Political Theory

Re: Praxeology: Economics and Evolution

Adam Knott — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:56:38 GMT

"The common attributes which the elements of any of these classes possess are not physical attributes but must be something else."

(Hayek, "The Facts of the Social Sciences")

Re: Praxeology: Economics and Evolution

I. Ryan — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:20:08 GMT

Adam Knott:

OK I meant, by the terms of the original statement, explicitly stated, that there are two kinds of impressions. In this case, for Hume, another person must either be an internal impression or an external impression.

If not, then Hume must explain (as he asks others to do in the passage I quoted) how another person is different from his internal and external impressions.

For Hume, another person is either an internal impression or an external impression. If not, Hume has to explain why not, and how another person is different from those.

Once we assign another person to one of Hume's categories----internal impression or external impression----we will still want to know what distinguishes the two categories.

Yeah, I deleted that response because I figured out what you meant.

Re: Praxeology: Economics and Evolution

Adam Knott — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:05:55 GMT

Re: Praxeology: Economics and Evolution
By I. Ryan in Political Theory

Adam Knott:

But this third category is not available to you.

Why is it not available to me?

******

OK I meant, by the terms of the original statement, explicitly stated, that there are two kinds of impressions. In this case, for Hume, another person must either be an internal impression or an external impression.

If not, then Hume must explain (as he asks others to do in the passage I quoted) how another person is different from his internal and external impressions.

For Hume, another person is either an internal impression or an external impression. If not, Hume has to explain why not, and how another person is different from those.

Once we assign another person to one of Hume's categories----internal impression or external impression----we will still want to know what distinguishes the two categories.

Re: Praxeology: Economics and Evolution

wilderness — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 18:52:55 GMT

I. Ryan:
How is it possible to not be a realist, then?

Ask Adam.

Re: Praxeology: Economics and Evolution

I. Ryan — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 18:18:01 GMT

wilderness:

It is a philosophical term used when in ontological reference. A realist asking "What exists?" and then proceeds to philosophically answer the question. You can see why Adam saying a realist isn't a praxeologist is very baffaling. Because would that mean praxeology doesn't exist? I don't know. I was baffle.

How is it possible to not be a realist, then?

Re: Praxeology: Economics and Evolution

wilderness — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 18:11:44 GMT

I. Ryan,

It is a philosophical term used when in ontological reference. A realist asking "What exists?" and then proceeds to philosophically answer the question. You can see why Adam saying a realist isn't a praxeologist is very baffaling. Because would that mean praxeology doesn't exist? I don't know. I was baffle.

Re: Praxeology: Economics and Evolution

Adam Knott — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:44:13 GMT

I Ryan:

I don't think you realize the full extent of the difficulty involved in the Humean conception you are advocating.

The relevant question is not how we determine what belongs to the former category and what to the latter.

The relevant question is the relationship of the two categories.

You have tried to solve the problem by referring to the concept of "other people" as a third category.

But this third category is not available to you. You have not presented Hume's theory in terms of three categories, but in terms of two categories.

For the individual actor, another person is either an internal impression or an external impression; either a "private impression" or a "public impression".

For the individual actor, another person must be one of these, or, a third category must be established.

Regardless of the name given to the two categories, from the point of view of the individual actor, another person is classified as one of those.

Then the problem still remains as to the relationship between the two categories.

This problem is not solved by referring to an implicit third category called "other people."

Here is what Hume says about unexplained relations. I paraphrase:

"I cannot forbear adding to these reasonings an observation, which may, perhaps, be found of some importance. In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of an impression or perception, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, this impression, and that impression, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an internal impression or an external impression. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this internal impression, or external impression, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention wou'd subvert all the empirical systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceiv'd by reason."

Re: Praxeology: Economics and Evolution

I. Ryan — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:26:02 GMT

First:

wilderness:

realists

What is a "realist"?

Re: Praxeology: Economics and Evolution

wilderness — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:23:28 GMT

I. Ryan,

Now seeing that we've come to an understanding in the other thread you can see why Adam here might be having difficulty in understanding in what realists say. Remember when you asked me in one thread 'what should we do now'. And I at first asked 'pertaining to what', then answered 'help some people learn what an axiom is'. Cause it comes down to that, even in this thread it appears.

Re: Praxeology: Economics and Evolution

I. Ryan — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:41:05 GMT

wilderness:

So these two don't have any physical relationship with each other?

Private impressions have no physical relationship with public impressions.

wilderness:

How does this address the Feynman youtube?

It doesn't. I should have been clearer, sorry. I am dividing my impressions into (a) internal, private, ones and (b) external, public, ones. I am not taking a stand on the question of whether the ones called "external" mirror any sort of reality beyond my perceptions.

Re: Praxeology: Economics and Evolution

wilderness — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:21:40 GMT

I. Ryan:
So I think that it might be helpful, to avoid confusion, to replace the phrase "external world" with "public realm" and the phrase "internal world" with "private realm".

So these two don't have any physical relationship with each other? How does this address the Feynman youtube?

Re: Praxeology: Economics and Evolution

I. Ryan — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:06:27 GMT

Adam Knott:

If these so-called external objects are not to be considered spatially external to the actor's perceptual impressions, in what sense are they separated or distinct from the actor's perceptual impressions?

He makes the distinction between his "external impressions" and his "internal impressions". He is not saying that they have any sort of physical relationship with each other, like the former are external to something and the latter are internal to something. He is just dividing his impressions into two categories.

Now the relevant question are these, on one hand, how do we determine what belongs to the former category and what to the latter, and, on the other hand, what is the point of dividing your impressions into those two categories?

Well, to answer the first one, the way that we determine which belongs to which is that, on one hand, internal impressions are 'private', other people around you do not have those same impressions at the same time, and, on the other hand, external impressions are 'public', other people around you do have those same impressions at the same time.

Now the second question is more difficult. Who cares about the division into the external world, that is, the 'public realm', and the internal world, that is, the 'private realm'? Well, I think that the answer is what I was trying to explain before. We do not see the private realms of other people; yet the events of those private realms determine their movements. So, to make sense of their movements, we have to first examine the workings of our private realm and understand how it determines our movements and then we are able to assume that other people have private realms which work in a similiar way to ours.

So I think that it might be helpful, to avoid confusion, to replace the phrase "external world" with "public realm" and the phrase "internal world" with "private realm".

Re: Praxeology: Economics and Evolution

I. Ryan — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:38:08 GMT

baxter:

Based on your theory, we should see municipal governments in United States annexing failed, adjacent municipal governments that are less capable of producing pro-statist propaganda and therefore have lesser survival value. That doesn't seem to be happening.

I am not sure why my theory implies that.

baxter:

Even defaulting states generally don't disappear; they continue surviving.

Because people support them.

baxter:

I think praxeology applied to the human beings running institutions provides a sufficient description. It is political careers facing destruction, not the destruction of institutions, that matters.

Hoppe often commences analyses like these; for example, listen to this lecture.

Re: Praxeology: Economics and Evolution

I. Ryan — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:35:52 GMT

Adam Knott:

You have removed the concept of purposiveness from the concept of action, and replaced it with a conception of two events, one happening inside something, and another event happening outside of something.

No, I did not; again, they are just metaphors, like the word "high" in "that is a high number".

Adam Knott:

You have just defined action as an external manifestation of internal events.

I should have said "the action of other people, of the external world" instead of just "action".

Adam Knott:

I think what you are referring to here, is actor A observing the movements of B, believing them or interpreting them to be actions.

I am, yes.

Adam Knott:

In your example, we would need to make it explicit which action we are studying the logic of:

A's action in observing/interpreting B. Or, B's action in doing what he is doing.

In your example it is not clear whose action we are referring to in order to illustrate the logic of individual action.

Both, probably. For we have to presuppose that A is an actor to be able to suppose that A is able to interpret the movements of B as actions. Is that at all what you meant?

Re: Praxeology: Economics and Evolution

wilderness — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 03:49:28 GMT

ladyattis,

Have you read any of Stephen Jay Gould's work? He took on Darwin in a massive way. He didn't refute Darwin's essential points but stripped away lot's of unverified and inconclusive Darwinian theory. One major subject Gould changed with Niles Eldridge was "gradualism". This is pretty old puncuated equilibrium stuff. The fossil record doesn't show 'gradualism' for about 99% of all geological records yet for over 100 years paleontologists just assumed it was true.