So, I've always been surprised that Praxeology has remained so esoteric. Anyone have any idea why this is? If I'm interested in really pursuing Praxeology as a field of study however where should i go? what should i do? your assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Why Praxeology is so esoteric? My guess is because Austrians have been trying to convince other economists of its validity. Instead of focusing on convincing philosophers, they try to convince economists, who tend to be ignorant in matters of epistemology and think anything straying from empiricism is "pseudoscience." They are simply trained to think a certain way, and if anyone questions that rigid, dogmatic method, it is rejected outright. Philosophers tend to be more open minded in such matters, and I feel if Austrians were to introduce their ideas to them, instead of to economists who were weaned on the teat of Keynes, we could gain a solid foothold in academia. And judging by the state of philosophy today, it is yearning for something like praxeology. Philosophy has been practically relegated to the scrap heap of useful sciences lately. Praxeology has the ability to make philosophy relevant again.
Where to go to pursue a study of praxeology? Directly to the source. Read Human Action, Theory and History, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, Epistemological Problems of Economics, Economic Science and the Austrian Method, etc.
I oppose many parts of praxeology too. I disagree with the 'psychological' aspects of praxeology. Its 'psychological' aspects are psychological egoism, the axiom of human action, and the means-end dichotomy. They are completely unnecessary, and, in my opinion, they are used rhetorically to sugarcoat Austrian economics to make it look more 'logical'.
Same thing happens with the "A = A" nonsense of Objectivism (Ayn Rand). It makes it look more 'logical'.
However, I do not oppose the economic aspects of praxeology. Its economic aspects are ordinal value and marginal utility.
So we should be careful to specify which aspects of praxeology we disagree with.
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
phrizek:Where to go to pursue a study of praxeology? Directly to the source. Read Human Action, Theory and History, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, Epistemological Problems of Economics, Economic Science and the Austrian Method, etc.
I've done reading on my own, but i meant more along the lines of where is it taught? (i.e. where in the world)
If you speak of austrian econ. in college there is the obvious GMU, a small program in NYU, Loyola in Maryland and New Orleans, Auburn University in Alabama, and a few other institutions around the nation. Also, FEE may also teaches some of the introductory aspects of Austrian Econ./Praxeology. Outside of the US there is the universities where Pascal Salin, Hulsmann, De Soto, and others teach. I don't know if this is what you were looking for, but I hoped I helped.
Luis Buenaventura: If you speak of austrian econ. in college there is the obvious GMU, a small program in NYU, Loyola in Maryland and New Orleans, Auburn University in Alabama, and a few other institutions around the nation. Also, FEE may also teaches some of the introductory aspects of Austrian Econ./Praxeology. Outside of the US there is the universities where Pascal Salin, Hulsmann, De Soto, and others teach. I don't know if this is what you were looking for, but I hoped I helped.
Don't forget, the Mises institute holds several seminars throughout the year. Including a graduate level seminar and 'Mises University' which is more along the lines for undergrads. They are always holding such events just check out the main page.
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
You mean the law of identity, not "nonsense of Objectivism", as if mere mention of Ayn Rand should elicit a knee-jerk reaction from people on here... as for the rest concerning psychological egoism I think I came to the conclusion you really do not understand how Austrians use it.
To darkness I condemn you...
Luis Buenaventura:If you speak of austrian econ. in college there is the obvious GMU,
Keep in mind that most of the Austrians at GMU aren't praxeologists.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
phrizek:Instead of focusing on convincing philosophers, they try to convince economists, who tend to be ignorant in matters of epistemology and think anything straying from empiricism is "pseudoscience."
i'd really like to see praxeology become more accepted and higher renowned (though i shudder at the possible popscience defamation). is there anything that can be done (other than the manifestation of excessive brilliance forcing its popularization) to help it burgeon into a more well known subject.
Perhaps this is a project one of us should engage in: to try and present the action axiom, it's logical underpinnings and postulational corequsities, then use it to draw out the theorems and conclusions that follow formally, theorem by theorem. The language of symbolic logic, or something along its lines could be used, to aid the clarity of the exposition. This is something I've been thinking about, but I've been reading, rereading and making notes on Human Action very slowly, so I need to finish it as well as many others too before I consider such a project.
Human Action is great, but a lot of it does cover background material and philosophical material, which is great and essential; though the exposition I feel could be made for more succinct and "distilled."
Anarcho-Mercantilist:I oppose many parts of praxeology too. I disagree with the 'psychological' aspects of praxeology. Its 'psychological' aspects are psychological egoism, the axiom of human action, and the means-end dichotomy.
jwilsn1020: phrizek:Instead of focusing on convincing philosophers, they try to convince economists, who tend to be ignorant in matters of epistemology and think anything straying from empiricism is "pseudoscience." i'd really like to see praxeology become more accepted and higher renowned (though i shudder at the possible popscience defamation). is there anything that can be done (other than the manifestation of excessive brilliance forcing its popularization) to help it burgeon into a more well known subject.
We just have to pick our battles with a modicum of intelligence. Rather than waste time (my opinion) doing things such as debating statists in online forums or whatnot, imagine if every university student here directed a copy of "Economic Science and the Austrian Method" to every professor in their school's philosophy department. Or if that's too ambitious, scope out one or two receptive professors (who tend towards rationalism) and buy them copies of Human Action. Look at the potential here. Imagine if in the first case, you handed out 20 copies of ESAM and it convinced one professor to take a look at Human Action. Now, not only do we have one more praxeologist in the world, but an influential one who potentially reaches 50+ students every semester/quarter. Or in the second case, the professors read Human Action, are rapt by its brilliance and recommend the book to all their colleagues. You can see how Austrian ideas can start to catch on if they are targeted to those most receptive to its ideas. If you're trying to sell a steak, you don't market it to vegans.
phrizek:We just have to pick our battles with a modicum of intelligence. Rather than waste time (my opinion) doing things such as debating statists in online forums or whatnot, imagine if every university student here directed a copy of "Economic Science and the Austrian Method" to every professor in their school's philosophy department. Or if that's too ambitious, scope out one or two receptive professors (who tend towards rationalism) and buy them copies of Human Action. Look at the potential here. Imagine if in the first case, you handed out 20 copies of ESAM and it convinced one professor to take a look at Human Action. Now, not only do we have one more praxeologist in the world, but an influential one who potentially reaches 50+ students every semester/quarter. Or in the second case, the professors read Human Action, are rapt by its brilliance and recommend the book to all their colleagues. You can see how Austrian ideas can start to catch on if they are targeted to those most receptive to its ideas. If you're trying to sell a steak, you don't market it to vegans.
Haha! I like your idea.
phrizek: My guess is because Austrians have been trying to convince other economists of its validity. Instead of focusing on convincing philosophers, they try to convince economists, who tend to be ignorant in matters of epistemology and think anything straying from empiricism is "pseudoscience." They are simply trained to think a certain way, and if anyone questions that rigid, dogmatic method, it is rejected outright. Philosophers tend to be more open minded in such matters, and I feel if Austrians were to introduce their ideas to them, instead of to economists who were weaned on the teat of Keynes, we could gain a solid foothold in academia. And judging by the state of philosophy today, it is yearning for something like praxeology. Philosophy has been practically relegated to the scrap heap of useful sciences lately. Praxeology has the ability to make philosophy relevant again.
If you want to advance Austrian economics you're going to have to convince other economists of it, that's the unfortunately reality. It's an uphill battle, I'll give you that, but it's not impossible to win.
GilesStratton:If you want to advance Austrian economics you're going to have to convince other economists of it, that's the unfortunately reality. It's an uphill battle, I'll give you that, but it's not impossible to win.
There are many more examples of other models of paradigm shift. For instance, one can convince only the young economists, and then the old ones will die out. This is the most common way that new ideas gain ground in science - established scientists don't shift paradigms very often. Or, you can convince people outside the field. Once philosophers and political scientists start asking in shock at Faculty Senate meetings "How can it be that we don't have any classes on Austrian economics?" or, even better "why am I teaching the only classes on Austrian economics?" the economics departments are shamed into adding someone in that field. Or convince the philosophers in large numbers, and in 50 years there won't be a battle in economics. Keynes was a philosopher, and only took one economics course.
GilesStratton: phrizek: My guess is because Austrians have been trying to convince other economists of its validity. Instead of focusing on convincing philosophers, they try to convince economists, who tend to be ignorant in matters of epistemology and think anything straying from empiricism is "pseudoscience." They are simply trained to think a certain way, and if anyone questions that rigid, dogmatic method, it is rejected outright. Philosophers tend to be more open minded in such matters, and I feel if Austrians were to introduce their ideas to them, instead of to economists who were weaned on the teat of Keynes, we could gain a solid foothold in academia. And judging by the state of philosophy today, it is yearning for something like praxeology. Philosophy has been practically relegated to the scrap heap of useful sciences lately. Praxeology has the ability to make philosophy relevant again. If you want to advance Austrian economics you're going to have to convince other economists of it, that's the unfortunately reality. It's an uphill battle, I'll give you that, but it's not impossible to win.
Good luck. We've been trying to do that for 50 years. How is that going again?
Listen, the biggest obstacle to the adoption of Austrian economics (in academia) is its "radical" epistemology. The economists won't touch it because the philosophers haven't sanctioned it. The philosophers haven't sanctioned it because they haven't heard of it. And that is because we, the people who should know better, have been too busy trying to convince two-bit economists who know nothing of epistemology save for a phony "scientific method" they learned in college. We're not going to achieve anything substantial this way. But if we can get the philosophers to recognize and extol the epistemological soundness of Austrian economics, adopting Austrian methodology won't be so difficult to swallow for the current economists who are only familiar with empiricism. The economists will be convinced after we convince the philosophers.
Success is not always achieved through following a linear path; you may be forced to take alternate routes along the way. Think strategically, not linearly.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Anarcho-Mercantilist:I oppose many parts of praxeology too. I disagree with the 'psychological' aspects of praxeology. Its 'psychological' aspects are psychological egoism, the axiom of human action, and the means-end dichotomy.So you disagree with the action axiom while acting. How....self-contradictory.
Ahh, but this is no problem for him, since he denies the law of non-contradiction as well.
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
Blatant nihilism FTW!
phrizek:Good luck. We've been trying to do that for 50 years. How is that going again?
Well there's a number of Austrian PhD programmes, even more Austrians in undergraduate degrees, so I'd say not too badly. People like Herbener and Block have been converted. As I said, it's an uphill battle, but in the next 50 years, the grounds are set for Austrianism to become more popular, with the work on the Mises institute and other Austrians.
phrizek:he philosophers haven't sanctioned it because they haven't heard of it. And that is because we, the people who should know better, have been too busy trying to convince two-bit economists who know nothing of epistemology save for a phony "scientific method" they learned in college
Economists don't even listen to philosophers, the biggest piece in methodology in the last century was Friedman's essay (which I read yesterday, it's pretty poor if you ask me) and that was written by an economists (as well as the other big piece by Blaug, also an economist). Positivism has been out of favour with philosophers for some time now, economists still adhere to it because they're just that, economists, not philosophers. As Herbener says, before he became an Austrian he had no idea about epistemological issues, he was just doing what all the other economists did. The only Austrian who came to Austrianism through philosophy was Hoppe.
If you want to advance Austrianism to philosophers, that's good, and important. The same applies for political science and sociology, but don't confuse doing that with advancing Austrian economics. Moreover, don't confuse it with "advancing liberty".
GilesStratton:The only Austrian who came to Austrianism through philosophy was Hoppe.
hold on their, big guy. that's how i've arrived here (through philosophy, not economics)!
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