The Action Axiom, true a priori?

[Seos]

This is a spinoff from:
http://www.politics.ie/economy/54711...ics-rte-3.html

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:

A priori justification makes no reference to experience; the issue concerns how one knows the proposition or claim in question—what justifies or grounds one's belief in it. Galen Strawson wrote that an a priori argument is one of which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science."

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".

[20000miles]

This is a spinoff from:
http://www.politics.ie/economy/54711...ics-rte-3.html

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.

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.

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".

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.

[Odyessus]

This is a spinoff from:
http://www.politics.ie/economy/54711...ics-rte-3.html

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".

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

[Seos]

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.

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

Rothbard, working within an Aristotelian, Thomistic, or Mengerian tradition, justified the praxeological action axiom as a law of reality that is empirical rather than a priori. Of course, this is not the empiricism embraced by positivists. This kind of empirical knowledge rests on universal inner or reflective experience in addition to external physical experience. This type of empirical knowledge consists of a general knowledge of human action that would be considered to be antecedent to the complex historical events that mainstream economists to try to explain. The action axiom is empirical in the sense that it is self-evidently true once stated. It is not empirically falsifiable in the positivist sense. It is empirical but it is not based on empiricism as practiced by today's economics profession.Praxeological statements cannot be subjected to any empirical assessment whether it is falsificationist or verificationist.

As first seen here: http://www.politics.ie/economy/54711...ml#post1517411

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.

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.

[20000miles]

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

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.

[Seos]

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

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.

[Christel]

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.

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?

[code twinkle]

This is a spinoff from:
http://www.politics.ie/economy/54711...ics-rte-3.html

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".

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.

[Seos]

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.

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.

[feargach]

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.