Political Theory

Re: A friendly introduction to Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics

Gumdy — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 23:41:50 GMT

Yes. "Want" being the operative word. It's a preference being demonstrated; a goal being presupposed, not a norm. If you had said "ought" instead of "want", you'd have been claiming that a norm was being presupposed, and I would have disagreed.

This is now just nit-picking but prefering a goal, is also accepting a norm (I ought to achieve the goal). Let's not dwell on semantics though.

This whole paragraph can be reduced down to: "When we engage in discourse to resolve a conflict, we demonstrate a preference for engaging in discourse to resolve a conflict." Which means the paragraph can be removed completely, since that is exactly the conclusion you reached at the end of the paragraph immediately before it! ("The implied goal is that participants prefer to resolve their dispute without resorting to violence.")

OK, there are a few things that add information in the subsitution. The purpose of the paragraph was to show a context, and clarify the link between saying something and "engaging in argument" with all the presuppositions. So I'm not sure it's redundant. but that really doesn't seem to be worth not making an effort to clear such minute details.

Re: A friendly introduction to Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics

Graham Wright — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 23:27:59 GMT

Gumdy:

Yes, thank you, I now understand what you are talking about.

The act of {engaging in discourse to resolve a conflict}, presupposes the basic norm of peaceful conflict resolution.

Now, the first sentence is false, unless you consider actions in general to presuppose norms, which they don't, they only demonstrate preferences.

This is just semantic. Discourse is non violent, once it is violent, it's not discourse. so if you want to resolve an argument via discourse it also is presupposed (by the nature of discourse) that you want to resolve it in a non-violent way.

Yes. "Want" being the operative word. It's a preference being demonstrated; a goal being presupposed, not a norm. If you had said "ought" instead of "want", you'd have been claiming that a norm was being presupposed, and I would have disagreed.

Gumdy:

an actor engages in {discourse to resolve a conflict} by speaking, {making a statement during discourse engaged in to resolve a conflict} (by use of sound, hands ext.).

The second sentence is false, because speaking is not equivalent to making a statement during discourse engaged in to resolve a conflict.

No, again, this is only talking about waht it physically means to engage in argument, I don't see anything false here.

Well if it's not false, it's tautological. Depends how you meant the comma. You're not really saying anything here, except that 'discourse can include speaking'. Well, thanks!

Gumdy:
{Discourse engaged in to resolve a conflict} is nothing but an exchange of verbal {statements made during discourse engaged in to resolve a conflict}.

A proposition is not nessaseraly expressed in an argument, it's a more general term which is relevant and is a part of an argument. From the begining you are fusing definition and context. This isn't a big deal, just I think this might be confusing when you substitue things...

That's the point I made initially, and your response was that we're talking only about propositions in the context of argumentation. But this needs to be made clear. You can't alternate between the normal definition of proposition and your "in context" definition of proposition.

You missed my substitution of your fourth sentence, the one that is true.

This whole paragraph can be reduced down to: "When we engage in discourse to resolve a conflict, we demonstrate a preference for engaging in discourse to resolve a conflict." Which means the paragraph can be removed completely, since that is exactly the conclusion you reached at the end of the paragraph immediately before it! ("The implied goal is that participants prefer to resolve their dispute without resorting to violence.")

Re: A friendly introduction to Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics

Gumdy — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 21:13:44 GMT

Yes, thank you, I now understand what you are talking about.

The act of {engaging in discourse to resolve a conflict}, presupposes the basic norm of peaceful conflict resolution.

Now, the first sentence is false, unless you consider actions in general to presuppose norms, which they don't, they only demonstrate preferences.

This is just semantic. Discourse is non violent, once it is violent, it's not discourse. so if you want to resolve an argument via discourse it also is presupposed (by the nature of discourse) that you want to resolve it in a non-violent way.

an actor engages in {discourse to resolve a conflict} by speaking, {making a statement during discourse engaged in to resolve a conflict} (by use of sound, hands ext.).

The second sentence is false, because speaking is not equivalent to making a statement during discourse engaged in to resolve a conflict.

No, again, this is only talking about waht it physically means to engage in argument, I don't see anything false here.

{Discourse engaged in to resolve a conflict} is nothing but an exchange of verbal {statements made during discourse engaged in to resolve a conflict}.

A proposition is not nessaseraly expressed in an argument, it's a more general term which is relevant and is a part of an argument. From the begining you are fusing definition and context. This isn't a big deal, just I think this might be confusing when you substitue things...

Re: A friendly introduction to Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics

Graham Wright — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:58:32 GMT

Gumdy, just work it through. If 'proposition' is 'a statement made during an argument' and 'argument' is as we agreed above 'the act of participants engaging in discourse to resolve a conflict', then 'to express a proposition' means 'to make a statement during discourse engaged in to resolve a conflict'.

Now here's your paragraph:

Gumdy:
The act of Argumentation, presupposes the basic norm of peaceful conflict resolution. In real terms, an actor engages in argument by speaking, expressing a proposition (by use of sound, hands ext.). An argument is nothing but an exchange of verbal propositions. Thereby, it is by the very act of expressing a proposition that one demonstrates his preference to resolve the given conflict without the use violence.

Substituting in these definitions, we get:

The act of {engaging in discourse to resolve a conflict}, presupposes the basic norm of peaceful conflict resolution. In real terms, an actor engages in {discourse to resolve a conflict} by speaking, {making a statement during discourse engaged in to resolve a conflict} (by use of sound, hands ext.). {Discourse engaged in to resolve a conflict} is nothing but an exchange of verbal {statements made during discourse engaged in to resolve a conflict}. Thereby, it is by the very act of {making a statement during discourse engaged in to resolve a conflict} one demonstrates his preference to resolve the given conflict without the use violence.

Now, the first sentence is false, unless you consider actions in general to presuppose norms, which they don't, they only demonstrate preferences. The second sentence is false, because speaking is not equivalent to making a statement during discourse engaged in to resolve a conflict. The third sentence is false, unless you consider discourse to be limited to verbal exchanges, and if you do then the sentence is tautological. The last sentence is trivially true, because all actions demonstrate that the actor had a preference for the goal of the action.

Does this make the problem clearer to you?

Re: A friendly introduction to Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics

Gumdy — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:51:50 GMT

What a men internally feels/realy believes/thinks is simply irrelevant. To deny the presupposition is to void the argument.

Re: A friendly introduction to Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:32:22 GMT

Others may have equivocated can you put that on me. When I asked you my question I was trying to find out whether her you could or would make conceptual distinctions. I expects that you might given that you are comfortable enough to consider praxeology of merit.

Re: A friendly introduction to Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics

Charles Anthony — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:29:01 GMT

Still no proof.

nirgrahamUK:
so you can do economics without appeal to the notion of exchange?

That is not what I said.

The equivocation of definitions was raised and never addressed. I think I know why. Equivocation is the method of argumentation in favor of AE or possibly, AEadvocates do not have the capacity to see their leaps in logic.

Re: A friendly introduction to Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:14:49 GMT

so you can do economics without appeal to the notion of exchange? because exchange would require that you allow that the agents have certain intentions....

Re: A friendly introduction to Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics

Charles Anthony — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:05:48 GMT

Still no proof.

nirgrahamUK:

>>Nobody has the capacity to know what the intentions are of a person, for goodness' sake.

actually this is irrelevant. because we can still posit that IF intentions are to 'mouth words that one doesnt mean' then X and IF intentions are to mouth words that one does mean' then Y .

Finally, you admit that you are assuming AE to be true without being able to prove your premises.

nirgrahamUK:
The hypothetico-deductive constructions are how we do economics? do you have a a problem with it? Do you say intentions are impossible to discern therefore Misesian Economics / Praxeology is not worth anyones attention?

I'm cool with you disputing it, but not for such paltry reasons.... c'mon....

That is not what I said. Misean economics does not depend on knowing what the intentions are of human action. Hoppe's AE does. There is a huge difference. Nice try at moving the goal post, though.

Re: A friendly introduction to Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:49:20 GMT

>>Nobody has the capacity to know what the intentions are of a person, for goodness' sake.

actually this is irrelevant. because we can still posit that IF intentions are to 'mouth words that one doesnt mean' then X and IF intentions are to mouth words that one does mean' then Y .

The hypothetico-deductive constructions are how we do economics? do you have a a problem with it? Do you say intentions are impossible to discern therefore Misesian Economics / Praxeology is not worth anyones attention?

I'm cool with you disputing it, but not for such paltry reasons.... c'mon....

Re: A friendly introduction to Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics

Charles Anthony — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:37:51 GMT

nirgrahamUK:
An argument where two people put forward ideas and try to get at the truth, is different from a *situation* where someone is using force to *coerce* someone else to say some words in english that sound like *you win the argument* under threat of force.

Do you dispute this ?

Do you or Hoppe have proof of it?? is the right question. If so, where is it????

Whether I dispute it or not is irrelevent. You are passing this fleetingly-convincing argument off as objective proof -- that is not good enough.

Just in case it matters, yes, I dispute it because it is a stupid false statement. Nobody has the capacity to know what the intentions are of a person, for goodness' sake. Without an intelligent definition of arguing from you AEadvocates, I see no reason to even pay attention to what you said.

Re: A friendly introduction to Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics

Gumdy — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:02:46 GMT

Charles,

I have also written about this in the article (as this is the base). See paragraphs 3-11.

Re: A friendly introduction to Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:56:26 GMT

Charles, let me try to boil the point down one last time.

An argument where two people put forward ideas and try to get at the truth, is different from a *situation* where someone is using force to *coerce* someone else to say some words in english that sound like *you win the argument* under threat of force.

Do you dispute this ?

Re: A friendly introduction to Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics

Charles Anthony — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:50:00 GMT

Gumby,

Stop being disingenuous. Praxeology is not the failure in your attempt to defend AE. Your premises are the achilles heel. What you quoted from Rothbard does not prove that:

person arguing = person wants to avoid violence

If you can show where Hoppe proves that false statement, please offer it. Long-winded videos of Hoppe saying essentially nothing do not count as proof of the above premise.

Re: A friendly introduction to Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics

Gumdy — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:39:18 GMT

Charles,

Human action is purposeful and so, purposeful action betrays preference. Trade betray preference, eating a banana betray preference, and discourse betray preference. This is why the actions of an actor imply his demonstrated preference. This is the bases of both Austrian Economics and ArgEthics. The question of free will, and praxeology, I wish not to debate here. I recommend reading Rothbard clear words (which I linked to in the article as well). If you have questions regarding praxeology, I recommend opening a new thread.