Indeed. And in the context of Austrian economics, the opposite of rational would be not rational. Human action is rational. Photosynthesis is not rational. Didn't you just confirm or repeat precisely what the problem is? You've reasserted a definition of rationality that excludes the possibility of irrationality in any human context.
Indeed. And in the context of Austrian economics, the opposite of rational would be not rational. Human action is rational. Photosynthesis is not rational.
Didn't you just confirm or repeat precisely what the problem is? You've reasserted a definition of rationality that excludes the possibility of irrationality in any human context.
No, because in this context, the opposite of rational is not rational. The concept of irrational simply doesn't apply in this context. Humans think about their actions. That is, they use their reason or rationale. It has nothing to do with the soundness of their reasoning, or if it makes sense to others. The process of evaluation is what Austrians call rational. You used to understand this, but now you seem more interested debating the definition of a (possibly) misused word than debating the concepts it is being used to represent. This is a logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
Austrians claim that humans evaluate their actions prior to acting, and call these actions "rational". It doesn't matter that they call it though. If you disagree that humans evaluate thier actions prior to acting, please supply an argument for the disagreement.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
My goal was nothing other than to defend Misesian methodology. If you are just attacking the crude offshoots of that (of which there are countless!), well, my response doesn't apply.
The differences between Misesian economics (i.e. praxeological economics) and its crude offshoots are fundamental (usually epistemological, no?). This fact ought to be taught widely, and at every opportunity, and be common knowledge within the Austrian school---For, if it can't be common knowledge even here, how possibly can such a distinction clearly be made to others outside of the Austrian school. Unfortunately, at present, it seems that the distinction is hidden from the view of many Austrians, who don't understand, or reject altogether, the importance of epistemology. As a result, they render themselves particularly vulnerable to the suasion of fallacious economic reasoning and unsound doctrines (indeed, I think this criticism applies to many Austrians of the past as well).
The category of action obviously isn't trivial, considering it is the foundation of economics. Did you mean to deny that?
Did you mean to deny that?
I meant that the words "humans act", in and of itself, is something that almost noone is going to disagree with. The special status that Austrianism (or some Austrians) puts on it, appealing to it almost as a reccuring rhetorical devise with which to justify other things that one is claiming (much like "A is A" functioned for Rand), is unwarranted. It's also something that one wouldn't state in any ordinary context, functioning more as a background assumption that isn't discussed (who asserts "humans act" other than austrians?). These are the senses in which I'm calling it trivial. It does not communicate very much or anything particularly controversial, and when it is used it's always cited as an unquestionable first principle from which every other belief that happens to be up for debate derives, when such a logical connection can be dubious.
Brainpolice:I meant that the words "humans act", in and of itself, is something that almost noone is going to disagree with.
Which is precisely what an axiom is supposed to be. Would you prefer a more "interesting" world in which axioms are debatable and/or subject to proofs, as opposed to merely obvious and "trivial"?
Z.
The issue, among other things, is that this "axiom" can essentially function as an appeal to what noone is going to debate in order to try to convince them of something that is debatable. But I would also say that nothing is an axiom if this means that what's being asserted is claimed to be inherently true and immune from all scrutiny. Philosophers always run into serious problems the moment that they try to give anything such a status. And, to be frank, the performative contradiction style of argument for such things is philosophically laughable and perhaps even amateur for a multitude of reasons. If anything, it is a perfect formula for fallacious and even manipulative debating (and debate-shutting-down) tactics.
Brainpolice:But I would also say that nothing is an axiom if this means that what's being asserted is claimed to be inherently true and immune from all scrutiny.
All logical constructs are build on the basis of such "assertions" (premises, axioms). No logical construct can float unsuspended in thin air.
If anything, it is a perfect formula for fallacious and even manipulative debating (and debate-shutting-down) tactics.
Premises and axioms are either accepted or not. Nothing manipulative or fallacious about this. I like your posts but this thread may not be one of your best ones.
The issue, among other things, is that this "axiom" can essentially function as an appeal to what noone is going to debate in order to try to convince them of something that is debatable.
Since no one is going to debate it, persumably even you, why don't you actually debate what you term "debatable"? If you're not convinced, please tell us why.
But I would also say that nothing is an axiom if this means that what's being asserted is claimed to be inherently true and immune from all scrutiny. Philosophers always run into serious problems the moment that they try to give anything such a status.
Since that is the definition of axiom, I guess you just don't believe in axioms. That's fine. I hope you never have to buy carpet.
And, to be frank, the performative contradiction style of argument for such things is philosophically laughable and perhaps even amateur for a multitude of reasons. If anything, it is a perfect formula for fallacious and even manipulative debating (and debate-shutting-down) tactics.
You just said no one would debate the (alleged) axiom, but rather only the conclusions drawn from the (alleged) axiom. I'm just waiting for you to start.
Brainpolice: These are the senses in which I'm calling it trivial.
These are the senses in which I'm calling it trivial.
Fair enough.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.