Of course it’s an ad hominem—I just said that I think it’s better to judge someone’s philosophy based on how a person embodies it. The ad hominem is very much

Of course it’s an ad hominem—I just said that I think it’s better to judge someone’s philosophy based on how a person embodies it. The ad hominem is very much pertitent to the question at hand! Philosophy is for living, not for sterililized, abstract what-ifs and hypotheticals that can only be critiqued as platonic ideals, lest you be accused of committing a “fallacy” for maintaining that a philosophy should be practiced and not just talked about.