General

Re: A question about Ludwig Von Mises.

Angurse — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:19:56 GMT

Laughing Man:
I agree with that statement. I am making the distinction that there are other metaphysical theories out there that do not necessarily contradict Mises' views, therefore he would have no reason to attack them, therefore there are metaphysical theories Mises didn't attack, therefore Mises did not attack metaphysics as a whole.

And therefore irrelevent, as my proposition was that of Mises defending economics from "attackers." Such metaphysical theories obviously wouldn't be included.

Laughing Man:
I don't think this is true because Mises himself is considered a Kantian and Kant himself had much to say on metaphysical theory

To call him a Kantian would be a disservice to him, yes he agreed with Kant about the limitations of the human mind, but he rejected that a human needs a particular set of categories for experience. Further Kant and Mises had very different ideas about the noumenal self.

Re: A question about Ludwig Von Mises.

Andrew Cain — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:08:00 GMT

Angurse:
it doesn't change the argument that Mises defended praxeology [economics] from challengers

I agree with that statement. I am making the distinction that there are other metaphysical theories out there that do not necessarily contradict Mises' views, therefore he would have no reason to attack them, therefore there are metaphysical theories Mises didn't attack, therefore Mises did not attack metaphysics as a whole.

Angurse:
And his hostility towards metaphysics is quite clear throughout his writing, it isn't just the aforementioned groups and positivists

I don't think this is true because Mises himself is considered a Kantian and Kant himself had much to say on metaphysical theory

Re: A question about Ludwig Von Mises.

Angurse — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:54:14 GMT

Laughing Man:
Ok but these do not make the corpus of metaphysics. Yes he critiqued scientism and behaviourism but there are more metaphysical theories out there. So continuing where we left off, Mises critique metaphysical theories but not metaphysics itself.

And what exactly?

Your trying to play the same grammar game as before, just swap philosophy for metaphysics (talk about irony), it doesn't change the argument that Mises defended praxeology [economics] from challengers. And his hostility towards metaphysics is quite clear throughout his writing, it isn't just the aforementioned groups and positivists. In fact, he agreed with the Positivist argument on the placement of science over philosophy (he was from Vienna after all), but lamented them for being nothing more metaphysicians themselves (at the time they were calling it "antimetaphysics"), as their theory of meaning directly challenges the foundations of praxeology. However, any metaphysical theory that didn't challenge economics (i.e. try to overturn science) wouldn't be of any concern to him and therefore irrelevant.

Re: A question about Ludwig Von Mises.

Andrew Cain — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:58:59 GMT

Angurse:

Its really just a brief defense of praxeology against scientism, behaviourism, and various form of metaphysics.

Ok but these do not make the corpus of metaphysics. Yes he critiqued scientism and behaviourism but there are more metaphysical theories out there. So continuing where we left off, Mises critique metaphysical theories but not metaphysics itself.

Angurse:
Mises actually heavily critiques Marx's dialectical materialism

Yes I know. It is a good critique. I've read it.

Re: A question about Ludwig Von Mises.

Angurse — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:21:50 GMT

Laughing Man:
This sounds like a critique of the Hegelian dialectical theory of history ... that pot is the 'will'

OK?

Its really just a brief defense of praxeology against scientism, behaviourism, and various form of metaphysics.

Mises actually heavily critiques Marx's dialectical materialism (itself an off-shoot of Hegelian dialectics) and he doesn't so much heavily critique Hegel's theory of history as he just calls it useless - "an arbitrary guess"

Re: A question about Ludwig Von Mises.

Andrew Cain — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:46:46 GMT

Angurse:
Human knowledge is conditioned by the power of the human mind and by the extent of the sphere in which objects evoke human sensations. Perhaps there are in the universe things that our senses cannot perceive...for the time being, no traces of their existence penetrate into our sphere in a way that can modify our sensations. It may also be that the regularity in the conjunction of natural phenomena we are observing is not eternal but only passing, that it prevails only in the present stage (which may last millions of years) of the history of the universe and may one day be replaced by another arrangement.

This sounds like a critique of the Hegelian dialectical theory of history in which he believed what is rational is actual and what is actual is rational. Meaning that there is a sub-layer of general guiding principles through the span of history which causes us to arrive at the very point where we are today. This guiding principle according to Hegel is the 'will.' This 'will' can be compared to something like Marx's forces of production. Not visible on the surface necessarily but a prime force in the realization of history. Here is a good example at understanding Hegelian theory. Think of a potter at one of those silly little spinners for pot making. He is just starting off and the first pot he makes is nothing like it is suppose to be. He tries again, and it gets a little better yet still not perfect. The potter keeps on trying to make his pot over and over again until he gets it exactly right. Now install Hegelianism into the scene. The human race is the potter and the pot is our existence. According to Hegel, we are constantly striving toward self-perfection in the form of finding our own divinity as a human race. We have the chance to be gods, we just haven't perfected the pot yet in a manner of speaking. Getting to that pot is the 'will'

Re: A question about Ludwig Von Mises.

Angurse — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:47:27 GMT

krazy kaju:
Where does Mises do this?

Throughout his writings.

Chapter 2 of Human action he defends praxeology [economics] from various "attackers." (My word, not his)

Early in the Theory and History he defended it against metaphysical inquiry by defending the principle of regularity;

Human knowledge is conditioned by the power of the human mind and by the extent of the sphere in which objects evoke human sensations. Perhaps there are in the universe things that our senses cannot perceive...for the time being, no traces of their existence penetrate into our sphere in a way that can modify our sensations. It may also be that the regularity in the conjunction of natural phenomena we are observing is not eternal but only passing, that it prevails only in the present stage (which may last millions of years) of the history of the universe and may one day be replaced by another arrangement.

Such and similar thoughts may induce in a conscientious scientist the utmost caution in formulating the results of his studies. It behooves the philosopher to be still more restrained in dealing with the apriori categories of causality and the regularity in the sequence of natural phenomena.

as well as:

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.

He further defends the limitation on human thought in The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science. As I, Ryan has pointed out he uses a similar argument as Kant.

Re: A question about Ludwig Von Mises.

krazy kaju — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:11:09 GMT

Angurse:
Von Mises simply stressed that Economics is the foundation for philosophy and not the other way (as others felt).

Where does Mises do this?

Re: A question about Ludwig Von Mises.

Angurse — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:09:50 GMT

nirgrahamUK:

Mises was a philosopher and economist. it is obfuscating to say he 'attacked' philosophy. or was an 'enemy' of philosophy.

Never said he was an enemy of philosophy. In my first post, "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)."

Using attack in such a manner is correct:

S: (v) attack, round, assail, lash out, snipe, assault (attack in speech or writing) "The editors of the left-leaning paper attacked the new House Speaker"
S: (n) attack (strong criticism) "he published an unexpected attack on my work"
S: (n) fire, attack, flak, flack, blast (intense adverse criticism) "Clinton directed his fire at the Republican Party"; "the government has come under attack"; "don't give me any flak"

nirgrahamUK:
he attacked some 'philosophical concepts' and the philosophising of some 'particular philosopher' or 'philosophic traditions'

Yes, second post. "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."

nirgrahamUK:
Mises attacked Marxist 'economics' but he did not attack 'economics' nor was he an enemy of 'economics', in fact, quite the opposite.

And as we all know Marxian economics isn't economics.

Re: A question about Ludwig Von Mises.

Angurse — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:57:06 GMT

Laughing Man:
Well I figured you would actually provide a quote to Mises explicitly attacking metaphysics qua metaphysics. Not positivism. You have yet to do such a thing. And also are we going to have to have a discussion on how Hegel is not metaphysics? Or are you going to go loopy again and say that since Mises attacked Hegel that means he attacked metaphysics?

Well you figured wrong. You purposefully skipped a quote that completely refutes about the last two pages of you incoherence. And you've been trying to suck my into another black-hole about whether Mises' refutation of Metaphysics was intended toward metaphysics as a whole or just specific metaphysical theories. Its irrelevant. I'm not passing that event horizon

Laughing Man:
Really? You find strength in quotes in which contradict what you are now saying? Can your arguments get more muddled?

The quote basically spelled out your entire complaint. {Call me Nostradamus!] That was put there just to stop erroneous threadjackings over grammatic quibbles. Your first response to it should have made it obvious that you were having none of it. ["it" being basic comprehension]

Laughing Man:
Yes, that is disingenuous. Are you trying to pass off that all philosophy is metaphysics [ then go onto try and denounce me as not making a distinction, the irony in that is wonderful ]? If you are then you lack a proper definition of what philosophy is. If you are not then you are purposely neglecting the other branches. If Mises attacked logic, ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics, then he attacked philosophy, or if he explicitly state that philosophy is bupkis then he attacked philosophy. Attacking a branch of a discipline does not infer that you are attacking the discipline. Do you see attacking Keynesianism as an assault on economics? I would think not, but who knows what you could possibly say next.

Of course, I cannot stab you. I cannot eat steak. [You are hung-up on grammar]

Laughing Man:
Anyone who wishes to read your quotes has the possiblity to, I have copy and pasted the prevalent part. I don't see a 'well whatever' comment after your second quote to be a prevalent part of what we are discussing since we obviously care about which is right and wrong.

Yeah, you read "well whatever" when it clarifies a simple grammatical issue.

Laughing Man:
Muddled minds create muddled writing and I have ignored no explanations. I have retorted to each of your points while continuing to supposedly 'harp' on grammar.

Au contraire - "well whatever." (Add muddled mind to the list)

Re: A question about Ludwig Von Mises.

Andrew Cain — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:01:45 GMT

Angurse:

Did you purposefully skip this?:

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. In the Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science Mises makes this even clearer:

Well I figured you would actually provide a quote to Mises explicitly attacking metaphysics qua metaphysics. Not positivism. You have yet to do such a thing. And also are we going to have to have a discussion on how Hegel is not metaphysics? Or are you going to go loopy again and say that since Mises attacked Hegel that means he attacked metaphysics?

Angurse:
(And quoting my scare quotes actually strengthens my point. So thanks for that)

Really? You find strength in quotes in which contradict what you are now saying? Can your arguments get more muddled?

Angurse:
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.

Yes, that is disingenuous. Are you trying to pass off that all philosophy is metaphysics [ then go onto try and denounce me as not making a distinction, the irony in that is wonderful ]? If you are then you lack a proper definition of what philosophy is. If you are not then you are purposely neglecting the other branches. If Mises attacked logic, ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics, then he attacked philosophy, or if he explicitly state that philosophy is bupkis then he attacked philosophy. Attacking a branch of a discipline does not infer that you are attacking the discipline. Do you see attacking Keynesianism as an assault on economics? I would think not, but who knows what you could possibly say next.

Angurse:

In fact, that second quote you seem to have purposefully ignored, as you only chopped the first section out.

Anyone who wishes to read your quotes has the possiblity to, I have copy and pasted the prevalent part. I don't see a 'well whatever' comment after your second quote to be a prevalent part of what we are discussing since we obviously care about which is right and wrong.

Angurse:
Harping about grammar isn't fruitful, ignoring explanations completely and continuing to harp on grammar is just...

Muddled minds create muddled writing and I have ignored no explanations. I have retorted to each of your points while continuing to supposedly 'harp' on grammar.

Re: A question about Ludwig Von Mises.

nirgrahamUK — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:57:38 GMT

Mises was a philosopher and economist. it is obfuscating to say he 'attacked' philosophy. or was an 'enemy' of philosophy.

he attacked some 'philosophical concepts' and the philosophising of some 'particular philosopher' or 'philosophic traditions'

Mises attacked Marxist 'economics' but he did not attack 'economics' nor was he an enemy of 'economics', in fact, quite the opposite.

Re: A question about Ludwig Von Mises.

Angurse — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:40:37 GMT

Laughing Man:

Haha that hasn't been about what this discussion has been about. Do not try to backtrack and say we were talking about logic and metaphysics. It was logic and philosophy.

Did you purposefully skip this?:

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. In the Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science Mises makes this even clearer:

(And quoting my scare quotes actually strengthens my point. So thanks for that)

Laughing Man:
Which quote? The one on positivism? The one I addressed?

"I'm not telling you that mises didn't attack philosophy. In fact, I've said multiple times now that he did."

Laughing Man:
Yes, but then you have gone onto say that he attacked philosophy because you think he attacked metaphysics. Thus the conflict. Philosophy is the term given to the discipline as a whole which includes its branches. You cannot say 'I'm attacking England' then go onto say 'I'm attacking the United Kingdom' since the UK is made up of several nations and there are nations that you are not attacking within such a kingdom [ Scotland, Ireland and Whales ]. So it is disingenuous to say what you are saying, Hence the hubbub.

I've already explained this.

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.

Angurse:
Remember my stabbing you in the arm means I also stabbed you. And my saying I eat steak doesn't necessarily mean I eat all steak. You are having much trouble with simple grammar.

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.

In fact, that second quote you seem to have purposefully ignored, as you only chopped the first section out. So please save your exclamations of my being blithely, dishonest, disingenuous until you have a leg to stand on. Harping about grammar isn't fruitful, ignoring explanations completely and continuing to harp on grammar is just...

Re: A question about Ludwig Von Mises.

Andrew Cain — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:26:01 GMT

liberty student:
There are some people who believe logic and philosophy are the same thing. Unfortunately.

Logic is a subset of philosophy. A branch within philosophy itself. If you read through all my posts you will see I made such a distinction. Perhaps there are individuals who think that logic IS philosophy and they should be educated on what philosophy actually is. There is however someone here who thinks that logic is something completely separate from philosophy. In the sense that it is not apart of philosophy.

Re: A question about Ludwig Von Mises.

Andrew Cain — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:22:38 GMT

Angurse:
That isn't whats transpiring. What matters is if there is a distintion between logic and metaphysics, there is. (What is this 6 times now?)

Haha that hasn't been about what this discussion has been about. Do not try to backtrack and say we were talking about logic and metaphysics. It was logic and philosophy.

Let me refresh you memory:

Angurse:
'Philosophy isn't necessarily the studying (and love) of logic, more importantly logic isn't necessarily philosophy.'

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.'

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.'

Angurse:
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

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.

Angurse:
I said Mises did attack philosophy. The very quote says so. "I'm not telling you that mises didn't attack philosophy. In fact, I've said multiple times now that he did." What he didn't attack was the whole of philosophy.

Which quote? The one on positivism? The one I addressed?

Angurse:
I've made it quite clear on several occasions what branch of philosophy he attacked.

Yes, but then you have gone onto say that he attacked philosophy because you think he attacked metaphysics. Thus the conflict. Philosophy is the term given to the discipline as a whole which includes its branches. You cannot say 'I'm attacking England' then go onto say 'I'm attacking the United Kingdom' since the UK is made up of several nations and there are nations that you are not attacking within such a kingdom [ Scotland, Ireland and Whales ]. So it is disingenuous to say what you are saying, Hence the hubbub.