Way, way off topic for normal threads around here, but I've been thinking.
If action is indeed to be defined as purposeful behavior, and if the only incentive for purposeful behavior is some felt unease that one seeks to remove, in order to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory one, as Mises stated, then isn't the entire religious concept of an afterlife paradise as much a logical impossibility as a square circle?
If, in Heaven (or whatever you want to call it), people are perfectly at ease, there would be no incentive to act--to behave purposefully. Why would they? If you were in Heaven, why would you move a finger, take a breath, or even think a conscious thought, unless, of course, you thought that actively doing so would result in a more satisfactory state of affairs than that state of affairs which would come about by doing nothing? But, if that's the case, then there would necessarily be some felt unease. But assuming there is absolutely no felt unease in Heaven, then action (purposeful behavior) would cease to exist. That would mean that people in Heaven would either not behave at all, or would behave instinctively/involuntarily, i.e. without thought or the ability to reflect upon one's situation (because such an act of mental reflection would be just that--an act).
Isn't the very nature of action fundamentally incompatible with a perfect Paradise?
"Anticapitalist theories share in common an inability to take human nature as it is. Rather than analyzing man as a complex creature, anticapitalist theories tend to focus on what the theorist wishes man to be." - Isaac Morehouse
Who says I need to do anything in heaven?
Mlee: Who says I need to do anything in heaven?
Exactly. Why would you even need to think a thought for that matter? In such circumstances, you wouldn't even reflect upon the so-called "bliss" that you were experiencing, because such an act of mental reflection would be purposeful behavior. If that's the case, what's the point of even existing at that point? To be an unconscious piece of matter?
I'm not sure if conciousness is considered an "act" of man, since it doesn't occur to any particular end that we can know about. Although why I am defending this I have no idea.
Freiheit:If, in Heaven (or whatever you want to call it), people are perfectly at ease, there would be no incentive to act--to behave purposefully.
I believe Mises addressed that directly. I don't recall his thoughts on it. Perhaps someone has a link handy?
Peace
Mlee: I'm not sure if conciousness is considered an "act" of man, since it doesn't occur to any particular end that we can know about. Although why I am defending this I have no idea.
I'm only talking about mental reflection (thinking about) what one is seeing, not merely accepting visual signals into one's brain.
I think he used praxeology to disprove GOD, not the afterlife. If my memory serves me. Disproving the afterlife with praxeology seems sketchy to me.
Since God is almighty, he cannot act repeatedly as he did in the bible, because he would have removed his problems long ago.
Now how a God who either exists outside of time, or transcends it would be limited by it... I have no idea.
Of course, I believe there was far more substance to Mises arguement than that.
Seeing isn't conciousness, but to be concious can't be a human action, since one cannot will it into existance to satisfy a discomfort, and that it doesn't entail the elimination of discomfort. That is, unless will preceeds conciousness.
Mlee: Seeing isn't conciousness, but to be concious can't be a human action, since one cannot will it into existance to satisfy a discomfort, and that it doesn't entail the elimination of discomfort. That is, unless will preceeds conciousness.
You're right that consciousness isn't action in and of itself. Consciousness is merely the ability to reflect upon and think about what one is experiencing. But each act of reflection and thought is an action. Thus, I made a poor choice of words it seems. Perhaps instead of saying that one would necessarily be "unconscious" in such a paradise, it would be more accurate to say "unthinking."
In other words, in a state of complete wonder and enthrallment.
Mlee: In other words, in a state of complete wonder and enthrallment.
Lol.
:P
Isn't Praxeology fun?
The historical Christian understanding of heaven (not mainstream people-strumming-harps-on-clouds heaven) is such that there will be lots of action. People will be called to tend to a restored creation, husband animals, grow in their depth of understanding, etc. I think it's valid to describe the desire for deeper fellowship with God and greater interaction with His creation as a type of "unease", but it's a "good" unease, akin to the sweet ache after a gratifying swim. The Bible specifically mentions the removal of pain, sorrow, etc., but not "unease" or even work.
JonBostwick: Freiheit:If, in Heaven (or whatever you want to call it), people are perfectly at ease, there would be no incentive to act--to behave purposefully. I believe Mises addressed that directly. I don't recall his thoughts on it. Perhaps someone has a link handy?
I. The Limitations on Praxeological Concepts - Human Action pg 107
The praxeological categories and concepts are devised for the comprehension of human action. They become self-contradictory and nonsensical if one tries to apply them in dealing with conditions different from those of human life. The naive anthropomorphism of primitive religions is unpalatable to the philosophic mind. However, the endeavors of philosophers to define neatly the attributes of an absolute being, free from all the limitations and frailties of human existence, by the use of praxeological concepts, are no less questionable. Scholastic philosophers and theologians and likewise Theists and Deists of the Age of Reason conceived an absolute and perfect being, unchangeable, omnipotent, and omniscient, and yet planning and acting, aiming at ends and employing means for the attainment of these ends. But action can only be imputed to a discontented being, and repeated action only to a being who lacks the power to remove his uneasiness once and for all at one stroke. An acting being is discontented and therefore not almighty. If he were contented, he would not act, and if he were almighty, he would have long since radically removed his discontent. For an all-powerful being there is no pressure to choose between various states of uneasiness; he is not under the necessity of acquiescing in the lesser evil. Omnipotence would mean the power to achieve everything and to enjoy full satisfaction without being restrained by any limitations. But this is incompatible with the very concept of action. For an almighty being the categories of ends and means do not exist. He is above all human comprehension, concepts, and understanding. For the almighty being every "means" renders unlimited services, he can apply every "means" for the attainment of any ends, he can achieve every end without the employment of any means. It is beyond the faculties of the human mind to think the concept of almightiness consistently to its ultimate logical consequences. The paradoxes are insoluble. Has the almighty being the power to achieve something which is immune to his later interference? If he has this power, then there are limits to his might and he is no longer almighty; if he lacks this power, he is by virtue of this fact alone not almighty. Are omnipotence and omniscience compatible? Omniscience presupposes that all future happenings are already unalterably determined. If there is omniscience, omnipotence is inconceivable. Impotence to change anything in the predetermined course of events would restrict the power of any agent. Action is a display of potency and control that are limited. It is a manifestation of man who is restrained by the circumscribed powers of his mind, the physiological nature of his body, the vicissitudes of his environment, and the scarcity of the external factors on which his welfare depends. It is vain to refer to the imperfections and weaknesses of human life if one aims at depicting something absolutely perfect. The very idea of absolute perfection is in every way selfcontradictory. The state of absolute perfection must be conceived as complete, final, and not exposed to any change. Change could only impair its perfection and transform it into a less perfect state; the mere possibility that a change can occur is incompatible with the concept of absolute perfection. But the absence of change-ix., perfect immutability, rigidity and immobility-is tantamount to the absence of life. Life and perfection are incompatible, but so are death and perfection. The living is not perfect because it is liable to change; the dead is not perfect because it does not live. The language of living and acting men can form comparatives and superlatives in comparing degrees. But absoluteness is not a degree; it is a limiting notion. The absolute is indeterminable, unthinkable and ineffable. It is a chimerical conception. There are no such things as perfect happiness, perfect men, eternal bliss. Every attempt to describe the conditions of a land of Cockaigne, or the life of the Angels, results in paradoxes. Where there are conditions, there are limitations and not perfection; there are endeavors to conquer obstacles, there are frustration and discontent. After the philosophers had abandoned the search for the absolute, the utopians took it up. They weave dreams about the perfect state. They do not realize that the state, the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion, is an institution to cope with human imperfection and that its essential function is to inflict punishment upon minorities in order to protect majorities against the detrimental consequences of certain actions. With "perfect" men there would not he any need for compulsion and coercion. But utopians do not pay heed to human nature and the inalterable conditions of human life. Godwin thought that man might become immortal after the abolition of private property." Charles Fourier babbled about the ocean containing lemonade instead of salt water.20 Marx's economic system blithely ignored the fact of the scarcity of material factors of production. Trotsky revealed that in the proletarian paradise "the average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above this ridge new peaks will rise." 27 Nowadays the most popular chimeras are stabilization and security. We will test these catchwords later.
The Lord has spoken, Amen!
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Time for another theology lesson. The Bible actually doesn't use the word heaven in the same way as normal parlance which has been heavily influenced by mediaeval conceptions of the after life. Biblical speaking heaven is used to refer to the sky, space and the glorious presence of God. Unfortunately Christians have accepted neo-gnostic ideas of a disembodied etheral paradise. Now there is Biblical warrant for this but it is only the intermediate state. The Christian hope is that of a whole new creation: a better whole new universe will be created with resurrection bodies, al la Jesus' rather cool one. In this new creation we will enjoy God, in his fullness, by living and serving him forever.
Now obviously by the Misesian definition this isn't perfect paradise but who cares? Further he ignores the possibility that people act to prevent uneasyness rather than act just because of this. Here's Roderick Long's objection to Mises argument against the existence of an acting deity:
Mises' argument is essentially this: 1. Action involves the use of means to achieve ends. 2. An omnipotent being could achieve any desired end directly, without the use of means. 3. Therefore, an omnipotent being could not act. My criticism is of premise 2. I claim that Mises is thinking only of cases where means are external to the end. But what about the case where the means is part of the end? In other words, suppose that God's goal is not just "to achieve X" but "to achieve X by means Y." In that case, even an omnipotent being couldn't achieve *that* goal except by means Y. Hence God could intelligibly choose Y as a means to X, and so could act.
More fundamentally though if we are to take libertarian free will seriously the will must be purposeful but uncaused. Hence you can't go behind the will to see what caused the act of the will because an act of the will is properly basic. Now this isn't to say that action deosn't demonstrate preference, it does, but it cannot go any deeper.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
What an intriguing topic. This train of thought is one of the primary reasons I became an atheist after being raised in a Christian home.
Long before I read Human Action and was able to properly formulate the argument, it occurred to me that God could have created Heaven directly. When I discussed this with fellow Christians, they essentially used Long's argument - "the means (Y) are as important as the end (X)". I did not find this convincing since the means Y include suffering and other evils that God, if he were supremely good, would have avoided. I had accidentally stumbed upon the "problem of evil".
Mises's argument adds another level of sophistication and was the nail in the coffin when it came to my faith.
JustinTime: Long before I read Human Action and was able to properly formulate the argument, it occurred to me that God could have created Heaven directly. When I discussed this with fellow Christians, they essentially used Long's argument - "the means (Y) are as important as the end (X)". I did not find this convincing since the means Y include suffering and other evils that God, if he were supremely good, would have avoided. I had accidentally stumbed upon the "problem of evil".
Supposing that the choice facing God was that of creating creatures with free will and consequently the choice to freely worship him but also the capacity to commit evil; or to create robots who could only worship God- which one should he choose and by what criterion should he choose by?
Physiocrat:Supposing that the choice facing God was that of creating creatures with free will and consequently the choice to freely worship him but also the capacity to commit evil; or to create robots who could only worship God- which one should he choose and by what criterion should he choose by?
the point already made by Mises and quoted above by others in this thread is that .The state of absolute perfection must be conceived as complete, final, and not exposed to any change.which does not square with being a being that 'faces choices'
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: the point already made by Mises and quoted above by others in this thread is that .The state of absolute perfection must be conceived as complete, final, and not exposed to any change.which does not square with being a being that 'faces choices'
Would you like to respond to Long's argument against Mises argument against an acting God and the other points made in my first post?
its really irrelevant, because of other Misesian arguments against god.
i.e. any being that is supremely perfect, will not have any end that differs from what presently exists.
nirgrahamUK:i.e. any being that is supremely perfect, will not have any end that differs from what presently exists.
And what if it a surpremely perfect being dealing with not so perfect men who he gave free will?
The Juedo-Christian deity is one who gave men free will, and is activey trying to guide those freely acting men, in their imperfect world, towards salvation. God's acting through means is important because it are those means, such as the exodus, Christ's resurrection, and the scriptures themselves, are what lead men towards salvation, and without them there would be nothing to sheperd man towards salvation for we as homines agentes cannot see the world outside of the category of action. Once one understands that the God of the Bible is one that even though he gave man free will, and demands that he choose the path of holiness, still is actively trying to convince man into taking up that path, it is obvious that he would need to "act" in order to do so since man comprehends his world in light of the synthetic a priori action axiom. In the end, a proper understanding of theology whips away any paradox of divine action in the world.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
laminustacitus:And what if it a surpremely perfect being dealing with not so perfect men who he gave free will?
this is a glaring paradox. dont you recognise that supremely prfect beings have no 'dealings' with anything. ?
nirgrahamUK:this is a glaring paradox. dont you recognise that supremetly prfect beings have no 'dealings' with anything. ?
Its anything but a paradox for God created man as a free moral agent just below a god. Hence, man must choose his path, but God, in his infinite benevolence, is willing to help man along the path of holiness, which would be impossible for man without divine grace. Just because God is supremely perfect does not mean that He is unwilling to help his created reach salvation, in fact he does so because he is supremely perfect, and loves man as his people. Again, you need to read up on your theology before you proclaim "paradoxes" like this.
Once one stops being intellectually dishonest with one's self, one understands that.
a question then.
laminustacitus:(...God..)is willing to help man along the path of holiness,
p.s. for your info, to exemplify the paradox that you brushed over. the very act of 'creating' a set of beings human or otherwise, evidents that the creator is not a supreme being, because a supreme being would not act. there would be nomotive or reason to act, unless perhaps the result of acting and not acting are both equally 'perfect' and there is no cost to acting. since we are assuming no cost for acting, the paradox is that you must state that god acting to create flawed humans is an equally perfect act, as not having creating human beings would have been.
Laminustacitus, I still think you're missing the point of Mises's argument. Christian theology isn't going to help here, as it is the very basis of that theology that is under review. For an omnipotent being, the concept of ends and means does not apply. In other words, the statement that God "is willing to help man along the path of holiness" is nonsensical. If God's included free moral agents, such agents would have existed directly and necessarily. The idea that such a creation requires any action on God's part is flawed.
nirgrahamUK: a question then. laminustacitus:(...God..)is willing to help man along the path of holiness, is he willing to help man, through voluntary actions that he performs?(or if not) in what way do you mean this?
God helps man to attain salvation. From the point of view of man it seems like an action, but man cannot understand the world outside of the category of action; ergo, it may very well be something else, but man still comprehends it as action.
what you describe as"helping man to attain salvation" is equally outside of your conception as the world outside of the category of action. so you are admitting to making statements that although humans can interpret when they are said about humans, they can not be understood when they are about God. yet you said them about God.
This is effectively dishonest. To claim that 'god helps man to attain salvation'. whilst in the next breath saying that humans can't conceive of 'help' outside of the category of action...
the most you can say is that you have no idea what gods relationship to man and salvation is, you have no idea how god could possibly help in the sense that we can understand how other beings might help each other, or how things that are not beings help things that are.
all you yourself say that is sayable about God, is that God is. yet you wish to go on to tell us all sorts of things you claim to know about god, that you admit are beyond your knowledge. excuse me, this is a paradox.
laminustacitus: God helps man to attain salvation. From the point of view of man it seems like an action, but man cannot understand the world outside of the category of action; ergo, it may very well be something else, but man still comprehends it as action.
The Bible is filled with examples of God "acting" in the common, temporal sense. That belief is incompatible with mainline Christianity.
Knight_of_BAAWA:The supremely perfect omniscient creator of everything? Oh surely you can't be serious about that free will thing, since it's not possible. Oh, I know all the standard whines about how we do we do we do wedowedowedo have free will with your god. But no, we do not. It's just an illusion. So there is no real purposeful action at all--it's just a script which we don't know the lines to until each moment happens, and we have no ability to re-write it.
An illusion? I think not, I choose my actions, and so do you; stop blaming events on a "script".
Knight_of_BAAWA:Once one stops being intellectually dishonest with one's self, one understands that.
Once one becomes morally honest enought to oneself, we understand that we have free will and we must accept its consequences.
nirgrahamUK:p.s. for your info, to exemplify the paradox that you brushed over. the very act of 'creating' a set of beings human or otherwise, evidents that the creator is not a supreme being, because a supreme being would not act. there would be nomotive or reason to act, unless perhaps the result of acting and not acting are both equally 'perfect' and there is no cost to acting. since we are assuming no cost for acting, the paradox is that you must state that god acting to create flawed humans is an equally perfect act, as not having creating human beings would have been.
You forget what attribute God also perfects: love, and it is out of that trait that God created man.
nirgrahamUK:what you describe as"helping man to attain salvation" is equally outside of your conception as the world outside of the category of action. so you are admitting to making statements that although humans can interpret when they are said about humans, they can not be understood when they are about God. yet you said them about God.
I am saying that I am limited by human comprehension, yet all of the above never says that God acts; I have said that God chooses the mode of action in order to communicate with man, and that man understands God as acting because of his own limitations, but I have never said that God acts.
nirgrahamUK:This is effectively dishonest. To claim that 'god helps man to attain salvation'. whilst in the next breath saying that humans can't conceive of 'help' outside of the category of action...
As far as God helping man to attain salvation, it is a truth revealed in the scriptures.
nirgrahamUK:the most you can say is that you have no idea what gods relationship to man and salvation is, you have no idea how god could possibly help in the sense that we can understand how other beings might help each other, or how things that are not beings help things that are.
Good thing God gave man the scriptures to help clear up problems like this.
nirgrahamUK:all you yourself say that is sayable about God, is that God is. yet you wish to go on to tell us all sorts of things you claim to know about god, that you admit are beyond your knowledge. excuse me, this is a paradox.
I know about God based on what has been revealed in the scriptures.
laminustacitus:An illusion?
laminustacitus:I choose my actions
laminustacitus:Once one becomes morally honest enought to oneself, we understand that we have free will and we must accept its consequences.
JustinTime:For an omnipotent being, the concept of ends and means does not apply. In other words, the statement that God "is willing to help man along the path of holiness" is nonsensical.
If God is to help man along the path of salvation, he must make himself known to man, and because man comprehends the world through action, then it would seem that God must communicate through action. As far as your comment "Christian theology isn't going to help here", a good understanding of the theology of the incarnation is quite beneficial here.
so if its in some scripture you believe it about god. great. thats the only admission we needed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX85Y5Zb7sw
how do you know about God?
you learned it!, from a book!
laminustacitus:If God is to help man
God does not help man; if help is to mean help how men use the word help. if you want to invent some GodWords to communicate on the subject of god that are categorically different from the words of men, good luck to you. but it is dishonest as you yourself have as much as admitted for you to suggest to people that 'God helps man'
nirgrahamUK: laminustacitus:If God is to help man God does not help man; if help is to mean help how men use the word help. if you want to invent some GodWords to communicate on the subject of god that are categorically different from the words of men, good luck to you. but it is dishonest as you yourself have as much as admitted for you to suggest to people that 'God helps man'
Intellectually dishonest? You are trying to accuse me of being intellectually dishonest as you yourself travel into the same terrain. Do you mind telling me a rational proof of why God does not help man as man helps man. Or are you just going to say that God doesn't act? If you are, I've already explained how God, in order to help man, must make himself known to man by limiting himself as man is limited so that man can comprehend His "actions", basic theology of the incarnation, and thus "act". You know you try to accuse me of being intellectually dishonest whilst you critique Christian theology without knowing its basics.
you are confusing dishonesty with ignorance. i am being honest so long as when i argue using various statements i am not believeing my statements to be false or knowingly using flawed statements to make points to win arguemnts.
if i dont know each line of 'scripture' that is ignorence not dishonesty.
checkit.
God does not help man as man helps man assuming god is a perfect being that cannot act as man acts.(which is what you have stated, yet this also limits god, another paradox!)
Because 'help' is not understandable outside of the real of 'human action'. then help cannot apply to God just as 'human action' does not.
is that simple enough?
yet another problem for you. you say god might 'help' in the sense that we he does is not help, since he doesnt 'do' anything, in the human understandable concept of 'doing' ,he just is a perfect being and thats it; but we perceive help.
well either we perceive it or we dont. you seem to. i dont.
furthermore, one might say that god 'hurts' and yet people percieve it as helping.
or that god does not exist, though people perceive that there is a god helping them. (example: people who believe in spiritual system that you deny 'percieve help'. i.e. 'woodsprites', 'spirits of the earth'.)
laminustacitus: [God] must make himself known to man, and because man comprehends the world through action, then it would seem that God must communicate through action.
[God] must make himself known to man, and because man comprehends the world through action, then it would seem that God must communicate through action.
We're going in circles now. There is nothing that God "must" do. If he is omnipotent, all states are available to him directly with no action. Any concept that involves God communicating or otherwise acting to bring about some result is nonsensical. As Mises said, the state of perfection must necessarily be complete, final, and unchanging.