What you’re insisting on here is materially different from the definition given. I would also note that I used ad hominem in a manner which matches this definition both semantically and syntactically:
Now, if we’re going to go this deep into the weeds, we actually do have a different problem, one for which I am just as guilty as anyone else on occasion and that is colloquial usage of ad hominem. Authoritative dictionaries define it only as an adjective and/or an adverb. Yet, the term is frequently used colloquially as a noun when no lexical authorities support this usage. You have done this as well. For example, in post #15, you wrote “The ad hominem” and in post #36, you defined ad hominem as denigration, which is also a noun:
[highlights added]
But I’m not Panini so I won’t be such a strict grammarian that I will insist everyone complies with formal syntax.
Frankly, I’m not sure anyone “intended” much of anything.
I am not a lexical authority. Hence, you’re asking the wrong person. However, I can provide a lexical authority you can ask if you like: The Oxford Corpus.
You appear to be mistaken about what a dictionary is intended to be. From AboutOxfordDictionaries.com:
[emphasis added]
Dictionaries have always been intended to document current usage. In the past, they often fell behind due to the expense of compiling, printing and distributing new editions. However, since the invention of the internet, they do a far better job of keeping up.
It’s not about winning or losing. I’m merely sharing my philosophy. If I turn out to be wrong, no matter, I love to learn.
From the University of Tennessee’s Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
[emphasis added]
Isn’t this getting off topic?
I and others in this thread have endeavored to fulfill the SDMB’s mission to fight ignorance. At this point, if the battle is lost, so be it.
Are the philosophies of you and others the only ones capable of fighting ignorance? Or do you think philosophy is incapable of fighting ignorance and fail to realize you’ve been expounding your own philosophy all through this thread?
Two major things need to be noted. One, nobody can go through the 500,000-1,500,000 words in English and keep up with changing usage. The lexicographers have enough trouble adding new words where necessary. Two, ad hominem hasn’t changed in hundreds of years. The OP was using it in the universally understood sense and so was everybody else in the thread.
Welcome to the Dope.
Earlier, I was speaking generally but since you bring this up… Aspiring to document current usage is not the same thing as aspiring to document every word that is used. Efforts toward creating unabridged dictionaries have only existed over the last century or so. Given the size of our current lexicon, it’s certainly true a person could not possibly keep up with changes. However, computers and computational linguistics can make this a reality. Even home computers are capable of performing a billion operations per second these days. I can only imagine the processing power the likes of Oxford and Merriam-Webster have devoted to monitoring their corpora.
There is no “universally understood sense” because, again, this is not a matter of universal intersubjective agreement. I would further note that, while you folks seem unaware of it, the application of ad hominem has indeed “changed in hundreds of years.” Specifically, the term has been used in other senses to describe a persuasive appeal to a person’s prejudice or emotion rather than a personal attack. Indeed, some dictionaries like Merriam-Webster still provide this definition:
You might want to read any of the several good books about the OED and its efforts to develop a third edition, leading to its use of the Internet rather than a physical copy. Computers do not write definitions. Humans do. A small number of underfunded and pressured humans.
OK, I’m going to point out the elephant in the room:
WHY DO YOU CARE?
Perhaps computers don’t write definitions at the present time. However, they can already make the work much more efficient than it used to be because they can parse text and identify patterns (paragraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts of speech, word relationships, etc.). Most new texts are digitized from the get-go and can already be parsed. More and more historical texts are being digitized every day. Combine that with the huge advancements of AI and I think computers will be able to write definitions in the not too distant future. Rather than reading and writing definitions from scratch, lexicographers will be writing algorithms and then monitoring and managing an automated process. Speech recognition technologies like Siri are only getting better. If you can talk to a computer and it can understand the meaning of the words coming out of your mouth, an analogous system will be able to figure out what words mean in text. Given sufficient AI algorithms, it can be programmed to recognize new words as they’re coined and figure out what they mean from context & style the more they are used.
No, not actually. If they’re truly crazy, then this is an ad homunculus argument which is generally regarded as an automatic win.
Well he says he is a high school dropout, has been in prison, and been institutionalized.
Because if he is right it can change my entire worldview and I don’t know if I can handle that
Well, you’re right, that does put things in kind of a morally grey area. But personally I’m going to stick with my initial assessment of ad homunculus based on the available subject matter and context. Given his background, you are right to be highly skeptical of anything he has to say about “Cage Lock and the Matrix of Freedom.”