Just looking for any information on this topic.
I have some ideas on this topic, but they are foetal, and in all likelihood, useless.
tacoface: Just looking for any information on this topic. I have some ideas on this topic, but they are foetal, and in all likelihood, useless.
I am not sure about what exactly you are asking. But some of the work of Hoppe (like this lecture, especially) may fit that description.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
I tried doing it yesterday -I wouldn't trust mine either since it all depends on how well I grasp philosophy/logic.
Anyways it was fun though, out of curiosity, what was your idea anyways?
Adam Knott post incoming.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
http://www.praxeology.com/prax.htm
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:Haha. It's amazing how much nonsense can follow from the enlightening and empty tautology that "humans act"...
how can it be nonsense if it follows from it? tautological perhaps but untrue, no.
Ah yes and how fashionable it is to attack the procedure of logical implication formally governed by the rule that conclusions following from true premises must be true. I mean it is not like all scientific knowledge and methods of deductive reasoning rest on this category...
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
Juan:Because it doesn't really follow. The rules of logic can tell you if a theory is consistent or not, but the rules are not the theory. The theory doesn't follow from the rules. The same is true for something like the so called action axiom. It can be used to check the consistency of theories but not to 'create' them.
the creative, imaginitive, insightful mind, tethered to the axioms... explores possible implications, and tests itself for error by considering the consistency of its derivations against the bedrock axioms, and so the axioms alone do not 'create' them (the theorems and further conclusions), but the axioms alone can logically entail them... the axioms are the germs of the theorems.
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
Juan:Haha. It's amazing how much nonsense can follow from the enlightening and empty tautology that "humans act"... s.
BAM! Kicking your moral crusade up a notch, I see
While your at it, I think the Hitleresque science of theist Newton and the Fabians Watson and Crick could use denouncing, as their other beliefs make gravity and the double helix ethically and morally incorrect.
Your eyes seem very wide; perhaps you should blink them every so often to prevent losing sight and gaining visions.
Ah yes and how fashionable it is to attack the procedure of logical implication
but the axioms alone can logically entail them
Juan:It doesn't entail 'everything'.
World is illusion.
A is A
These are both logically consistent propositions.
edit: Theoretically, consistent with a scientific theory in other words, the former proposition is not necessarily true. Episteme is different than logic. Sometimes knowledge is in error and thus the whole theory fails, but that has nothing to do with logic.
Juan:Logic is not the whole realm of knowledge.
well, i agree. coolbeans
All of mathematics is also tautologies, in the looser sense of the word. In math, we don't use the word "theory" but instead "theorem" - to distinguish from a scientific theory, which is always subject to refinement. Like correct mathematical theorems, correctly derived praxeological statements are not subject to refinement. They are either correctly derived, and hence apodictically certain, or there was an error in the derivation.
Why anarchy fails
All of mathematics is also tautologies,
Again, tautologies in the looser sense: All the theorems are already implied in the axioms.
Juan: Haha. It's amazing how much nonsense can follow from the enlightening and empty tautology that "humans act"...
Haha. It's amazing how much nonsense can follow from the enlightening and empty tautology that "humans act"...
What nonsense?
Juan, go start your own thread.
And I didn't know Adam Knott had his own site and wrote books, lol. I just assume everyone here is young.
As for my ideas, they are not good enough to be put up yet. I'm going to read Adam Knott's work though and see how he approaches the subject.
Thanks for the responses.
Juan:By the way dondooleee you are such a hypocrite. My 'moral crusade', whatever that is, seems to upset you because it just happens to be at odds with your amoral crusade. You are an amoralist crusader who denies to be a crusader. How laughable.
1) You say hypocrite like it is a word I care about. I can assure you, I don't
2) Without getting into an argument about morality (My point was focused on the way I view your method of judgment), and focusing on the "crusading" aspect of things:
I am not an objective moralist for the same reason why I do not believe in life on Mars (whether I am right or wrong the reasoning is still the same); I have placed the burden of proof on them, and thus far (without getting into any argument of whether I am right or wrong) I remain unconvinced. This would not make me a "crusader" against life on Mars I don't think.
If I were to activly persue the position of no life on Mars beyond all reason, or if I were to judge unrelated topics based off the person's positioning of life on Mars I think that would cross into crusading.
At most you may be able to say I am crusading for whatever it is that interests me personally at the moment. I certainly would not be putting the cause of amorality above my concerns though. And at the moment I am saying that I strongly suspect you are judging a scientist and his science based off of an ethical framework.
Juan:Juan, go start your own thread. Oh sorry. I didn't realize you 'owned' this thread or had any authority to tell me what to do...
I don't care. You never add anything enlightening to a thread. Instead you degrade and derail the discussion.
If you find your topic so fascinating, go start another thread on it and leave this one alone
I'm not going to speak for Jaun, but I think what he was trying to say was that "All humans act" is descriptive, but not prescriptive.
. And at the moment I am saying that I strongly suspect you are judging a scientist and his science based off of an ethical framework.
I think what he was trying to say was that "All humans act" is descriptive, but not prescriptive.
Juan:Ah yes and how fashionable it is to attack the procedure of logical implication That's not what I did. You fail.
Indeed, consider my assessment revised. I don't think your characterisation of the "axiom" or category of action is correct however. It is not quite equivalent to logical statements since it is synthetic a priori that reveals consequences in the real world through the actions of ourselves and others, though recognising this already requires an implicit understanding of the category and what follows from it. This is predicated on its universality along with the basic categories of logic with regard to human actors. Even though I don't share their views, I can understand why empiricists would be perturbed by such an assertion.
Juan:I don't care. You never add anything enlightening to a thread. Instead you degrade and derail the discussion. awwwww. I'm so mean while the great resident 'philosophers' are such geniuses....
twistedbydsign99: I'm not going to speak for Jaun, but I think what he was trying to say was that "All humans act" is descriptive, but not prescriptive.
Yes that is the argument, but what is unusual is why is he bringing it up now after all his time with AE? It seems like a question one would ask fairly early on. And on a semi-amusing note is he using positivist thinking dismissing "mere tautologies"? This month for him seems to be "pick on Mises month". The months prior you could slowly see him getting more agitated with ethical questions about Mises (yes, I noticed, I don't claim to have an exciting life).
My hypotheses was that ethics drove him to diss the dude, which would also be somewhat amusing. I was hoping he would admit to it so I could get a chuckle for the day, but the outlook seems like I have to find something else to keep me occupied on a 12 hr train ride.
Juan:I think what he was trying to say was that "All humans act" is descriptive, but not prescriptive. Yes, that's one of the problems. On the other hand people like Knott want to redefine ethics and morality in order to turn them into just that kind of thing - a "descriptive" morality...
You mean, we would have to face reality? Oh dear...
Can this topic remain more or less on track? It would be great if we could avoid trolling, flaming and/or baiting each other.
tacoface: You mean, we would have to face reality? Oh dear...
tacoface. you do understand humans are not robots i hope.
abskebabs: Indeed, consider my assessment revised. I don't think your characterisation of the "axiom" or category of action is correct however. It is not quite equivalent to logical statements since it is synthetic a priori that reveals consequences in the real world through the actions of ourselves and others, though recognising this already requires an implicit understanding of the category and what follows from it. This is predicated on its universality along with the basic categories of logic with regard to human actors. Even though I don't share their views, I can understand why empiricists would be perturbed by such an assertion.
I don't think you or Juan disagree, I'm only relying on the posts in this current thread. If elaboration is necessary, then the thread will continue.
If so, I do not know why that is relevant. For I do not believe that any person here contradicted that.