These people think they are totally debunking AE and even Misesean praxeology as pure religion. Where do they go wrong?
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ar/uniquely_awful_others/
Why anarchy fails
http://mises.org/daily/5158/Mises-on-Mind-and-Method
Just thought I'd throw in a quote from Bertrand Russell which may shed a little light on the toipc:
"It has now become possible to decide with some confidence as to the truth or falsehood of these opposing schools. It must be admitted, for the reasons already stated, that logical principles are known to us, and cannot be themselves proved by expereince, since all proof presupposes them. In this, therefore, which was the most important point of the controversy, the rationalists were int he right." --Bertrand Russell, Problems of Philosophy.
Most of what we call "the rules of logic" (e.g., modus ponens) just tell you how you can rearrange a set of sentences in an equivalent manner, provided such sentences use words like "if" and "all" and "some" in a strict way.
Laotzu del Zinn:Other than the word "thing?" No.
But what does the word "thing" refer to?
Laotzu del Zinn:I wasn't aware they did.
You seemed to imply otherwise. Please be honest here.
Laotzu del Zinn:Because apples exist. 1's are made up so that we can easilier make sense of a dynamic world. I already explained this.
How exactly do apples exist? In fact, what do you even mean by the word "exist"?
Laotzu del Zinn:You're being obtuse.
No, I'm really not. I asked you for a definition and you're refusing to give me one. While I'm not being obtuse, you are being obstinate.
Laotzu del Zinn:Nobody has to think about an apple, or gravity for it to exist. 1's don't exist without someone thinking about them. Sure, 1s exist in the real world. But they are not "real world phenomena." Rather, they are phenomena imposed (don't take that word out of context plz) on the real world.
There's a word for "phenomena imposed on the real world" - noumena (in the ancient sense). But the thing is, apples and gravity are noumena, just like 1s are!
Laotzu del Zinn:I mean exactly what I said. It's nothing more than a clever play on words. And I do want you to answer it, or I wouldn't have asked. Just because I already have my answer in no way means I'm not open to new ones. I'm not dogmatic.
Let me put it another way: I think asking me a question and then not waiting for me to answer it is rude, and I won't abide by it.
Laotzu del Zinn:It's only a straw man (it's not in any way a red herring. wherein was I trying to divert away attention?) if you assume I was saying it being anthrocentric refutes its' validity. I had other reasons for refuting its' validity. But I also wanted to point out the anthrocentric nature of calling it "human action." [Emphasis added.]
The part I emphasized is the red herring. Whether "human action" can be said to be anthrocentric has no bearing on the topic of our discussion. Amazingly, you persist in trying to distract me from other things - it won't work, I can assure you.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
But what does the word "thing" refer to
It's an abstraction we use to better understand a dynamic world. "Thing" doesn't exist, even in the same sense as "apple." And when I say "apples exist," I mean the physical collection of cells we have chosen to give the word apple to. It exists, other than just as a word. "Thing" only exists as a word.
Actually I think I implied the opposite. Apples don't exist, other than as a noun we have given to a collection of cells.
I've already gave you the definition. Yet you keep asking for it... obtuse? Go back, and slowly and carefully read my posts and you will see I define real world phenomenon as "things that exist regardless of someone thinking of them." 1s have to be thought up, apples (again the collection of cells we call apple) and gravity (the physical process we call gravity) don't. 1s are phenomena of the mental world. They don't "exist" like "human" "apple" "key" etc.
No, they're not.
Platonic idealism died out centuries ago, friend. The word "apple" may be, but the collection of cells we call apples are not.
Again, this has been my point the whole time. Things like the word "apple" or "one" (which, the word apple, without an s, implies the number one) and "gravity" are terms we use to better understand a dynamic world. But I can show you an "apple." I have to write a "one" to show it to you. Numbers are in an even less realistic class of words than even apple and gravity, as they refer only to abstractions. "Apple" is an abstraction we use to refer to a real world phenomenon, "one" is an abstraction we use to refer to an abstraction, in this case singularity. I swear to Christ if I have to repeat myself again....
Well, that's your choice. Would I have made it any better for you if I said "In my opinion it is nothing more than a clever word play on words. Can you show me another place it is used, that is not economics?" If your feelings are going to get hurt everytime someone asks you a question they think they have an answer for, you're going to get nowhere in debate.
I've already answered this criticism. Notice the word "besides." That implies that I am saying "stop this previous argument for one second. I just want to say that it is anthrocentric to call it "human action." I'm not distracting you, I'm making two seperate arguments. Is multi-tasking too hard for you?
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Nobody is talking about Platonistic idealism or words in themselves. It is probably doxastic, elentic radical ontic Aristotlean materialism if anything. British empiricism and it's ilk is a messed up philisophical approach that over eager science hobbyists take too seriously
Please drop all claims to theology or Plato. Everyone knows that framework is dead. It would be up to the person arguing to state that is where they are comming from, rather than us assume it. In good faith, it is best to assume no one is a platonist or speaking about religion, etc. If anything, just assume the language is being used slightly different which causes confusion.
Nobody is talking about Platonistic idealism or words in themselves. It is probably doxastic, elentic radical ontic Aristotlean materialism if anything. British empiricism and it's ilk is a messed up philisophical approach that over eager science hobbyists take too seriously Please drop all claims to theology or Plato. Everyone knows that framework is dead. It would be up to the person arguing to state that is where they are comming from, rather than us assume it. In good faith, it is best to assume no one is a platonist or speaking about religion, etc. If anything, just assume the language is being used slightly different which causes confusion
Please drop all claims to theology or Plato. Everyone knows that framework is dead. It would be up to the person arguing to state that is where they are comming from, rather than us assume it. In good faith, it is best to assume no one is a platonist or speaking about religion, etc. If anything, just assume the language is being used slightly different which causes confusion
My apologies.
lol, no need to apologize. It is just an error that we all, myself included, tend to make. The last paragrph is something that has been bothering me lately, and hopefully if I bring it to more peoples attention it will cause better habits and more fruitful dialogue rather than people getting mixed up in discussions that go no where. That's the goal anyway.
Laotzu del Zinn:It's an abstraction we use to better understand a dynamic world. "Thing" doesn't exist, even in the same sense as "apple." And when I say "apples exist," I mean the physical collection of cells we have chosen to give the word apple to. It exists, other than just as a word. "Thing" only exists as a word.
Really? An apple isn't a thing?
My point is that "apple" also exists only as a word - as do "collection", "cell", etc.
Laotzu del Zinn:Actually I think I implied the opposite. Apples don't exist, other than as a noun we have given to a collection of cells.
Now you're contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that apples do exist. Which is it? (Note that this depends on your definition of "exist", which you also haven't provided.)
If you're going to say "Apples don't exist, other than as a noun we have given to a collection of cells", you can make an analogous statement about "things".
Laotzu del Zinn:I've already gave you the definition. Yet you keep asking for it... obtuse? Go back, and slowly and carefully read my posts and you will see I define real world phenomenon as "things that exist regardless of someone thinking of them." 1s have to be thought up, apples (again the collection of cells we call apple) and gravity (the physical process we call gravity) don't. 1s are phenomena of the mental world. They don't "exist" like "human" "apple" "key" etc.
I searched through the entire thread, and nowhere did you explicitly provide me with your definition of "real-world phenomenon". In fairness, though, I didn't directly ask you for it - my question was implied when I said "It depends on how you define 'real-world phenomenon.'" In any case, thank you for finally giving me an explicit answer to my (admittedly implicit) question.
Now, given your definition of "real-world phenomenon", even atoms aren't such. That's fine with me, but I suspect you'll want to disagree (and hence be inconsistent).
Laotzu del Zinn:No, [apples and gravity are not noumena]. Platonic idealism died out centuries ago, friend. The word "apple" may be, but the collection of cells we call apples are not.
As William pointed out, I'm not talking about Platonic idealism. In fact, my understanding of Platonic idealism is that it would claim the word "apple" to necessarily have a particular meaning. (But I could be wrong.) Anyway, my point is that there's nothing in reality that tells us to necessarily distinguish the pattern that we label (in English) with "apple" from any other observable pattern. Hence "apple" is a noumenon.
Laotzu del Zinn:Again, this has been my point the whole time. Things like the word "apple" or "one" (which, the word apple, without an s, implies the number one) and "gravity" are terms we use to better understand a dynamic world. But I can show you an "apple." I have to write a "one" to show it to you. Numbers are in an even less realistic class of words than even apple and gravity, as they refer only to abstractions. "Apple" is an abstraction we use to refer to a real world phenomenon, "one" is an abstraction we use to refer to an abstraction, in this case singularity. I swear to Christ if I have to repeat myself again....
You can also show me a "one". But while I agree that "one" is a more abstract noumenon than "apple", they're both still noumena. You're actually saying the same thing above!
Laotzu del Zinn:Well, that's your choice. Would I have made it any better for you if I said "In my opinion it is nothing more than a clever word play on words. Can you show me another place it is used, that is not economics?" If your feelings are going to get hurt everytime someone asks you a question they think they have an answer for, you're going to get nowhere in debate.
Do you expect this to have any particular effect on me? If so, don't get your hopes up.
Laotzu del Zinn:I've already answered this criticism. Notice the word "besides." That implies that I am saying "stop this previous argument for one second. I just want to say that it is anthrocentric to call it "human action." I'm not distracting you, I'm making two seperate arguments. Is multi-tasking too hard for you?
Let me put it this way: I consider your second and newer argument to be a distraction and completely unnecessary. In fact, it baffles me that you even brought it up.
Really? An apple isn't a thing? My point is that "apple" also exists only as a word - as do "collection", "cell", etc.
Now you're contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that apples do exist. Which is it? (Note that this depends on your definition of "exist", which you also haven't provided.) If you're going to say "Apples don't exist, other than as a noun we have given to a collection of cells", you can make an analogous statement about "things".
I think on this issue, we're sort of talking past each other. I'm in agreement that the word "apple" as a word is just an abstraction, just like "one." But the thing, the apple, the collection of cells, exists. "apple" is an abstraction we use to describe said collection of cells, whereas "one" is an abstraction we use to describe singularity, which is itself just an abstraction.
I don't follow. Atoms exist regardless of whether we think of them. Could you clarify?
ou can also show me a "one". But while I agree that "one" is a more abstract noumenon than "apple", they're both still noumena. You're actually saying the same thing above!
I'm arguing that the word "apple" is a noumenon, but an apple is not. Yet a one is purely a nounemon.
It was just a side-note, because it irks me. You can ignore it if you please.
But again, are there any other performative contradictions that are usefull for explaining real world phenomenon, that are not in the field of economics?
I think the whole performative contradiction argument is misguided as well (whether used by Hoppe, Mises, or anyone), although I am forced to qualify that with a "...but I await a coherent explanation of it."
Laotzu del Zinn:I think on this issue, we're sort of talking past each other. I'm in agreement that the word "apple" as a word is just an abstraction, just like "one." But the thing, the apple, the collection of cells, exists. "apple" is an abstraction we use to describe said collection of cells, whereas "one" is an abstraction we use to describe singularity, which is itself just an abstraction.
But the thing, the one, the pattern that we discern from everything else, also exists - whether we also call it an apple, a pear, or a human being.
Laotzu del Zinn:I don't follow. Atoms exist regardless of whether we think of them. Could you clarify?
Certainly. The concept of an atom isn't built into reality.
Laotzu del Zinn:I'm arguing that the word "apple" is a noumenon, but an apple is not. Yet a one is purely a nounemon.
But a one can be any singular thing, including an apple. So by your reasoning, how is it purely a noumenon again?
Laotzu del Zinn:It was just a side-note, because it irks me. You can ignore it if you please.
Already done.
Laotzu del Zinn:But again, are there any other performative contradictions that are usefull for explaining real world phenomenon, that are not in the field of economics?
Do you consider disregarding the laws of thought to result in a performative contradiction?
Apples, pears, and humans exist as functioning real world phenomenon. The words "apple" "pear" and/or "human" only exist as words. Nature makes no distintion between an apple, it's stem, or the tree it grows upon. But, in order for us to better understand a dynamic universe, we have to make such distinctions.
I think I'm still misunderstanding you. Atoms certainly exist. The word atom is just a word we use to describe them. I am saying there is a stark difference between the words we use to describe things, and the things themselves. Again, nature makes no distinction between the carbon, and the hydrogen atoms in an apple. But we have to make that distinction.... but that doesn't make the distinction any more real.
I think this lady has a lot to say on these supposed "laws."
There are plenty of perfomative contradictions - and don't take the fact that I'm illiterate as an argument against this point.
Laotzu del Zinn:Apples, pears, and humans exist as functioning real world phenomenon. The words "apple" "pear" and/or "human" only exist as words. Nature makes no distintion between an apple, it's stem, or the tree it grows upon. But, in order for us to better understand a dynamic universe, we have to make such distinctions.
I didn't realize we were necessarily talking about the human perspective. I thought we were talking about reality itself, which doesn't care (so to speak) about our concepts. Are you sure you're not changing the context?
Laotzu del Zinn:I think I'm still misunderstanding you. Atoms certainly exist. The word atom is just a word we use to describe them. I am saying there is a stark difference between the words we use to describe things, and the things themselves. Again, nature makes no distinction between the carbon, and the hydrogen atoms in an apple. But we have to make that distinction.... but that doesn't make the distinction any more real.
I understand what you mean, in the sense that a collection of electrons "orbiting" a collection of protons and neutrons doesn't have to be referred to by the word (sound-form) "atom". My point is entirely apart from that. It's about the fact that the concept that we refer to with the word "atom" doesn't exist in external reality. For example, the nature of an electron doesn't change because it's bound to an atom - assuming electrons are fundamental particles of the universe, which may turn out to be inaccurate. In other words, what we call "atoms" have no meaning outside of our minds.
Laotzu del Zinn:I think this lady has a lot to say on these supposed "laws."
I'm sorry but where am I supposed to begin with that site? Honestly, it reminds me a lot of this.
The "laws of thought" are more like "advice on how to use words so as not to confuse people." I don't see any possibility of performative contradiction.