I think I've been putting off listening to Human Action because I just am sometimes put off by just how Ludwig Von Mises seems to have a complete dislike of philosophies. I understand where he's coming from... but it's as if he's attacking these philosophies for being against individualism... and that Ludwig Von Mises fails to understand or at least doesn't want to understand what these philosophies are trying to explain.
Not all these philosophies are somehow socialist because they don't have an individualist mindset like him or I or someone else here might have. I am an individualist myself... but I want some clarification about Ludwig Von Mises so I can listen to him and all without being put off by him. So he's that kind of guy that detests philosophy or am I missing something? I just want to make sure I understand what his point of view is before I keep listening to him... is it that he disagrees with the metaphysical approach that the old philosophers have taken? What's his view on philosophy? This has just been bothering me (while I've listened to him). So I felt I should ask the question.
I don't understand your question. Mises was a philosopher, who developed his own philosophical methodology which he employed towards economic analysis, namely, praxeology.What do you mean when you say he's against philosophy? Metaphysics is truth, understanding being and acquiring knowledge; he's certainly not against this. He does refute a lot of abstract bullshit which relies on utterly incomprehensible jargon in order to conceive mass confusion, but this doesn't mean he's against truth or philosophy in general. Can you give me some specific examples?
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
You could spend years trying to fully understand Mises' views on philosophy. But he certainly didn't detest philosophy. Von Mises simply stressed that Economics is the foundation for philosophy and not the other way (as others felt).
I think you are put off by the utilitarian philosophy of Mises. Even if you don't like it read it, because Human Action is basically more about economics.
I know that Human Action is about economics mainly. It's just that the first two chapters are about philosophy and that I just disagreed with a few of his views on other philosophies. That is- his views on the metaphysical philosophies. I don't like how he demonizes them, I'll try to find some passages from the text (I'll do it later today) to show more of what I dislike about his views... but it's like he takes the position of an extreme individualist- and I agree with individualism... it's just that I think he sees these philosophies as attacks on individualism... and he makes many good points about them- but he makes it seem like they have a sinister agenda.
Esuric: I don't understand your question. Mises was a philosopher, who developed his own philosophical methodology which he employed towards economic analysis, namely, praxeology.What do you mean when you say he's against philosophy? Metaphysics is truth, understanding being and acquiring knowledge; he's certainly not against this. He does refute a lot of abstract bullshit which relies on utterly incomprehensible jargon in order to conceive mass confusion, but this doesn't mean he's against truth or philosophy in general. Can you give me some specific examples?
I remember him saying that philosophers have made no significant contribution. That's not true in my opinion- philosophers helped jump start human thought and without them Ludwig Von Mises wouldn't be where he was today (and I also disliked his comments about philosophical professors not understanding the economy since all they did was just be around teaching philosophy).. Another thing- I think was when Ludwig Von Mises attacked philosophers that viewed things in a collectivist principle- he disagrees with them yes and tears them apart in his work... but it's just that he takes it more personally that it's an attack on individualism when I see that they're more trying to understand the world as a whole. That's really what puts me off.
Angurse:You could spend years trying to fully understand Mises' views on philosophy. But he certainly didn't detest philosophy. Von Mises simply stressed that Economics is the foundation for philosophy and not the other way (as others felt).
That doesn't make sense. Philosophy is the studying and love of logic. How can you have economic theory without first establishing logic? You seem to be advocating backward causation. If you feel I am wrong then I would ask you why the first hundred pages of Human Action are devoted to the philosophical foundations of Mises' economic theory. Why doesn't he go first into economic then explain how economics creates X philosophical statement?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man: That doesn't make sense. Philosophy is the studying and love of logic. How can you have economic theory without first establishing logic? You seem to be advocating backward causation. If you feel I am wrong then I would ask you why the first hundred pages of Human Action are devoted to the philosophical foundations of Mises' economic theory. Why doesn't he go first into economic then explain how economics creates X philosophical statement?
Philosophy isn't necessarily the studying (and love) of logic, more importantly logic isn't necessarily philosophy. It is a science. In Human Action Mises is setting forth a sound theory of knowledge, which is fundamental toward understanding human action and therefore economics. Mises felt that his methods of discovering economics was a "third class of laws of the universe." However, if you want to say "Angurse you big dummy! Mises believed in logic and logic is philosophy, I don't care if you call it science its still philosophy." that fine too. As much of the what Mises attacks is Metaphysics (a branch of philosophy), such as that put forth by Hegel, so in correspondence with the OP it still holds true, just swap Metaphysics for philosophy. In the Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science Mises makes this even clearer:
Although full of contempt for all it considers as metaphysics, the epistemology of positivism is itself based upon a definite brand of metaphysics. It is beyond the pale of a rational inquiry to enter into an analysis of any variety of metaphysics, to try to appraise its value or its tenability and to affirm or to reject it. What discursive reasoning can achieve is merely to show whether or not the metaphysical doctrine in question contradicts what has been established as scientifically proved truth.
Angurse: Although full of contempt for all it considers as metaphysics, the epistemology of positivism is itself based upon a definite brand of metaphysics. It is beyond the pale of a rational inquiry to enter into an analysis of any variety of metaphysics, to try to appraise its value or its tenability and to affirm or to reject it. What discursive reasoning can achieve is merely to show whether or not the metaphysical doctrine in question contradicts what has been established as scientifically proved truth.
I do not pretend to understand Kant. But perhaps that is why he called his three main books "Critique of . . .".
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Angurse:Economics is the foundation for philosophy
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:LOL. Probably best joke of the year...or century.
Yeah, Mises was pretty silly.(Do you have anything to contribute?)
Juan:LS, Don't delete my posts
Make better posts then.
SilentXtarian:I remember him saying that philosophers have made no significant contribution. That's not true in my opinion- philosophers helped jump start human thought and without them Ludwig Von Mises wouldn't be where he was today (and I also disliked his comments about philosophical professors not understanding the economy since all they did was just be around teaching philosophy).. Another thing- I think was when Ludwig Von Mises attacked philosophers that viewed things in a collectivist principle- he disagrees with them yes and tears them apart in his work... but it's just that he takes it more personally that it's an attack on individualism when I see that they're more trying to understand the world as a whole. That's really what puts me off.
Well, what have philosophers contributed recently? Philosopher's like Quine say that language is practically meaningless, Hume says causality is nonexistent. Pierce, another influential philosopher, says that truth is mass appeal, or consensus. It's hard to find any philosopher today who believes in actual absolute truth. Mises is absolutely right; philosophers sit around questioning the validity of numbers and math, deny morality, causality, and the external world (they can't tell you if they're dreaming or awake), all while pretending to be masters of the universe. Have you ever talked to a philosopher? Their understanding of economics is practically nonexistent, childish.
He attacks those collectivists because their ideas shape government policy and affect the lives of millions if not billions. Their ideas have led to mass genocides, starvation, and human rights violations. We need people like Mises to obliterate such destructive myths if we're to see a better more free world.
I haven't read Human action yet, but man I'm exited.
Juan: Angurse, your assertion is ridiculous. You are saying that economics is the foundation of philosophy, Mises never said that.
So do you have anything to contribute? (Evidence, misquotes, misinterpretations, etc...)
Angurse:So do you have anything to contribute? (Evidence, misquotes, misinterpretations, etc...)
Metaphysics is the genus philosophy; natural and social sciences are sub-sects of metaphysics (with different epistemological methods).
Esuric: Metaphysics is the genus philosophy; natural and social sciences are sub-sects of metaphysics (with different epistemological methods).
I don't think von Mises agreed. At the very least with the use of the term. It seems pretty clear that he saw metaphysical inquiry as useless due to humans categorising the world, and without the assumption of regularity, according to Mises, action would be impossible. As explained in Theory and History:
"Human scientific inquiry cannot proceed beyond the limits drawn by the insufficiency of man's senses and the narrowness of his mind. There is no deductive demonstration possible of the principle of causality and of the ampliative inference of imperfect induction; there is only recourse to the no less indemonstrable statement that there is a strict regularity in the conjunction of all natural phenomena. If we were not to refer to this uniformity, all the statements of the natural sciences would appear to be hasty generalizations.
And once you read Human Action you'll see him early on attack the metaphysics of Hegel and demonstrate why it cannot be used to challenge economics.
Angurse:And once you read Human Action you'll see him early on attack the metaphysics of Hegel and demonstrate why it cannot be used to challenge economics.
Well, you can attack the dialectical method without believing economics is the foundation of philosophy.
There's a biographical note at the end of Theory of Money and Credit which states: Mises was the first scholar to recognize that economics is part of a larger science of human action, a science which Mises called "praxeology."
Esuric: Well, you can attack the dialectical method without believing economics is the foundation of philosophy.
Sure, I don't think that the case, in this case.
Esuric:There's a biographical note at the end of Theory of Money and Credit which states: Mises was the first scholar to recognize that economics is part of a larger science of human action, a science which Mises called "praxeology."
I thought I already made this clear
Angurse:In Human Action Mises is setting forth a sound theory of knowledge, which is fundamental toward understanding human action and therefore economics. Mises felt that his methods of discovering economics was a "third class of laws of the universe."
I apologize for saying "economics is the foundation for philosophy," I should have said "Praxeology is the foundation for philosophy with economics being the most developed branch."
Better?
Angurse: I apologize for saying "economics is the foundation for philosophy," I should have said "Praxeology is the foundation for philosophy with economics being the most developed branch." Better?
Economics the most developed branch? I don't know, that's kind of awkward. I haven't read Human action, so I really don't know. I'm just saying it doesn't sound right.
Angurse:Philosophy isn't necessarily the studying (and love) of logic, more importantly logic isn't necessarily philosophy.
I should rephrase a word in my statement it is the love of wisdom. Philosophy originated from the Greeks and was called ' philosopho' which means lover of wisdom.
Angurse:It is a science. In Human Action Mises is setting forth a sound theory of knowledge, which is fundamental toward understanding human action and therefore economics.
No where did I say it was not a science. You made the comment that economics is the basis of philosophy. That is incorrect. Philosophy establishes the basis of economics like many other sciences. To have theory you must have logic and reasoning in order to systematize. Also let us be clear that when we say economics is a science it is a social one, not a natural.
Angurse:However, if you want to say "Angurse you big dummy! Mises believed in logic and logic is philosophy, I don't care if you call it science its still philosophy."
I said nothing of the sort.
Angurse: As much of the what Mises attacks is Metaphysics (a branch of philosophy), such as that put forth by Hegel, so in correspondence with the OP it still holds true, just swap Metaphysics for philosophy.
That is nonsense. You are now trying to say Mises attacked something he did not by saying 'well Mises attacked metaphysics...but lets expand that towards philosophy.'
Angurse:Although full of contempt for all it considers as metaphysics, the epistemology of positivism is itself based upon a definite brand of metaphysics. It is beyond the pale of a rational inquiry to enter into an analysis of any variety of metaphysics, to try to appraise its value or its tenability and to affirm or to reject it. What discursive reasoning can achieve is merely to show whether or not the metaphysical doctrine in question contradicts what has been established as scientifically proved truth.
I wouldn't construe positivism as anything concerning the discipline that is based on the truths beyond reality. That is all they see, empirical reality without abstractions or things that cannot be tested in a lab.
Laughing Man:No where did I say it was not a science. You made the comment that economics is the basis of philosophy. That is incorrect. Philosophy establishes the basis of economics like many other sciences. To have theory you must have logic and reasoning in order to systematize. Also let us be clear that when we say economics is a science it is a social one, not a natural.
Thats whats being contended; whether logic, and science, is philosophy. As Mises seems to hold a distinction between the two (at least with metaphysics).
Laughing Man:I said nothing of the sort.
Obviously.
Laughing Man:That is nonsense. You are now trying to say Mises attacked something he did not by saying 'well Mises attacked metaphysics...but lets expand that towards philosophy.'
Mises did attack metaphysics...frequently. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. Therefore Mises attacked philosophy...frequently. The only reason, I put this forth was to keep a distinction for those who contend that Mises' was still practicing a philosophy.
Esuric:Economics the most developed branch? I don't know, that's kind of awkward. I haven't read Human action, so I really don't know. I'm just saying it doesn't sound right.
From the Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science:
Up to now the only part of praxeology that has been developed into a scientific system is economics.
And there's much more, happy reading!
Angurse:Thats whats being contended; whether logic, and science, is philosophy. As Mises seems to hold a distinction between the two (at least with metaphysics).
Mises critiques positivism when it comes to metaphysics. Logic and metaphysics are subsets of philosophy as a whole. Where do you see Mises as attacking philosophy in general? Or where do you see Mises attacking metaphysics without invoking positivism?
Angurse:Mises did attack metaphysics...frequently. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. Therefore Mises attacked philosophy...frequently.
Well that is nonsense. Just because you think he dislikes metaphysics does not mean it can be extended through your own desires to be an attack on the whole of philosophy. Philosophy is not just metaphysics but epistemology, logic, ethics.
Angurse:The only reason, I put this forth was to keep a distinction for those who contend that Mises' was still practicing a philosophy.
He was. We all partake in philosophy to some degree. He wrote a whole book on epistemology, how could he of done that without 'practicing a philosophy'? Such is one of the tenets of philosophy.
Alright. I don't want to get in a discussion about philosophy. Specifically what Ludwig Von Mises says here makes me believe that he doesn't exactly understand philosophy- or I'm not understanding something.
Both primitive man and the infant, in a naive anthropomorphic attitude, consider it quite plausible that every change and event is the outcome of the action of a being acting in the same way as they themselves do. They believe that animals, plants, mountains, rivers, and fountains, even stones and celestial bodies, are, like themselves, feeling, willing, and acting beings. Only at a later stage of cultural development does man renounce these animistic ideas and substitute the mechanistic world view for them. Mechanicalism proves to be so satisfactory a principle of conduct that people finally believe it capable of solving all the problems of thought and scientific research. Materialism and panphysicalism proclaim mechanicalism as the essence of all knowledge and the experimental and mathematical methods of the natural sciences as the sole scientific mode of thinking. [p. 24] All changes are to be comprehended as motions subject to the laws of mechanics. The champions of mechanicalism do not bother about the still unsolved problems of the logical and epistemological basis of the principles of causality and imperfect induction. In their eyes these principles are sound because they work. The fact that experiments in the laboratory bring about the results predicted by the theories and that machines in the factories run in the way predicted by technology proves, they say, the soundness of the methods and findings of modern natural science. Granted that science cannot give us truth--and who knows what truth really means?--at any rate it is certain that it works in leading us to success.
Both primitive man and the infant, in a naive anthropomorphic attitude, consider it quite plausible that every change and event is the outcome of the action of a being acting in the same way as they themselves do. They believe that animals, plants, mountains, rivers, and fountains, even stones and celestial bodies, are, like themselves, feeling, willing, and acting beings. Only at a later stage of cultural development does man renounce these animistic ideas and substitute the mechanistic world view for them. Mechanicalism proves to be so satisfactory a principle of conduct that people finally believe it capable of solving all the problems of thought and scientific research. Materialism and panphysicalism proclaim mechanicalism as the essence of all knowledge and the experimental and mathematical methods of the natural sciences as the sole scientific mode of thinking. [p. 24]
All changes are to be comprehended as motions subject to the laws of mechanics.
The champions of mechanicalism do not bother about the still unsolved problems of the logical and epistemological basis of the principles of causality and imperfect induction. In their eyes these principles are sound because they work. The fact that experiments in the laboratory bring about the results predicted by the theories and that machines in the factories run in the way predicted by technology proves, they say, the soundness of the methods and findings of modern natural science. Granted that science cannot give us truth--and who knows what truth really means?--at any rate it is certain that it works in leading us to success.
The panmechanistic world view is committed to a methodological monism; it acknowledges only mechanistic causality because it attributes to it alone any cognitive value or at least a higher cognitive value than teleology. This is a metaphysical superstition. Both principles of cognition--causality and teleology--are, owing to the limitations of human reason, imperfect and do not convey ultimate knowledge. Causality leads to a regressus in infinitum which reason can never exhaust. Teleology is found wanting as soon as the question is raised of what moves the prime mover. Either method stops short at an ultimate given which cannot be analyzed and interpreted. Reasoning and scientific inquiry can never bring full ease of mind, apodictic certainty, and perfect cognition of all things. He who seeks [p. 26] this must apply to faith and try to quiet his conscience by embracing a creed or a metaphysical doctrine.
Some philosophies advise men to seek as the ultimate end of conduct the complete renunciation of any action. They look upon life as an absolute evil full of pain, suffering, and anguish, and apodictically deny that any purposeful human effort can render it tolerable. Happiness can be attained only by complete extinction of consciousness, volition, and life. The only way toward bliss and salvation is to become perfectly passive, indifferent, and inert like the plants. The sovereign good is the abandonment of thinking and acting.
It's stuff like this that makes me think that Ludwig Von Mises doesn't exactly understand philosophy. It sounds at some times that he's twisting their point of view... now I agree with Ludwig Von Mises on most things... but isn't he treating these views a bit harshly just because he disagrees with them?
just as there are popular idiocies now, there were popular idiocies then, and Mises attacked them. what's the problem? spell it out please.
Mises was not right about everything he ever thought. who is? but still, what actually bothers you about the quotes you posted?
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: just as there are popular idiocies now, there were popular idiocies then, and Mises attacked them. what's the problem? spell it out please. Mises was not right about everything he ever thought. who is? but still, what actually bothers you about the quotes you posted?
What bothers me is that yes- he attacked these philosophies for inconsistencies. I however feel that sometimes he goes a bit too far- and he then goes on to put all the people who follow these philosophies as people who are opposed to individualism... and who are opposed to economics... and any of those kinds of things. I mean just because someone has a collectivist view does not make them a marxist. That's all that bugs me... he makes it seem like they're all socialists or people who hate the individual- at least that's how he describes them in the text (that's how I see it). And no, I know Mises isn't perfect... it's just that I don't think he's right about this.
I don't see that you have gifted us with anything to discuss.
you have shared with us your 'feelings'.
I don't mind, but if you want to discuss it, then you will have to throw more in to the pot.
I think I do have something to discuss. What I am discussing here essentially is that I think that Ludwig Von Mises doesn't understand philosophy. Let me point out another quote.
The postulates of positivism and kindred schools of metaphysics are therefore illusory. It is impossible to reform the sciences of human action according to the pattern of physics and the other natural sciences. There is no means to establish an a posteriori theory of human conduct and social events. History can neither prove nor disprove any general statement in the manner in which the natural sciences accept or reject a hypothesis on the ground of laboratory experiments. Neither experimental verification nor experimental falsification of a general proposition is possible in its field.
Here I don't think metaphysics tries to bother with individual human actions. That's not what it aims at. So he has a point. Rather metaphysics aims at trying to find the underlying causes for group action- I believe. Do you want me to quote more? I think that he just fails at understanding what philosophy attempts to understand. I don't believe that philosophy attempts to understand the individual actions of humans- rather it attempts to understand motivations for various behaviors... and of that sort. That's different from praxeology in that praxeology looks at each individual case seperately and each individual action apart from one another. It's two different fields and two totally different things- I don't think philosophy attempts to do what praxeology does.
can you back this up?
Rather metaphysics aims at trying to find the underlying causes for group action
nirgrahamUK: can you back this up? Rather metaphysics aims at trying to find the underlying causes for group action
Perhaps.
Necessity and possibility See also: Modal logic and Modal realism Metaphysicians investigate questions about the ways the world could have been. David Lewis, in "On the Plurality of Worlds," endorsed a view called Concrete Modal realism, according to which facts about how things could have been are made true by other concrete worlds, just like ours, in which things are different. Other philosophers, such as Gottfried Leibniz, have dealt with the idea of possible worlds as well. The idea of necessity is that any necessary fact is true across all possible worlds; that is, we could not imagine it to be otherwise. A possible fact is true in some possible world, even if not in the actual world. For example, it is possible that cats could have had two tails, or that any particular apple could have not existed. By contrast, certain propositions seem necessarily true, such as analytic propositions, e.g. "All bachelors are unmarried." The particular example of analytic truth being necessary is not universally held among philosophers. A less controversial view might be that self-identity is necessary, as it seems fundamentally incoherent to claim that for any x, it is not identical to itself; this is known as the law of identity, a putative "first principle". Aristotle describes the principle of non-contradiction, "It is impossible that the same quality should both belong and not belong to the same thing . . . This is the most certain of all principles . . . Wherefore they who demonstrate refer to this as an ultimate opinion. For it is by nature the source of all the other axioms." [edit] Objects and their properties Further information: Problem of universals The world seems to contain many individual things, both physical, like apples, and abstract such as love and the number 3; the former objects are called particulars. Particulars are said to have attributes, e.g. size, shape, color, location and two particulars may have some such attributes in common. Such attributes, are also termed Universals or Properties; the nature of these, and whether they have any real existence and if so of what kind, is a long-standing issue, realism and nominalism representing opposing views. Metaphysicians concerned with questions about universals or particulars are interested in the nature of objects and their properties, and the relationship between the two. Some, e.g. Plato, argue that properties are abstract objects, existing outside of space and time, to which particular objects bear special relations. David Armstrong holds that universals exist in time and space but only at their instantiation and their discovery is a function of science. Others maintain that what particulars are is a bundle or collection of properties (specifically, a bundle of properties they have). [edit] Religion and spirituality Theology is the study of a God or gods and the nature of the divine. Whether there is a God (monotheism), many gods (polytheism) or no gods (atheism), or whether it is unknown or unknowable whether any gods exist (agnosticism), and whether the Divine intervenes directly in the world (theism), or its sole function is to be the first cause of the universe (deism); these and whether a God or gods and the World are different (as in panentheism and dualism), or are identical (as in pantheism), are some of the primary metaphysical questions concerning philosophy of religion. Within the standard Western philosophical tradition, theology reached its peak under the medieval school of thought known as scholasticism, which focused primarily on the metaphysical aspects of Christianity. While the work of the scholastics has been largely eclipsed in the wake of modern philosophy, key figures such as Thomas Aquinas still play an important role in the philosophy of religion.[citation needed]
Metaphysicians investigate questions about the ways the world could have been. David Lewis, in "On the Plurality of Worlds," endorsed a view called Concrete Modal realism, according to which facts about how things could have been are made true by other concrete worlds, just like ours, in which things are different. Other philosophers, such as Gottfried Leibniz, have dealt with the idea of possible worlds as well. The idea of necessity is that any necessary fact is true across all possible worlds; that is, we could not imagine it to be otherwise. A possible fact is true in some possible world, even if not in the actual world. For example, it is possible that cats could have had two tails, or that any particular apple could have not existed. By contrast, certain propositions seem necessarily true, such as analytic propositions, e.g. "All bachelors are unmarried." The particular example of analytic truth being necessary is not universally held among philosophers. A less controversial view might be that self-identity is necessary, as it seems fundamentally incoherent to claim that for any x, it is not identical to itself; this is known as the law of identity, a putative "first principle". Aristotle describes the principle of non-contradiction, "It is impossible that the same quality should both belong and not belong to the same thing . . . This is the most certain of all principles . . . Wherefore they who demonstrate refer to this as an ultimate opinion. For it is by nature the source of all the other axioms."
The world seems to contain many individual things, both physical, like apples, and abstract such as love and the number 3; the former objects are called particulars. Particulars are said to have attributes, e.g. size, shape, color, location and two particulars may have some such attributes in common. Such attributes, are also termed Universals or Properties; the nature of these, and whether they have any real existence and if so of what kind, is a long-standing issue, realism and nominalism representing opposing views.
Metaphysicians concerned with questions about universals or particulars are interested in the nature of objects and their properties, and the relationship between the two. Some, e.g. Plato, argue that properties are abstract objects, existing outside of space and time, to which particular objects bear special relations. David Armstrong holds that universals exist in time and space but only at their instantiation and their discovery is a function of science. Others maintain that what particulars are is a bundle or collection of properties (specifically, a bundle of properties they have).
Theology is the study of a God or gods and the nature of the divine. Whether there is a God (monotheism), many gods (polytheism) or no gods (atheism), or whether it is unknown or unknowable whether any gods exist (agnosticism), and whether the Divine intervenes directly in the world (theism), or its sole function is to be the first cause of the universe (deism); these and whether a God or gods and the World are different (as in panentheism and dualism), or are identical (as in pantheism), are some of the primary metaphysical questions concerning philosophy of religion.
Within the standard Western philosophical tradition, theology reached its peak under the medieval school of thought known as scholasticism, which focused primarily on the metaphysical aspects of Christianity. While the work of the scholastics has been largely eclipsed in the wake of modern philosophy, key figures such as Thomas Aquinas still play an important role in the philosophy of religion.[citation needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
Okay. What I meant by that statement is that it's a philosophy that aims at underlying certain causes of various phenomena throughout the universe and that it looks at it more from a collectivist perspective because it ignores the individual. I would like to introduce you to a concept called idealism
Another proposal discussing the mind-body problem is idealism, in which the material is sweepingly eliminated in favor of the mental. Idealists, such as George Berkeley, claim that material objects do not exist unless perceived and only as perceptions. The "German idealists" such as Fichte, Hegel and Schopenhauer took Kant as their starting-point, although it is debatable how much of an idealist Kant himself was. Idealism is also a common theme in Eastern philosophy. Related ideas are panpsychism and panexperientialism which say everything has a mind rather than everything exists in a mind. Alfred North Whitehead was a twentieth-century exponent of this approach. Idealism is a monistic theory, in which there is a single universal substance or principles. Neutral monism, associated in different forms with Baruch Spinoza and Bertrand Russell is a theory which seeks to be less extreme than idealism, and to avoid the problems of substance dualism. It claims that existence consists of a single substance, which in itself is neither mental nor physical, but is capable of mental and physical aspects or attributes – thus it implies a dual-aspect theory.
Another proposal discussing the mind-body problem is idealism, in which the material is sweepingly eliminated in favor of the mental. Idealists, such as George Berkeley, claim that material objects do not exist unless perceived and only as perceptions. The "German idealists" such as Fichte, Hegel and Schopenhauer took Kant as their starting-point, although it is debatable how much of an idealist Kant himself was. Idealism is also a common theme in Eastern philosophy. Related ideas are panpsychism and panexperientialism which say everything has a mind rather than everything exists in a mind. Alfred North Whitehead was a twentieth-century exponent of this approach.
Idealism is a monistic theory, in which there is a single universal substance or principles. Neutral monism, associated in different forms with Baruch Spinoza and Bertrand Russell is a theory which seeks to be less extreme than idealism, and to avoid the problems of substance dualism. It claims that existence consists of a single substance, which in itself is neither mental nor physical, but is capable of mental and physical aspects or attributes – thus it implies a dual-aspect theory.
Philosophy is concerned with the ultimate values of these things. I understand Ludwig Von Mises objects to these things and how philosophers approach the problem of understanding... but that's what I was saying and getting at before.
SilentXtarian: Here I don't think metaphysics tries to bother with individual human actions. That's not what it aims at. So he has a point. Rather metaphysics aims at trying to find the underlying causes for group action- I believe.
Here I don't think metaphysics tries to bother with individual human actions. That's not what it aims at. So he has a point. Rather metaphysics aims at trying to find the underlying causes for group action- I believe.
I am not exactly sure what most philosophers believe the demarcation of metaphysics to be; but, in the following quote, Mises illuminates what he believes it to be:
Ludwig von Mises; From "The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: It is beyond the pale of a rational inquiry to enter into an analysis of any variety of metaphysics, to try to appraise its value or its tenability and to affirm or to reject it. What discursive reasoning can achieve is merely to show whether or not the metaphysical doctrine in question contradicts what has been established as scientifically proved truth.
It is beyond the pale of a rational inquiry to enter into an analysis of any variety of metaphysics, to try to appraise its value or its tenability and to affirm or to reject it. What discursive reasoning can achieve is merely to show whether or not the metaphysical doctrine in question contradicts what has been established as scientifically proved truth.
In the view of Mises, the demarcation "metaphysics" studies what exists outside the capacity of human reason. I think, as I mentioned earlier, that that is why Kant called his main three books "Critique of . . .". I think that Kant believed that the only way to erect a "metaphysical" system is to determine what exists within the sphere of human reason, to "critique" the capability of human reason. For it would be impossible, by definition, because we are human, to specifically determine what exists without the sphere of human reason. In his book "Critique of Pure Reason" and its two most proximate companions, his book "Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics" and his book "Metaphysical Foundation of Natural Science", he attempted to demarcate the sphere of possible experience . . . and he called that "metaphysics".
SilentXtarian: Do you want me to quote more? I think that he just fails at understanding what philosophy attempts to understand. I don't believe that philosophy attempts to understand the individual actions of humans- rather it attempts to understand motivations for various behaviors... and of that sort. That's different from praxeology in that praxeology looks at each individual case seperately and each individual action apart from one another. It's two different fields and two totally different things- I don't think philosophy attempts to do what praxeology does.
Do you want me to quote more? I think that he just fails at understanding what philosophy attempts to understand. I don't believe that philosophy attempts to understand the individual actions of humans- rather it attempts to understand motivations for various behaviors... and of that sort. That's different from praxeology in that praxeology looks at each individual case seperately and each individual action apart from one another. It's two different fields and two totally different things- I don't think philosophy attempts to do what praxeology does.
In the view of Mises, the scientific demarcation which "attempts to understand motivations for various behaviors" does indeed exist outside praxeology. But that scientific demarcation is not called "philosophy"; it is called "psychology".
Laughing Man:Mises critiques positivism when it comes to metaphysics. Logic and metaphysics are subsets of philosophy as a whole. Where do you see Mises as attacking philosophy in general? Or where do you see Mises attacking metaphysics without invoking positivism?
I've already pointed out this contention twice now: logic isn't necessarily a subset of philosophy, you would have to include everything to be of philosophy to make it so. And Mises didn't attack philosophy in general, that was the point I was making. Rather he attacked philosophies [plural] that countered praxeology [the root of economics] such as metaphysics.
Laughing Man:Well that is nonsense. Just because you think he dislikes metaphysics does not mean it can be extended through your own desires to be an attack on the whole of philosophy. Philosophy is not just metaphysics but epistemology, logic, ethics.
I have no such desire and I purposefully distinguished metaphysics from philosophy as a whole, nor did I ever say Mises attacked philosophy as a whole.
Laughing Man:He was. We all partake in philosophy to some degree. He wrote a whole book on epistemology, how could he of done that without 'practicing a philosophy'? Such is one of the tenets of philosophy.
Hence the distinction.
Angurse:I've already pointed out this contention twice now: logic isn't necessarily a subset of philosophy, you would have to include everything to be of philosophy to make it so. And Mises didn't attack philosophy in general, that was the point I was making. Rather he attacked philosophies [plural] that countered praxeology [the root of economics] such as metaphysics.
Yes...everything does have to do with philosophy in a manner of speaking because you utilize reason and logic with everything. And yes logic is a branch of philosophy. And metaphysics isn't a 'philosophy', it is a branch of philosophy. You seemed very confused concerning what is and isn't in philosophy itself [ I also recall during one of our debates concerning ethics you said you didn't really care for it also ] so I suggest some basic reading materials, perhaps Roderick Long's seminar on the philosophical questions of praxeology, Austrianism and ethical systems within libertarianism.
Angurse:I have no such desire and I purposefully distinguished metaphysics from philosophy as a whole, nor did I ever say Mises attacked philosophy as a whole.
It is a separate branch within philosophy is that what you are trying to say? And yes you did say that Mises attacked philosophy
Angurse:Hence the distinction.
Distinction in what manner?
Laughing Man: Yes...everything does have to do with philosophy in a manner of speaking because you utilize reason and logic with everything. And yes logic is a branch of philosophy. And metaphysics isn't a 'philosophy', it is a branch of philosophy.
Yes...everything does have to do with philosophy in a manner of speaking because you utilize reason and logic with everything. And yes logic is a branch of philosophy. And metaphysics isn't a 'philosophy', it is a branch of philosophy.
Many hold reason and logic to be separate to that of philosophy, but with that of a science like mathematics. A wiki link doesn't disprove that, even considering logic to be a branch of philosophy doesn't mean it cannot be something else as well. But if we want to include science as a branch of philosophy it still doesn't matter, its just terminology, my point would still hold. As there is still a distinction at hand - instead of it being science vs metaphysics (a branch of philosophy) it just becomes science (a branch of philosophy) vs metaphysics (a branch of philosophy).
In fact, I covered this in my second post, just to try and avoid you getting confused:
Angurse:However, if you want to say "Angurse you big dummy! Mises believed in logic and logic is philosophy, I don't care if you call it science its still philosophy." that fine too. As much of the what Mises attacks is Metaphysics (a branch of philosophy), such as that put forth by Hegel, so in correspondence with the OP it still holds true, just swap Metaphysics for philosophy.
Why you've ignored this like 4 times now I have no idea but its getting old.
Laughing Man:It is a separate branch within philosophy is that what you are trying to say? And yes you did say that Mises attacked philosophy
What I am trying to say? That is exactly what I've said multiple times now!
Angurse:Metaphysics (a branch of philosophy)
Angurse:Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy
And again, I never said he attacked philosophy as a whole.
Laughing Man:Distinction in what manner?
By specifically stating not philosophy as a whole, but the branch called metaphysics. Multiple times.
Angurse:Many hold reason and logic to be separate to that of philosophy, but with that of a science like mathematics.
Well to put it bluntly, they are wrong. Logic is a branch of philosophy. Not some separate field apart from philosophy.
Angurse:A wiki link doesn't disprove that, even considering logic to be a branch of philosophy doesn't mean it cannot be something else as well.
That doesn't make sense. How can logic be a branch of philosophy yet also a branch of another social science? What is this science that it is apart of? History? Economics? Sociology?
Angurse: But if we want to include science as a branch of philosophy it still doesn't matter, its just terminology, my point would still hold.
There is a philosophy of science and I would comment that philosophy is a social science. However, science is not a branch of philosophy.
Angurse:As there is still a distinction at hand - instead of it being science vs metaphysics (a branch of philosophy) it just becomes science (a branch of philosophy) vs metaphysics (a branch of philosophy).
Again that doesn't make sense.
Angurse:Why you've ignored this like 4 times now I have no idea but its getting old.
Because you seem to get it right then you completely digress in what you say. You say things like Mises attacked metaphysics [ which is a separate branch of philosophy ] but then you say you can exchange metaphysics with philosophy and thus Mises attacked philosophy. Then you go onto to trying to state that logic is somehow a separate science from philosophy then you say 'well if you think logic is apart of philosophy then...well whatever.' All your responses in this topic have been muddled and so far the only things that are obvious is that you retracted you comment about economics building philosophy and that we have agreed that metaphysics is a subset of philosophy.
Angurse:And again, I never said he attacked philosophy as a whole.
You provided the very quote in which you say Mises attacked philosophy in your own response.
Angurse:just swap Metaphysics for philosophy.
Honestly, how can you now tell me that Mises didn't attack philosophy which is a discipline which involves more the metaphysics when you say..Mises attacked philosophy. You are being dishonest simply because you are wrong here. It's not like someone is keeping scholar points.
Esuric: SilentXtarian:I remember him saying that philosophers have made no significant contribution. That's not true in my opinion- philosophers helped jump start human thought and without them Ludwig Von Mises wouldn't be where he was today (and I also disliked his comments about philosophical professors not understanding the economy since all they did was just be around teaching philosophy).. Another thing- I think was when Ludwig Von Mises attacked philosophers that viewed things in a collectivist principle- he disagrees with them yes and tears them apart in his work... but it's just that he takes it more personally that it's an attack on individualism when I see that they're more trying to understand the world as a whole. That's really what puts me off. Well, what have philosophers contributed recently? Philosopher's like Quine say that language is practically meaningless, Hume says causality is nonexistent. Pierce, another influential philosopher, says that truth is mass appeal, or consensus. It's hard to find any philosopher today who believes in actual absolute truth. Mises is absolutely right; philosophers sit around questioning the validity of numbers and math, deny morality, causality, and the external world (they can't tell you if they're dreaming or awake), all while pretending to be masters of the universe. Have you ever talked to a philosopher? Their understanding of economics is practically nonexistent, childish. He attacks those collectivists because their ideas shape government policy and affect the lives of millions if not billions. Their ideas have led to mass genocides, starvation, and human rights violations. We need people like Mises to obliterate such destructive myths if we're to see a better more free world. I haven't read Human action yet, but man I'm exited.
I understand what he's saying. Philosophers nowadays may serve a useless function and their recent actions may have been entirely useless... but to say because all of these philosophies that have collectivist ideals to them are useless since they don't look at individual action- isn't that a bit much? I don't think that all these philosophies can be seen as an attack on individualism- like how he makes it out to be. I guess he did a good thing by obliterating these myths but I think he sometimes makes it seem like these philosophies are all involved in a socialistic plot (many of them may be- but not all of them I think are involved in one).
Angurse: Esuric: Metaphysics is the genus philosophy; natural and social sciences are sub-sects of metaphysics (with different epistemological methods). I don't think von Mises agreed. At the very least with the use of the term. It seems pretty clear that he saw metaphysical inquiry as useless due to humans categorising the world, and without the assumption of regularity, according to Mises, action would be impossible. As explained in Theory and History: "Human scientific inquiry cannot proceed beyond the limits drawn by the insufficiency of man's senses and the narrowness of his mind. There is no deductive demonstration possible of the principle of causality and of the ampliative inference of imperfect induction; there is only recourse to the no less indemonstrable statement that there is a strict regularity in the conjunction of all natural phenomena. If we were not to refer to this uniformity, all the statements of the natural sciences would appear to be hasty generalizations. And once you read Human Action you'll see him early on attack the metaphysics of Hegel and demonstrate why it cannot be used to challenge economics.
Okay my question is that yes- these philosophies cannot be used to challenge economics. But my question is can they really be seen as having an ulterior motive in mind? I don't think these philosophies attempt to out do the individual... that's what socialism aims at. Yes there are collective philosophies- but are all these philosophies essentially by themselves statist? Can you really say that? Yes- while these philosophies may look for ultimate truths, and ultimate causes for group collective behavior... with disregarding the individual- does that make them useless? Does that mean that they're all attacks on classical economics because they take a different view?
Laughing Man:Well to put it bluntly, they are wrong. Logic is a branch of philosophy. Not some separate field apart from philosophy.
Doesn't matter.
Laughing Man:That doesn't make sense. How can logic be a branch of philosophy yet also a branch of another social science? What is this science that it is apart of? History? Economics? Sociology?
Meaning there are different form of logic; philosophical logic, mathematical logic, computer logic, etc. Words can be used in different disciplines after all. And again, Mises considered praxeology to be a science all its own, the "third class of laws of the universe."
Laughing Man:Because you seem to get it right then you completely digress in what you say. You say things like Mises attacked metaphysics [ which is a separate branch of philosophy ] but then you say you can exchange metaphysics with philosophy and thus Mises attacked philosophy. Then you go onto to trying to state that logic is somehow a separate science from philosophy then you say 'well if you think logic is apart of philosophy then...well whatever.' All your responses in this topic have been muddled and so far the only things that are obvious is that you retracted you comment about economics building philosophy and that we have agreed that metaphysics is a subset of philosophy.
Being that metaphysics is a branch of philosophy it follows that Mises attacked philosophy (Note: Not the entire whole of philosophy). Just as if I stab you in the arm I have stabbed you, not necessarily all of you. Its just grammar.
I'm saying that whether you agree that logic [as proposed by Mises] is a science or you think that it is just a branch of philosophy [as you do] is still erroneous to the main point. As a distinction between it and Metaphysics still exists and that all that is necessary (as I, Ryan has also pointed out). I've expressed this multiple times now and it hasn't changed. Further, I didn't really retract my first comment, I simplified it and I never once said that metaphysics wasn't a branch of philosophy.
Laughing Man:You provided the very quote in which you say Mises attacked philosophy in your own response.
Yes, to clarify for those like you who cannot seem to grasp the distinction. Being that metaphysics is a branch of philosophy it follows that Mises attacked philosophy (Note: Not the entire whole of philosophy). Just as if I stab you in the arm I have stabbed you, not necessarily all of you. Its just grammar.
Laughing Man:Honestly, how can you now tell me that Mises didn't attack philosophy which is a discipline which involves more the metaphysics when you say..Mises attacked philosophy.
I'm not telling you that mises didn't attack philosophy. In fact, I've said multiple times now that he did. You (and only you) seem to be having a hard time with simple grammar.
SilentXtarian: Okay my question is that yes- these philosophies cannot be used to challenge economics. But my question is can they really be seen as having an ulterior motive in mind? I don't think these philosophies attempt to out do the individual... that's what socialism aims at. Yes there are collective philosophies- but are all these philosophies essentially by themselves statist? Can you really say that? Yes- while these philosophies may look for ultimate truths, and ultimate causes for group collective behavior... with disregarding the individual- does that make them useless? Does that mean that they're all attacks on classical economics because they take a different view?
I don't think so. For instance, Mises was anti-anarchist which, while collectivist, isn't statist. Nor do the need to have an ulterior motive, according to Mises, their foundations were just flawed. They can be considered useful in that they make for interesting reads, but useless at discovering economics (which Mises dedicated his life to) as many philosophies completely ignore human action or try to eliminate it.
Angurse:Doesn't matter.
How blithely you case off definitions when it suits you.
Angurse:Meaning there are different form of logic; philosophical logic, mathematical logic, computer logic, etc. Words can be used in different disciplines after all. And again, Mises considered praxeology to be a science all its own, the "third class of laws of the universe."
There is also the philosophy of history, philosophy of science, philosophy of love making. That doesn't mean philosophy is some shattered regiment broken up into separate sciences. Philosophy is its own discipline and can be applied to other academia. Logic is its own subset under philosophy and is applied. In such application it does not lose its nomenclature.
Angurse:Being that metaphysics is a branch of philosophy it follows that Mises attacked philosophy (Note: Not the entire whole of philosophy). Just as if I stab you in the arm I have stabbed you, not necessarily all of you. Its just grammar
Firstly, you have yet to establish that Mises attacked metaphysics qua metaphysics. All I have seen is a critique of positivism which I have addressed and which in my opinion isn't really concerned with metaphysical deduction or statements due to its empirical nature. Secondly, in supposedly attacking metaphysics that does not infer that he attacked the discipline of philosophy since there is more to philosophy then just simple metaphysical statements. If you want to postulate that he attacked metaphysics, then provide evidence and we shall discuss it. However, to swap metaphysics with the term philosophy is disingenuous.
Angurse:I'm saying that whether you agree that logic [as proposed by Mises] is a science or you think that it is just a branch of philosophy [as you do] is still erroneous to the main point.
Yes logic is a science, a social science since it is apart of philosophy and philosophy itself is a social science. I would very much like to see where Mises explicitly states that logic is a field completely separate from philosophy itself.
Angurse:As a distinction between it and Metaphysics still exists and that all that is necessary (as I, Ryan has also pointed out). I've expressed this multiple times now and it hasn't changed. Further, I didn't really retract my first comment, I simplified it and I never once said that metaphysics wasn't a branch of philosophy.
You can hardly be mad at me for thinking that you were trying to separate metaphysics from philosophy when you are at the same time trying to deny that logic is apart of philosophy. Both being branches of philosophy.
Angurse:I'm not telling you that mises didn't attack philosophy. In fact, I've said multiple times now that he did. You (and only you) seem to be having a hard time with simple grammar.
See and this is where the muddled conversation is present. You say you didn't tell me that Mises attacked philosophy, then you say he did. Philosophy is more then metaphysics, there are other branches of it. Therefore when you say he attacked philosophy, that infers that he attacked the discipline itself which has several branches [ Metaphysics, logic, epistemology and ethics ] but that is false. Therefore he didn't attack philosophy..according to you he attacked metaphysics which is a subset of philosophy and does not involve the other branches of philosophy per say. You cannot have it both ways. The definitions of the words you use are not interchangeable. I have no real issue with grammar, it seems to be you who is lacking in a proper definition of what philosophy means and what metaphysics means and the relationship between them.