set the human race on the path to thinking on their own, but obedience to authority in the
end will be what kills us all. Overall his article has several compelling reasons to believe
his theory, but it is also not completely believable for several reasons. There are several
points that are debatable and his high use of emotion alone could cause one to question
his article on a whole. Fromm being a psychoanalyst, sociologist, historian, and
philosopher may have contributed to his using the pull of emotion so much.
In his article Fromm …show more content…
Maybe if Fromm used a different term in describing this time it could be
considered a little more accurate.
The second fallacy in Fromm’s article is he states that within five to ten years,
from 1963, it is possible and probable that humans will destroy the civilization and all life
on earth. This is a hasty generalization, in which he is also drawing on the emotion of
fear, in order to sway opinions. There are no facts to back up the thought that humans
may destroy the world, especially in a specified time frame.
Fromm used false analogies in his writing also. First is the comparison of the
caveman to the politician. We have developed scientifically enough to create weapons,
yet politicians still think the way the caveman did. These two ideas are completely too
far apart on the scale to even try to compare to each other.
The second use of false analogy is when Fromm compares Adolf Eichmann, who
was in charge of the Nazi concentration camps, to the typical person. Eichmann, who
ordered the deaths of millions of people, could not be compared on the same level as a
typical person on the street. He states that we would and that we do in the same situation.
Not only is this a false analogy, but he also makes a hasty generalization in stating that
people would do the same thing now since he does not have the facts to back up this
statement. This statement also