I think I've been putting off listening to Human Action because I just am sometimes put off by just how Ludwig Von Mises seems to have a complete dislike of philosophies. I understand where he's coming from... but it's as if he's attacking these philosophies for being against individualism... and that Ludwig Von Mises fails to understand or at least doesn't want to understand what these philosophies are trying to explain.
Not all these philosophies are somehow socialist because they don't have an individualist mindset like him or I or someone else here might have. I am an individualist myself... but I want some clarification about Ludwig Von Mises so I can listen to him and all without being put off by him. So he's that kind of guy that detests philosophy or am I missing something? I just want to make sure I understand what his point of view is before I keep listening to him... is it that he disagrees with the metaphysical approach that the old philosophers have taken? What's his view on philosophy? This has just been bothering me (while I've listened to him). So I felt I should ask the question.
I don't understand your question. Mises was a philosopher, who developed his own philosophical methodology which he employed towards economic analysis, namely, praxeology.What do you mean when you say he's against philosophy? Metaphysics is truth, understanding being and acquiring knowledge; he's certainly not against this. He does refute a lot of abstract bullshit which relies on utterly incomprehensible jargon in order to conceive mass confusion, but this doesn't mean he's against truth or philosophy in general. Can you give me some specific examples?
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).
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
I think you are put off by the utilitarian philosophy of Mises. Even if you don't like it read it, because Human Action is basically more about economics.
I know that Human Action is about economics mainly. It's just that the first two chapters are about philosophy and that I just disagreed with a few of his views on other philosophies. That is- his views on the metaphysical philosophies. I don't like how he demonizes them, I'll try to find some passages from the text (I'll do it later today) to show more of what I dislike about his views... but it's like he takes the position of an extreme individualist- and I agree with individualism... it's just that I think he sees these philosophies as attacks on individualism... and he makes many good points about them- but he makes it seem like they have a sinister agenda.
Esuric: I don't understand your question. Mises was a philosopher, who developed his own philosophical methodology which he employed towards economic analysis, namely, praxeology.What do you mean when you say he's against philosophy? Metaphysics is truth, understanding being and acquiring knowledge; he's certainly not against this. He does refute a lot of abstract bullshit which relies on utterly incomprehensible jargon in order to conceive mass confusion, but this doesn't mean he's against truth or philosophy in general. Can you give me some specific examples?
I remember him saying that philosophers have made no significant contribution. That's not true in my opinion- philosophers helped jump start human thought and without them Ludwig Von Mises wouldn't be where he was today (and I also disliked his comments about philosophical professors not understanding the economy since all they did was just be around teaching philosophy).. Another thing- I think was when Ludwig Von Mises attacked philosophers that viewed things in a collectivist principle- he disagrees with them yes and tears them apart in his work... but it's just that he takes it more personally that it's an attack on individualism when I see that they're more trying to understand the world as a whole. That's really what puts me off.
Angurse: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).
That doesn't make sense. Philosophy is the studying and love of logic. How can you have economic theory without first establishing logic? You seem to be advocating backward causation. If you feel I am wrong then I would ask you why the first hundred pages of Human Action are devoted to the philosophical foundations of Mises' economic theory. Why doesn't he go first into economic then explain how economics creates X philosophical statement?
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
Laughing Man: That doesn't make sense. Philosophy is the studying and love of logic. How can you have economic theory without first establishing logic? You seem to be advocating backward causation. If you feel I am wrong then I would ask you why the first hundred pages of Human Action are devoted to the philosophical foundations of Mises' economic theory. Why doesn't he go first into economic then explain how economics creates X philosophical statement?
Philosophy isn't necessarily the studying (and love) of logic, more importantly logic isn't necessarily philosophy. It is a science. In Human Action Mises is setting forth a sound theory of knowledge, which is fundamental toward understanding human action and therefore economics. Mises felt that his methods of discovering economics was a "third class of laws of the universe." 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." that fine too. 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:
Although full of contempt for all it considers as metaphysics, the epistemology of positivism is itself based upon a definite brand of metaphysics. It is beyond the pale of a rational inquiry to enter into an analysis of any variety of metaphysics, to try to appraise its value or its tenability and to affirm or to reject it. What discursive reasoning can achieve is merely to show whether or not the metaphysical doctrine in question contradicts what has been established as scientifically proved truth.
Angurse: Although full of contempt for all it considers as metaphysics, the epistemology of positivism is itself based upon a definite brand of metaphysics. It is beyond the pale of a rational inquiry to enter into an analysis of any variety of metaphysics, to try to appraise its value or its tenability and to affirm or to reject it. What discursive reasoning can achieve is merely to show whether or not the metaphysical doctrine in question contradicts what has been established as scientifically proved truth.
I do not pretend to understand Kant. But perhaps that is why he called his three main books "Critique of . . .".
Angurse:Economics is the foundation for philosophy
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:LOL. Probably best joke of the year...or century.
Yeah, Mises was pretty silly.(Do you have anything to contribute?)
Juan:LS, Don't delete my posts
Make better posts then.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
SilentXtarian:I remember him saying that philosophers have made no significant contribution. That's not true in my opinion- philosophers helped jump start human thought and without them Ludwig Von Mises wouldn't be where he was today (and I also disliked his comments about philosophical professors not understanding the economy since all they did was just be around teaching philosophy).. Another thing- I think was when Ludwig Von Mises attacked philosophers that viewed things in a collectivist principle- he disagrees with them yes and tears them apart in his work... but it's just that he takes it more personally that it's an attack on individualism when I see that they're more trying to understand the world as a whole. That's really what puts me off.
Well, what have philosophers contributed recently? Philosopher's like Quine say that language is practically meaningless, Hume says causality is nonexistent. Pierce, another influential philosopher, says that truth is mass appeal, or consensus. It's hard to find any philosopher today who believes in actual absolute truth. Mises is absolutely right; philosophers sit around questioning the validity of numbers and math, deny morality, causality, and the external world (they can't tell you if they're dreaming or awake), all while pretending to be masters of the universe. Have you ever talked to a philosopher? Their understanding of economics is practically nonexistent, childish.
He attacks those collectivists because their ideas shape government policy and affect the lives of millions if not billions. Their ideas have led to mass genocides, starvation, and human rights violations. We need people like Mises to obliterate such destructive myths if we're to see a better more free world.
I haven't read Human action yet, but man I'm exited.
Juan: Angurse, your assertion is ridiculous. You are saying that economics is the foundation of philosophy, Mises never said that.
So do you have anything to contribute? (Evidence, misquotes, misinterpretations, etc...)
Angurse:So do you have anything to contribute? (Evidence, misquotes, misinterpretations, etc...)
Metaphysics is the genus philosophy; natural and social sciences are sub-sects of metaphysics (with different epistemological methods).
Esuric: Metaphysics is the genus philosophy; natural and social sciences are sub-sects of metaphysics (with different epistemological methods).
I don't think von Mises agreed. At the very least with the use of the term. It seems pretty clear that he saw metaphysical inquiry as useless due to humans categorising the world, and without the assumption of regularity, according to Mises, action would be impossible. As explained in Theory and History:
"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.
And once you read Human Action you'll see him early on attack the metaphysics of Hegel and demonstrate why it cannot be used to challenge economics.
Angurse:And once you read Human Action you'll see him early on attack the metaphysics of Hegel and demonstrate why it cannot be used to challenge economics.
Well, you can attack the dialectical method without believing economics is the foundation of philosophy.
There's a biographical note at the end of Theory of Money and Credit which states: Mises was the first scholar to recognize that economics is part of a larger science of human action, a science which Mises called "praxeology."
Esuric: Well, you can attack the dialectical method without believing economics is the foundation of philosophy.
Sure, I don't think that the case, in this case.
Esuric:There's a biographical note at the end of Theory of Money and Credit which states: Mises was the first scholar to recognize that economics is part of a larger science of human action, a science which Mises called "praxeology."
I thought I already made this clear
Angurse:In Human Action Mises is setting forth a sound theory of knowledge, which is fundamental toward understanding human action and therefore economics. Mises felt that his methods of discovering economics was a "third class of laws of the universe."
I apologize for saying "economics is the foundation for philosophy," I should have said "Praxeology is the foundation for philosophy with economics being the most developed branch."
Better?
Angurse: I apologize for saying "economics is the foundation for philosophy," I should have said "Praxeology is the foundation for philosophy with economics being the most developed branch." Better?
Economics the most developed branch? I don't know, that's kind of awkward. I haven't read Human action, so I really don't know. I'm just saying it doesn't sound right.
Angurse:Philosophy isn't necessarily the studying (and love) of logic, more importantly logic isn't necessarily philosophy.
I should rephrase a word in my statement it is the love of wisdom. Philosophy originated from the Greeks and was called ' philosopho' which means lover of wisdom.
Angurse:It is a science. In Human Action Mises is setting forth a sound theory of knowledge, which is fundamental toward understanding human action and therefore economics.
No where did I say it was not a science. You made the comment that economics is the basis of philosophy. That is incorrect. Philosophy establishes the basis of economics like many other sciences. To have theory you must have logic and reasoning in order to systematize. Also let us be clear that when we say economics is a science it is a social one, not a natural.
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."
I said nothing of the sort.
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.
That is nonsense. You are now trying to say Mises attacked something he did not by saying 'well Mises attacked metaphysics...but lets expand that towards philosophy.'
Angurse:Although full of contempt for all it considers as metaphysics, the epistemology of positivism is itself based upon a definite brand of metaphysics. It is beyond the pale of a rational inquiry to enter into an analysis of any variety of metaphysics, to try to appraise its value or its tenability and to affirm or to reject it. What discursive reasoning can achieve is merely to show whether or not the metaphysical doctrine in question contradicts what has been established as scientifically proved truth.
I wouldn't construe positivism as anything concerning the discipline that is based on the truths beyond reality. That is all they see, empirical reality without abstractions or things that cannot be tested in a lab.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap