I just started studying Austrian economics and I'm not really sure the correct answer for this one..
what is the ultimate starting point of Praxeology?
I haven't read it but in Human Action doesn't Mises say something simple like 'humans act'? Is this what you mean by starting point?
Irish Liberty Forum
MatthewWilliam: I haven't read it but in Human Action doesn't Mises say something simple like 'humans act'? Is this what you mean by starting point?
That's the jist of it, yeah. Humans act, and it is generally assumed that action is purposeful.
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
david_z: MatthewWilliam: I haven't read it but in Human Action doesn't Mises say something simple like 'humans act'? Is this what you mean by starting point? That's the jist of it, yeah. Humans act, and it is generally assumed that action is purposeful.
ok, so if the ultimate starting point of Praxeology is HUMAN ACTION, then
what is the subject matter of economics?
is it also correct to say that the answer for this one is also HUMAN ACTION/PRAXEOLOGY?
if not, then what's the correct answer?
I'm asking this because my book asked those questions in the same page about the same topic
Peter Griffin: ok, so if the ultimate starting point of Praxeology is HUMAN ACTION, then what is the subject matter of economics? is it also correct to say that the answer for this one is also HUMAN ACTION/PRAXEOLOGY? if not, then what's the correct answer?
Depends what sort of book you're reading... If you're taking a standard micro/macro course and you shout out "Praxeology!" I'd be quite surprised if the professor even knew the meaning of the word.
The subject matter of economics is human action in the face of scarcity. Since all goods and services are scarce, man must choose how best to allocate them among his infinite number of wants and needs. Economics is the study of human action as it pertains to scarcity.
david_z: Peter Griffin: ok, so if the ultimate starting point of Praxeology is HUMAN ACTION, then what is the subject matter of economics? is it also correct to say that the answer for this one is also HUMAN ACTION/PRAXEOLOGY? if not, then what's the correct answer? Depends what sort of book you're reading... If you're taking a standard micro/macro course and you shout out "Praxeology!" I'd be quite surprised if the professor even knew the meaning of the word. The subject matter of economics is human action in the face of scarcity. Since all goods and services are scarce, man must choose how best to allocate them among his infinite number of wants and needs. Economics is the study of human action as it pertains to scarcity.
I'm doing the 52 week home study course in Austrian Economics that I bought from Mises.org and there are books assigned for this topic....
so basically, both questions have the same answer
Peter Griffin:what is the subject matter of economics?
The foundations upon which Austrians school is based are quite theoretical.
The statement 'Humans Act' is what's called a 'synthetic apriori axion.'
It is called 'synthetic' because you cannot use formal logic to prove it.
It is called 'a priori' because it cannot be proved using observation.
When you look at somebody going aboput their day, one cannot determine whether they are actually making choices with an understanding of 'cause and effect' because to act you must chose between your limited means to achieve the most important one of your infinite ends, or whther it is a deterministic and you are simply a drone/computer that runs on a program and essentially has free will.
I'll complete this explanation tomorrow without the spelling mistakes
[First post, thought I'd try and pretend to know what I'm talking about]
http://irishliberty.wordpress.com/
Retrolives: The foundations upon which Austrians school is based are quite theoretical. The statement 'Humans Act' is what's called a 'synthetic apriori axion.' It is called 'synthetic' because you cannot use formal logic to prove it. It is called 'a priori' because it cannot be proved using observation. When you look at somebody going aboput their day, one cannot determine whether they are actually making choices with an understanding of 'cause and effect' because to act you must chose between your limited means to achieve the most important one of your infinite ends, or whther it is a deterministic and you are simply a drone/computer that runs on a program and essentially has free will. I'll complete this explanation tomorrow without the spelling mistakes [First post, thought I'd try and pretend to know what I'm talking about]
yes, please explain more,
what you just described is the exact same topic I'm reading right now!
the way I understand a "synthetic a priori" is simply a kind of proposition that can be established as true even if formal logic is not enough, but necesary,and using observation to prove it is unnecessary.
so is it correct to say that the action axiom is true because it is SELF EVIDENT?
or did mises have a different explanation to how we know the action axiom is true?
Peter Griffin: Retrolives: The foundations upon which Austrians school is based are quite theoretical. The statement 'Humans Act' is what's called a 'synthetic apriori axion.' It is called 'synthetic' because you cannot use formal logic to prove it. It is called 'a priori' because it cannot be proved using observation. When you look at somebody going aboput their day, one cannot determine whether they are actually making choices with an understanding of 'cause and effect' because to act you must chose between your limited means to achieve the most important one of your infinite ends, or whther it is a deterministic and you are simply a drone/computer that runs on a program and essentially has free will. I'll complete this explanation tomorrow without the spelling mistakes [First post, thought I'd try and pretend to know what I'm talking about] yes, please explain more, what you just described is the exact same topic I'm reading right now! the way I understand a "synthetic a priori" is simply a kind of proposition that can be established as true even if formal logic is not enough, but necesary,and using observation to prove it is unnecessary. so is it correct to say that the action axiom is true because it is SELF EVIDENT? or did mises have a different explanation to how we know the action axiom is true?
bump
Deny the action axiom and reflect upon what happens. The denial is an action, and thus one is engaged in a performative contradiction. Such a truth is a necessary truth, one which cannot be denied without the denial descending into absurdity. Self-evidence may be what one labels this, but incontestable axiom I think is a better term for it.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: Deny the action axiom and reflect upon what happens. The denial is an action, and thus one is engaged in a performative contradiction. Such a truth is a necessary truth, one which cannot be denied without the denial descending into absurdity. Self-evidence may be what one labels this, but incontestable axiom I think is a better term for it. -Jon
so that means the action axiom is self evident,
is that right?
I find the term "self-evident" to be nebulous. But yes, as the term is commonly evoked, it refers to that.
Peter Griffin:so that means the action axiom is self evident
"The starting point of praxeology is not a choice of axioms and a decision about methods of procedure, but reflection about the essence of action."