Hello, I recently started reading Mises' Human Action. Embarrassed to say how early I need help. I'm stuck on the section, Causality as a Requirement of Action. It's found on page 22. I downloaded the PDF to use here on my iPhone of the Study Guide by Woods, but still am having trouble understanding this section. If someone could help explain it to me in layman's terms, it would be much appreciated! I apologize if there is a thread of this sort already. I searched "human action" and not surprisingly 1 million results appeared. It would be tiresome to locate what I need on my phone. Anyway, perhaps I will need to use this thread as I progress through the treatise. Thanks again,
IAC
Woods wrote a study guide to Human Action?
Also, do you mind if I ask what other works you've already read?
I meant Murphy's Study Guide. Apologies. I haven't read much on economics, but a little more on libertarianism as a whole. The Rise and Fall of Society, The Revolution a Manifesto, Economics in One Lesson, The Law, The Case Against the Fed, What Has Government Done to Our Money? And The Case for a 100% Gold Dollar. And the following I've read bits and pieces of, but haven't finished. Lincoln Unmasked, Liberalism, The Man Versus the State, On Liberty Society and Politics, For a New Liberty, The Ethics of Liberty, Conceived in Liberty, America's Great Depression. As well as countless articles here and on Lew Rockwell. I'm actually not reading Human Action cover to cover right now. I'm going through Rothbard's Man Economy and State with Power and Market including all the footnotes/references. The first section refers to pages 1-143 in Human Action and I want to do it thoroughly since I plan on reading Human Action in its entirety eventually. I own the Man Economy and State Study Guide, but for now just have the PDF of the Human Action Study Guide by Murphy. I'm thoroughly answering all the questions and making sure I understand everything correctly.
You've certainly got a good start!
But I'll make the same suggestion I made to another scholar embarking on MES...
Hold off on that and Human Action for a bit. Those are two of the most advanced and difficult treatises you can find. You've got a great start with what you've read so far. If you get through a few other more appropriate texts beforehand, you'll get much more out of those two epics.
See here.
After you read that post, check here. Then finally, you might check out the list of reading lists.
Thanks for the reply. I've actually read the Introductions by David Gordon and Thomas Taylor as well. I had forgotten about them as they're brief, but concise. The only problem is I don't have a computer and reading all those books (though for free is awesome) would be kind of a pain on my phone. Plus I've already boughten Man Economy and State and Human Action, and waking up to them on the shelf next to my bed, unread, makes me anxious. I've done alright thus far with Human Action. Just need a little help with this section. Having read much of Rothbard's works already, I think I'll be OK traversing his treatise, especially with the Study Guide. Rothbard's writing is very readable.
No computer? That's some tough stuff, brother. Perhaps look into an e-reader? I'm sure you could find a second-hand, possibly older, model for a reasonable price.
But as for your question, was there something specific in that section you could offer a starting point for? Perhaps quote a few sentences or paragraph and offer your thoughts or what you're having trouble with?
Additionally, I'm planning on reading literally all the footnotes/references in Man Economy and State. In section 1 alone, I'm to read Human Action 1-143, "The Facts of the Social Sciences", The Counter-Revolution of Science 25-35, "Biological Analogies in the Theory of the Firm", Ethica Nicomachea I, "Praxeology: Reply to Mr. Schuller" and "In Defense of Extreme Apriorism". I figure there will be plenty of supplemental reading to fill in any holes prerequisite reading would. Unfortunately, save Human Action, I have to read PDFs of all that other stuff here on a 3.5" screen.
Yes, unfortunately I have a condition where I feel like not buying the best I can is wasting money. So instead of settling for what I can afford, I either save my money or go without. I used to have a top of the line computer but sold it so I could afford food stuffs during unemployment. Now I just have a part time job and my health (healthy food, supplements) come before high tech. I don't even have a car. Fortunately it's given me time to read like I've always wanted and hopefully, eventually, get me to write once I have a good knowledge base. I dropped out of college (despite having a 4.0), because I don't feel it's the most efficient way to learn. Much to the chagrin of my friends and family. Anyway, on to Causality as a Requirement of Action:
Mises states man has the ability to discover causal relations, and therefore is able to act. If I don't misunderstand this, is he saying if I don't know the cause of what I'm about to do, I can't act? Surely this isn't true. The first question in this section of the Study Guide asks: "In what way does causality influence human action?" My answer would be he wishes to learn causality so he knows where and how to interfere so the outcome will more positively affect his happiness. Is this wrong? The second question asks, "Why is it inevitable, in order to act, to know the causal relationship between events, processes or states of affairs? If a person falsely believes in a causal relationship, can this allow for action?" Now I understand that man must know his actions have consequences. But must he know what these will be? We didn't know what the first atom bomb would do when we tested it. But learned from experience. It just seems to contradict a possible ultimate given. Secondly, if a person falsely believes in a causal relationship he can still act, because like Mises said earlier, man's reason is not infallible. I guess I just feel this could have been worded much better, even being translated from German.
He states later on that ignorance doesn't demolish the praxeological meaning of causality, but doesn't explain why as far as I comprehend. He says the definitions of metaphysical etc causality is different from that of praxeological causality but doesn't contrast them as well, if at all, as he did subconscious/unconscious earlier in the book.
Individualist Anarcho-Capitalist:Yes, unfortunately I have a condition where I feel like not buying the best I can is wasting money.
lol. That's hilarious. I know plenty of people who feel exactly the opposite.
Mises states man has the ability to discover causal relations, and therefore is able to act. If I don't misunderstand this, is he saying if I don't know the cause of what I'm about to do, I can't act? Surely this isn't true.
You have to remember the way Mises defines "human action" as "purposeful behavior". What he's saying is one cannot act with purpose if one does not understand causality...that universal changes occur through causes. "Only a man who sees the world in the light of causality is fitted to act", he says. When he goes on to clarify "Where man does not see any causal relation, he cannot act", he's not saying "you can't drop the ball if you don't know exactly where it will land and when"...in a way he's saying if you see no causal relation, what you do cannot be considered "human action". If you're not using your intellect and reasoning to recognize cause and effect, and making choices based on that perception, you're not a human acting...you're basically an electron. Sure you might do things, but "such a world would be a chaos in which man would be at a loss to find any orientation and guidance." He says man can't even imagine such a universe.
Human action implies purpose, and purpose implies causal understanding and the ability to influence cause.
The first question in this section of the Study Guide asks: "In what way does causality influence human action?" My answer would be he wishes to learn causality so he knows where and how to interfere so the outcome will more positively affect his happiness. Is this wrong?
No, not really. Personally that doesn't sound like a very good question to me.
The second question asks, "Why is it inevitable, in order to act, to know the causal relationship between events, processes or states of affairs? If a person falsely believes in a causal relationship, can this allow for action?" Now I understand that man must know his actions have consequences. But must he know what these will be? We didn't know what the first atom bomb would do when we tested it. But learned from experience.
Well, no, not exactly. Would you really argue that all that time and all those resources would be poured into something for which people didn't know what it would do? And what's more, they had no idea what would happen, yet it just happened to do exactly what they wanted it to do?
It just seems to contradict a possible ultimate given. Secondly, if a person falsely believes in a causal relationship he can still act, because like Mises said earlier, man's reason is not infallible. I guess I just feel this could have been worded much better, even being translated from German. He states later on that ignorance doesn't demolish the praxeological meaning of causality, but doesn't explain why as far as I comprehend.
He states later on that ignorance doesn't demolish the praxeological meaning of causality, but doesn't explain why as far as I comprehend.
Well, the rest of that section is supposed to elaborate on it.
He basically says that it doesn't matter if the human doesn't know everything. Because, "there are changes whose causes are, at least for the present time, unknown to us." But we can figure out partial causes. Bits and pieces. This is where statistics comes in. But just because we have to acquiesce in this way it doesn't mean we can't say human action exists and has occured. "We must simply establish the fact that in order to act, man must know the causal relationship between events, processes, or states of affairs. And only as far as he knows this relationship, can his action attain the ends sought." And yeah, we also recognize this is circular reasoning, because all we need, to know that "human action" has taken place , is the fact that action guided by this (albeit imperfect) knowledge (of causal relation) results in the expected outcome. (The atom bomb blew up just like we wanted it to.)
Finally, the reason we can't avoid this circular reasoning is "because causality is a category of action." And because it is such a category, praxeology (the study of human action) cannot help bestowing some attention on this fundamental problem of philosophy. In other words, praxeology is the study of human action...it's purpose is not to address such things. That's where philosophy and epistemology come in. For our purposes in the study of human action we just have to recognize that human action itself "requires and presupposes the [action] category of causality", and that therefore for human action to take place, causality has to be understood...basically a given.
In talking about human action we speak of "means and ends"...but what would those things be without a pre-acknowledgement of "cause and effect"?
This isn't directly an answer, but it might help make something click:
(remember, "economics" is a subset of the broader science of "praxeology")...
I can't seem to work this quote feature, but let's see if I have this correct now:
Mises states there are three conditions to human action: 1) a felt uneasiness. 2) visions of the felt uneasiness being alleviated. 3) expectation that action can bring about the visions in condition 2. So is the causal prerequisite simply an extension of conditions 2/3? The hungry man must know that eating the hamburger will alleviate his hunger, else he wouldn't eat it? And the hunter gatherer who eats the just discovered poisonous berry acts praxeologically as well, because despite his ignorance to the berries' efficacy, or lack thereof, of curing his hunger, he still had the expectation that eating the item would alleviate his hunger? It seems almost all action would fall under this premise of causality. Even in my faulty situation with the atom bomb, the engineers, physicists, et al. had reasonable expectations to what the bomb could or would do. On the other hand, if I didn't, or couldn't, know throwing a rock across the street could break a window, that would be the world of chaos we couldn't imagine?
Individualist Anarcho-Capitalist:I can't seem to work this quote feature,
Apologies:
New member? READ THIS!
Mises states there are three conditions to human action: 1) a felt uneasiness. 2) visions of the felt uneasiness being alleviated. 3) expectation that action can bring about the visions in condition 2. So is the causal prerequisite simply an extension of conditions 2/3? The hungry man must know that eating the hamburger will alleviate his hunger, else he wouldn't eat it? And the hunter gatherer who eats the just discovered poisonous berry acts praxeologically as well, because despite his ignorance to the berries' efficacy, or lack thereof, of curing his hunger, he still had the expectation that eating the item would alleviate his hunger?
Basically, yeah.
It seems almost all action would fall under this premise of causality.
No. A leaf blowing off a tree doesn't have to understand causal relationships. There is action (i.e. activity) taking place there. Just not human action (i.e. purposeful means to achieve an ends).
Even in my faulty situation with the atom bomb, the engineers, physicists, et al. had reasonable expectations to what the bomb could or would do. On the other hand, if I didn't, or couldn't, know throwing a rock across the street could break a window, that would be the world of chaos we couldn't imagine?
Yeah basically. Because if you didn't understand the existence and reality of cause and effect, you wouldn't be able to act with purpose...meaning any activity that did take place would be completely random and without purpose. The whole point of praxeology (or, perhaps more accurately, the cornerstone) is that "humans act"...as in, human beings have desires they wish to fulfill, and through their understanding of causal relationships they use "means" (action) to achieve their desired "ends" (effects).
What Mises is trying to get across is that before this purposeful action can take place, the actor must recognize causal relationships.