As far as I can tell, this beast of a book is the single greatest treatise on epistemology of the 20th century. Am I wrong here? And have any of you read it through?
Is there anything more significant than praxeology in regards to the mind-body problem?
" The economic problem to Mises is that of action. Man acts to dispel feelings of uneasiness, but can only succeed in acting if he comprehends causal connections between the ends that he wants to satisfy, and available means. The fact that man resides in a world of causality means that he faces definite choices as to how he satisfies his ends. Human action is an application of human reason to select the best means of satisfying ends. The reasoning mind evaluates and grades different options. "
its neokantianism by someone who wasn't even amongst the top tier of viennese jew autists. see John Von Neumann's theory of Games and the Vienna Circle. the real redpill: the hapsburg empire never fell, we all live in mitteleuropa now.
Gabriel Cook
like marxism, wittgenstein's philosophy, or schoenberg's atonal music austrian school economics cannot be separated from the jewish condition and secular jews' status as outsiders outrooted from organic community
Angel Torres
>mathematical models >relevance to methodology and epistemology pick one
>collectivist Volkswirschaft brainlet What the fuck is "organic community" even supposed to mean?
Truth is discovered, not invented and if it happens that it was who you consider to be "those twisted jews" that uncovered it, so be it. Other Jews miss the mark, others come up with horribly perverse ideologies indeed, like communism. (Although substituting State for Business Firms and Taxes for Wages, Marx’s exploitation theory and his theory of history would make perfect sense).
If you want to understand human behavior you should read it. Also read Behave by Sapolsky, the Righteous Mind by Haidt, The Master and his Emissary by Mcgilchrist, and be well read on the Western Canon philosophy for the fields of ethics and epistemology. You should also know the different parts of the brain and the nervous system, what each part does, what are the main known neurotransmitters and what produces them or hinders their transmission, the evolution of life up to homo sapiens and enough math to understand statistics applied to modern population.
However, this is extending the topic a bit too much. I was referring more to epistemology than the empirical sciences although these are obviously related
Grayson Morgan
If you ignore literally every epistemological advance in the 20th century. Ignore that, Mises was a brainlet by even 19th century standards.
There's no static truth. Literally everything changes right down to the basic laws of physics over cosmological time.
You can't understand human behavior a priori.
Jacob Rivera
>There's no static truth >a static truth
>You can't understand human behavior a priori. >apriori statement about human behaviour
From what I've read, mises is a charlatan. He uses "praxeology" as an alternative to statistics, which is how he creates vague scenarios which sound logical but don't play out in the real world. Granted, I've only dead his monograph "the ultimate foundation of economic analysis." Anyone who disregards statistics simply doesn't know how to use them properly. If you can't use stats you aren't qualified to analyze anything on a large scale
Jaxson Carter
Excellent set of videos. In my opinion, empirical science should accompany epistemology. We are in 2020, neuroscience is quite developed by now and gives you a real, physical perspective of how most theories apply. Also, for all the shit Peterson gets, he has some really good interviews. I'm soon to start Maps of Meaning to see if his archetypes master work is worthy, because 12 rules felt like such a meme.
Juan Gutierrez
Misesian praxeology is the foundation of the most fertile scientific paradigm of the last 200 years namely historical materialism. Mises points out that human action is purposeful excercise of effort towards attainment of some goals however he is agnostic as to what said goals could be, he derides classical and neoclassical economists for their adoption of the homo oeconomicus model of human and concludes that praxeology has nothing to say about the motivation of agents. Some agents embrace thoughtless materialism and consoomerism, some want to attain only the minimal amount of goods necessary to sustain themselves and their loved ones and some devote themselves entirely to spiritual matters. While this is a pregnant and desired critique of neoclassical economics, it rebounds and hits Marxist materialism too. What Mises did not realize is that the distribution of motivation is fairly Gaussian and hence most people will tend to emphasize material rather than spiritual needs. A Marxist is a Misesian praxeologist who understands statistics.
Praxeology (in economics) is an alternative to economics based on mathematical models. >don't play out in the real world How exactly? Every single reasoning is powered with inescapable logical force. There can be empirical arguments against logic itself.
Statistics is useful for historical analysis, not methodology
Kayden Ortiz
>neuroscience will someday figure out all human behaviour Remember that the neurologist is a brain himself, there's no amount of data that can give you apodictic predictions about human behaviour
Good luck, I'm almost finished with Human Action, halfway through 12 Rules.
Ya an alternative that is empirically wrong and isn't even trying to talk about reality but justifying an imaginary situation
Noah Hill
Humans act mostly unconsciously. The general idiot doesn't reflect his acts. He just act. Mises himself operates a specific model: the model of the rational self-reflexive actor.
Nicholas Cook
>von Mises right about everything
Nolan Jackson
Because a praxeological statement can't be wrong meaning it's all pointless.
What you mean by unconscious is unrelated to the logical structure of his actions: selecting scarce means to satisfy desired ends
Charles Davis
Yes. Logical statements can be wrong. You can't understand what you think you can a priori.
Elijah Stewart
Logical statements can be wrong insofar as the demonstration that they are wrong comes in the form of a (correct) logical statement/refutation.
Jeremiah Watson
If a situation doesn't play out in the real world, it's a sign that there is an error in the logic. Basing an argument about the real world using only logic is arrogant, because one error can lead to a completely wrong conclusion
Kevin Hill
I studied economics in college and I can’t shake the feeling of regret or the notion that it’s all just a bourgeois materialist attempt at philosophy. Can you please convinced me I’m wrong.
Gabriel Morgan
the good news is you actually learned something, unlike most of your peers. should be a repeatable phenomena
Ryan Watson
baboom
Nicholas Thompson
Logical statements can be wrong because logical form is substanceless and itself based in axiomatic propositions themselves which necessitate no logic in order to be valid, even if they were. For example, the principle of non contradiction hasn’t been supported either empirically or logically. It is sociallly accepted. It is a pure premise that subsists before logic itself. The nature of this subsistence is unknown to any logician and is not a topic of pure logic but of ontology. It’s source could be psychological, physical, or anthropological. Since this basic premise (and all others) for all of logic has an uncertain status regarding its validity, all of the precepts based on logic could be invalid, yet this is not knowable from purely logical thought. Logic claims to be the study of the form of valid, rational thought, yet it itself has no conception of what any of that means making it an empty premise with no support. All logic actually has is intuitive sense, which as we know from the history of science, is often misleading.
