This is a spinoff from:
Austrian economics on RTE!

Most of that topic from page 3 onwards is about this subject but that thread was getting cluttered with different interesting subjects. One of which is closely related: http://www.politics.ie/chat/58550-th...ri-truths.html


The Action Axiom is "Humans act".

This explains(from wiki) a priori:

Before we start again it is vitally, vitally important that people understand that I of course think that humans act, but I believe I only know that from experience (i.e. using empiricism)


Now that all that is out of the way, I'll explain my argument:

• Austrian Economists say that the statement "humans act" is true a priori.
  
• They state that any attempt to go against that statement is a contradiction.
  
• This seems to be clearly the case when one takes the position "humans don't act", this statement, when made by a human, is itself an action. This means that a human is acting and thus "humans don't act" can't possibly be true.
  
• However, the action axiom states "Humans act", that's plural, it is saying that "All humans act". In order to deny the axiom I must indeed act, that is I singular not we humans plural. So it is possible for me to state that "humans may not act, except for me".
  
• We have no way of knowing a priori that other humans act.
• My conclusion from this is that the action axiom is not a priori.

Another point that we discussed on the thread is the importance (for austrian economics) that the definition of Human and Act are independent. For example you can't define human as "an acting animal" or you can't define acting as "purposeful human action".

If you do that yes "Humans act" is true a priori but it is also useless. It would make it like saying "All bachelors are unmarried".

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

I beleive the answer to this quibble lies somewhere in the realm of "thymology", however 20000miles has been too overloaded to persue this venture, which clearly requires more effort.


This is correct. IIRC Hazlitt tripped up here slightly here.

What I propose:

Human: A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
Action: employment of means to achieve ends over time

No surprise that opponents try to characterise these statements as meaningless, empty tautologies.

__________________

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 have no way of knowing a priori that other humans even exist.

Having just read this (to find out what thymology is) I don't think it will answer this quibble.

The answer to the quibble may be that you're assuming that your school already has an answer to any objection...

...And, it just so happens that, in this case, it does have an answer and that is by Rothbard who says that it is not true a priori:

Murray Rothbard's Randian Austrianism
As first seen here: Austrian economics on RTE!

Yes but Hazlitt also corrected himself later, I was really only adding that point in for any newcomers.

Glad we have agreement, those definitions will be fine, we must now stick with them for the rest of the thread. Don't recall anyone characterising independent meanings as tautologies only statements that are true because of two non-independent statements.

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

I think Kant would say that's not the point. He would grant that you need experience in order to obatain knowledge about "humans", just like you need experience to understand concepts like "2" and "+" and "=". But the apriorism refers to the justification of propositions like "humans act" and "2+2=4".

And as I have said, even if you're the only human, you're still acting.

__________________

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.

And as I said if you're the only human then "humans act" is not usable for what you want to use it for. But lets not get into that again.

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

It just occurred to me that we possibly have to distinguish between

- what Seos emphasises, that I know that humans act only from my own experience; if I never went to school and learned maths I wouldn't learn that 20 + 50 = 70, or if I would make such experience I wouldn't have the means to express it;

- that on the other hand "humans act" is part of not just what we observe of other humans' behaviour, but which is presupposed and basis of society rules which we also learn by growing up in it; from criticism of our actiins from child on, praise, rewards, laughter, smile at us or sour faces, up to laws, moral and ethics which we observe and which we by this learn are based on "humans act".

In the latter systems "humans act" seems to be a priori"? In our individual observance of other individuals it probably isn't? So: a mix of both, maybe?

I would take issue with your logic when you reach the statement "humans may no act, except for me" - all conceptual thought (ie. what is it to act?) is relative. Thus if you are on your couch alone, you will not be able to make an a priori statement on this because you will not be able to conceive of the notion of human action, having never encountered what is might be to not act and thus lacking any frame of reference.

__________________
I have opinions of my own - strong opinions - but I don't always agree with them. - George Bush

The statement should be read as: "it is possible that other humans don't act". It shouldn't be read as "other humans are not allowed act". Just to clarify that in case that is a cause of confusion.
So I'm not saying anything definite about other humans.

If that does not resolve your problem maybe this will:

We're using the definition "employment of means to achieve ends over time" for act. So what I am saying is that it is possible that humans only appear to "employ means to achieve ends over time". So it is possible that humans don't act by this definition.

This is also true for any other useful definition because any useful definition will want to say that humans act in a more substantive form than for example pens act.

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

Seos: I think you are thinking this too much.

Do you think that all actions are business-economic transactions? Austrianists seem to.

Austrianists are thus wrong.

Now, you're free to join every other trained economists who realise that talking about Austrianism is a waste of time as it doesn't have anything to say about pounds-and-pence decisions, as opposed to decisions like what to call your child. Indeed it refuses to even acknowledge that these two actions are fundamentally different to people.

__________________
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 "