Newbies

Re: Introduction

The Late Andrew Ryan — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:44:26 GMT

Welcome. Good to see another among us... I agree with alot of your views except for the religious/conservative ones. If you would like somone to discuss things with I'd be happy to help

Re: Introduction

wombatron — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:21:03 GMT

Esuric:
This is an attack on socialism, aimed towards Marx's socialist man.

It is definitely intended to be a praxeological disproof of God. With the aim of keeping things interesting, though:

Roderick T. Long:
This argument makes sense only if “uneasiness” and “discontent” are interpreted
psychologistically. For i agine a God who acts, not to change anything, but just to keep
some process going because he wishes that it continue. Such a God needn’t feel any
discomfort with the way things are going; to think otherwise misses the force of the
whistling-Ludwig example. Of course Mises might object: if God wants a certain
process to continue, he can just will once and for all that it continue, without the need for
further intervention from him. But what if the process whose continuation God desires is,
or involves, a process of God’s doing something? (After all, the whistler’s desire is not
simply that whistling occur but that he do the whistling.) It is no slight to God’s
omnipotence to note that there is at least one sequence of events that God cannot set in
motion once and for all without the need of any further action on his part, and that is a
state of affairs in which God continues to act. Even the Almighty cannot dispense with
means in achieving his end if using means is part of his end.148

(from Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action, pg. 130-131)

Re: Introduction

Conza88 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:14:41 GMT

Esuric:
This is an attack on socialism, aimed towards Marx's socialist man.

Ah pg 107 of the pdf, not Human Action... so it's not.

So it's page 69 of Human Action.

So it's part of the Chapter II - Epistemological Problems of the Science of Human Action, in particular "The Limitations on Praxeological Concepts"

The last few paragraphs then tie into the next Chapter Economics a Revolt Against Reason.

I fail to see how the praxeological considerations listed above, do not apply to an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscent being - i.e God?

"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."

How is that not meant to mean God?

Re: Introduction

Esuric — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 08:17:41 GMT

Conza88:

chloe732:
Does that mean you are certain there is no god? If so, what is the basis of your certainty

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.

Human Action, Ludwig Von Mises pg 107

This is an attack on socialism, aimed towards Marx's socialist man.

Re: Introduction

Conza88 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:28:37 GMT

chloe732:
Does that mean you are certain there is no god? If so, what is the basis of your certainty

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.

Human Action, Ludwig Von Mises pg 107

Re: Introduction

Esuric — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 05:59:10 GMT

NewLiberty:
I don't think there's evidence for those assumptions.

Call it intuition. I'd like to see how he answers the questions.

NewLiberty:
How about we welcome the new member in, and feel good about ourselves because new people are finding the Mises Institute?

We didn't bring him here, he came himself. There's no reason to feel 'good about ourselves.'

Re: Introduction

chloe732 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 05:47:45 GMT

patientliberty7:
I'm a strong atheist, viewing religion with the same suspicion as the state; as far as I am concerned, man will not be free until the last king is hung by the entrails of the last priest. No Gods, no Masters. I make no bones about my antipathy to religion.

What is a "strong atheist"? Does that mean you are certain there is no god? If so, what is the basis of your certainty?

After the "last king is hung" and the last priest is disemboweled, then what?

How would you act upon your "antipathy to religion"?

Re: Introduction

NewLiberty — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 05:37:16 GMT

patientliberty7:
I don't want to sound like a grouch, so I'll tell you want I'm for: open immigration, free markets, free trade, getting the government out of marriage, drug legalization, and the end of patent monopoly. I'm a fan of Free Talk Live and have interest in joining the Free State Project.

You'll find the intellectual ammunition that you need to defend those views here at mises org. Welcome.

Re: Introduction

NewLiberty — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 05:35:57 GMT

Esuric:
Again, your ideas are not backed by theory or sound facts, just emotion. Why do you support open boarders? Why do you support free markets? Why do you support free trade?

I don't think there's evidence for those assumptions. How about we welcome the new member in, and feel good about ourselves because new people are finding the Mises Institute?

Re: Introduction

NewLiberty — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 05:34:22 GMT

bbnet:
From the rest of your post I infer that you are a minarchist and nihilist?

He says he is a market anarchist.

Re: Introduction

bbnet — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 05:26:29 GMT

Howdy Patient, this site is great with lottsa of interesting and knowledgeable members.

When reading your post, I associated your username with mention of 'crash' and thought you may have been recovering from an accident when your philosophy was going full circle ... lol

From the rest of your post I infer that you are a minarchist and nihilist? If so, prepare yourself for some debate on both of these positions by some of the members here.

Are you familiar with the No State Project?

Re: Introduction

Conza88 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:48:51 GMT

Welcome to the forums. I've just got a few questions.

patientliberty7:
Before the crash, I was a libertarian

Were you a natural law / natural rights libertarian?

patientliberty7:
I'm a strong atheist, viewing religion with the same suspicion as the state; as far as I am concerned, man will not be free until the last king is hung by the entrails of the last priest. No Gods, no Masters. I make no bones about my antipathy to religion.

Would you initiate violence / aggression against those who preach?

patientliberty7:
Let it also be known that I *loath* conspiracy theories; I'm a cock-up theorist, thank you very much.

Do those in power follow their self interest? What is your class analysis? Do you know much about praxeology?

patientliberty7:
I accept AGW

What are your thoughts on climategate? Those emails were just a cockup right?

Cheers.

Re: Introduction

Esuric — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:51:30 GMT

patientliberty7:
I'm a strong atheist, viewing religion with the same suspicion as the state; as far as I am concerned, man will not be free until the last king is hung by the entrails of the last priest. No Gods, no Masters. I make no bones about my antipathy to religion.

You're driven by your irrational hatred of religion. Many atheists lean towards Marx because he spent so much time criticizing religion.

patientliberty7:
I don't want to sound like a grouch, so I'll tell you want I'm for: open immigration, free markets, free trade, getting the government out of marriage, drug legalization, and the end of patent monopoly. I'm a fan of Free Talk Live and have interest in joining the Free State Project.

Again, your ideas are not backed by theory or sound facts, just emotion. Why do you support open boarders? Why do you support free markets? Why do you support free trade?

Re: Introduction

Wanderer — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:39:03 GMT

patientliberty7:

I don't want to sound like a grouch, so I'll tell you want I'm for: open immigration, free markets, free trade, getting the government out of marriage, drug legalization, and the end of patent monopoly.

Hell yes! *pound*

Welcome, patientliberty7

Re: Introduction

patientliberty7 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 02:10:14 GMT

Good to know I'm not entirely alone. I mean, I guess conspiracy theory and libertarianism has been around since forever, but come on! That don't mean I have to accept it hook, line, and sinker. I'll think for myself.

Besides conspiracy theorist give the government way too much credit.