you could call it a stylistic device: whether or not Nietzsche had the above-mentioned medical condition before he descended into insanity does prove nothing whatsoever about whether his argument on "eternal truths" was valid. Its only function is to attack his person and by doing so indirectly disqualify the validity of his argument (which - by the way - was established long before he fell ill).Ogee wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 4:33 pm and it's not a ad hominem attack on a man who died of syphilis to say the man died of syphilis, it's a fact.
As I said: claims, opinions, ideologies, generalisations... are all part of an attempt to manipulate instead of argue.
Even what you call a fact: "a is doing this or that, therfore... "
may not be valid in different ways:
a may not be doing this (claim; problem of verification)
a may not be the sole representative of a group (generalisation)
a may be doing this to reach a totally different aim from what you assume (narcissism instead of politcal activism) etc etc
We could go on like this till sunset and yet get nowhere as you don't want to find the best and most convincing argument (Habermas) but simply be right (Nietzsche, Foucault).
In the end it's mostly about power and ego.
So I wish you well and end here.