Well a priori learning (assuming such a thing exists) could be done without any of our senses functioning. Lets say our brains are removed from our bodies and kept alive in jars and we can still think. Through a priori learning we should be able to gain knowledge even though we have no senses and nothing to gain experience with.

Although as I think about it more I'm starting to think that there is no a priori learning and that "I act" and "I am thinking therefore I am" are analytical rather than synthetic. In which case gaining knowledge and gaining experience can be the same thing.

Anyway the important thing is that in order for a priori learning (or synthetic a priori) to exist learning and gaining experience must be different.
So it would be contradictory to say that they are the same thing and at the same time that Humans act is synthetically a priori.
You don't and that's the point. You don't know that they don't act, just like we don't know that humans do act.

The people on the other side of the argument will say that us being human and not sheep makes it different.


Hi Hazlitt, thank you having an unchanging written down account of what Mises means by "humans act" will help alot.

__________________
"She'll hold together. Hear me, baby? Hold together!"

Hey, hey... guess what Mises did!?

http://mises.org/books/ultimate.pdf End of page 4, start of page 5:
He defined Humans as acting animals! Absolute class! I can't believe I even used the exact same wording as him in saying what you can't do!

So 20k, Mises is most definitely wrong to do so, right?

__________________
"She'll hold together. Hear me, baby? Hold together!"

Hi Seos,

Yes having this boook does help with the discussion a lot. How would you distinguish between humans and animals ?

I want to remind people that Rothbard and Mises disagreed with the characterisation of the Action Axiom.

Link: Murray Rothbard's Randian Austrianism

I think the most important question in the discussion is of the truth of the Action Axiom.

__________________
.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
: :
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think we should first and foremost say whether the Action Axiom is a synthetic a priori truth first as establishing the falsity of that is what my purpose in the debate was. (I will of course indulge in a new discussion about the Action Axiom when this is completed)

Do you now agree that, no matter about the truth of it or not, "Humans act" it is certainly not a synthetic a priori truth?

And do you also agree that Mises is wrong to think you can build knowledge from analytical statements?

__________________
"She'll hold together. Hear me, baby? Hold together!"

Seeing as you want us to dump the entirety of 20th century economics: Keynes, Galbraith Friedman and everyone else who thinks Austrianism is no use; seeing as you are one of the clutch on Politics.ie assuring us that the cure to all economic ills is to adopt Austrianism wholesale; seeing as you are requiring us to dump the entire central banking system to bring us back to the mid 18th century system...

Why the delay in answering the question Seos, who is has been clear about his sympathy towards Austrianism, is putting? If Austrianism is the key to saving the world, then surely its bases are rock-solid, and you would have these answers at your fingertips?

__________________
When you see the words "Mises" or "Hayek" in someone's post, just ask yourself: do I really want to ban paper money and go back to gold?

You have to pity the kind of people who buy into conspiracy theories. I find the following to be the saddest words on the internet: "Re: connection between Bilderberg puppet lady gaga and viral outbreak in ukraine "

Agreed. Let's look into this further before we continue. So the question we should ask ourselves is: "are there synthetic a priori truths" ?

Here's an interesting passage:

__________________
.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
: :
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Why am I not surprised!

Firstly if you classify the "entirety" of 20th century economics as "Keynes, Galbraith Friedman" then you're a moron.

Secondly we're having a discussion about the Action Axiom (read the f**king thread title). If you have anything constructive to add to the discussion feel free to post your thoughts, if not - don't hijack another thread! If you want to have a rant about the Austrian school do it in the thread you started and we'll chat to you there.

__________________
.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
: :
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Precisely because it is a contentious issue I am assuming that synthetic a priori truths do exist (just that "Humans act" is not one). So that passage should not apply to me.

But you didn't respond to my questions and I need to know what I'm debating against, or if possibly we are already in agreement on this particular issue.

Do you now agree that, no matter about the truth of it or not, "Humans act" it is certainly not a synthetic a priori truth?

And do you also agree that Mises is wrong to think you can build knowledge from analytical statements?

__________________
"She'll hold together. Hear me, baby? Hold together!"

I'd at this stage like to "know" the definition of "knowledge" used.

"The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned" will do.

__________________
"She'll hold together. Hear me, baby? Hold together!"