1. A discussion pointed a critical flaw in my understanding of the axiom "Humans Act". A person who is in a coma does not act, yet they are still a human. But if all humans act, this contradicts that statement. How do you explain this cognitive dissonance.
Schools are labour camps.
In my opinion, people concern themselves far too much with the action axiom. The whole of praxeology is hypothetical in any case, meaning, catallactics is hypothetical, it assumes that those who the analysis concerns are acting human beings. The whole point of the action axiom was to provide a solid basis from which economic analysis could proceed, and it acheived that. Even if one could find an obscure situation in which the action axiom did not apply, I daresay it would not have too much of an impact on the Austrian analysis of the economy. I've yet to see many economists devote huge amounts of time to the role of vegetables in the business cycle, so I don't see why Austrians should.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Eliotn, one more point. In terms of pure economic theory, it isn't necessary to prove that all individuals in the economy are actors in the Misesian sense (that can never be proven in any case, even if you and I are debating all it proves is that we are acting, not any body else in the economy). All that is necessary is that we assume that everybody in an economy is an actor. In terms of empirical applications of Austrian theory, then we must assume that actors in the economy are indeed actors, in the Austrian usage of the word. All things given, it isn't such an unrealistic assumption, especially when compared with the mainstream defintions of economic man, who is a perfectly "rational" optimizing individual with perfect knowledge of his own value scales and perfect knowledge of all goods for sale.
Because it doesn't contradict the statement at all. Being in a coma is a well-defined condition, and when/if the person comes out of the coma, the person will act. And the person acted before the coma. Further, there's the small matter of the human genome aka DNA.
eliotn: 1. A discussion pointed a critical flaw in my understanding of the axiom "Humans Act". A person who is in a coma does not act, yet they are still a human. But if all humans act, this contradicts that statement. How do you explain this cognitive dissonance.
KOB is right, when you are in a condition such as comatose you do not cease to be human, such is also the case when you sleep, yo udo not necessarily act when you sleep, does this mean that you are not human unless you act in your sleep?
There is a difference with brain death, and vegetative states like such, where brain function stops, this is also a sign that maybe despite being comatose there is still action taking place. Human action is choosing, thought is action, so long as there is thought, despite the lacking ability to communicate these thoughts to others, you are still "Acting" as described in Human Action (this is where the axiom is referenced to).
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Knight_of_BAAWA:Because it doesn't contradict the statement at all. Being in a coma is a well-defined condition, and when/if the person comes out of the coma, the person will act.
That only tells us how we shouldn't interpret the proposition 'humans act', viz. as 'all humans act all the time'. Why not interpret it as 'there exists at least one human H, and at least one instance in time T, such that H acts at T'?
Surely human action isn't an ineluctalby vague notion, is it?
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
Knight_of_BAAWA: Because it doesn't contradict the statement at all. Being in a coma is a well-defined condition, and when/if the person comes out of the coma, the person will act. And the person acted before the coma. Further, there's the small matter of the human genome aka DNA.
So in that brief period between consciousness the comatose are all non-humans?
existence is elsewhere
Ummm....did you actually read what I wrote?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Ummm....did you actually read what I wrote?
Yes.
You addressed pre compa and post coma, but not the state of the coma itself. He acted before, he acts after. OK. So is it like a "praxeology baptist" thing? Once an actor always an actors? I thin the original poster raises a fine point. If we are to take it that all men act, then what about those that do not act?
Wilmot of Rochester: Knight_of_BAAWA: Ummm....did you actually read what I wrote? Yes. You addressed pre compa and post coma, but not the state of the coma itself. He acted before, he acts after. OK. So is it like a "praxeology baptist" thing? Once an actor always an actors? I thin the original poster raises a fine point. If we are to take it that all men act, then what about those that do not act?
Did not bother to read what I said though.....
Hrmmmmmmmmmm
Further more we can divide humans into two groups, those who act, and those who don't act, eg vegetables. Vegetables, because of their differences with acting humans, have a dimished state of self ownership and are appointed guardians.
JonBostwick: Knight_of_BAAWA: Because it doesn't contradict the statement at all. Being in a coma is a well-defined condition, and when/if the person comes out of the coma, the person will act. And the person acted before the coma. Further, there's the small matter of the human genome aka DNA. Further more we can divide humans into two groups, those who act, and those who don't act, eg vegetables. Vegetables, because of their differences with acting humans, have a dimished state of self ownership and are appointed guardians.
This was the addition I put on KOB's statement....
In Human Action, Chapter 1, Section 2, Mises wrote:
Beings of human descent who either from birth or from acquired defects are unchangeably unfit for any action (in the strict sense of the term and not merely in the legal sense) are practically not human.
Therefore, I believe Mises would characterize a person in a coma (at least one in a permanent coma) as not being practically human.
Mises's definition of human seems to be "that which acts"; the action axiom seems to be a tautology.
Human Action Comics Issues 1-6
We must distinguish between the biological term "Human" (homo Sapian) and the praxeologic term "Human" (acting being). The two are differnent and usin them interchangably will reasult in error and confusion.
"Why don't you go stand under a stalactite, and bellow the resonate room frequency and wait for it to impale your brain!" -The Brain
earlgrey: We must distinguish between the biological term "Human" (homo Sapian) and the praxeologic term "Human" (acting being). The two are differnent and usin them interchangably will reasult in error and confusion.
This. Also, the action axiom applies to other hypothetical sapient beings.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Lilburne: In Human Action, Chapter 1, Section 2, Mises wrote: Beings of human descent who either from birth or from acquired defects are unchangeably unfit for any action (in the strict sense of the term and not merely in the legal sense) are practically not human. Therefore, I believe Mises would characterize a person in a coma (at least one in a permanent coma) as not being practically human. Mises's definition of human seems to be "that which acts"; the action axiom seems to be a tautology.
Actually he says those who are unchangeably unfit for action. It is reasonable to assume that a person in a coma can recover and continue to act.
Wilmot of Rochester:You addressed pre compa and post coma, but not the state of the coma itself. He acted before, he acts after. OK. So is it like a "praxeology baptist" thing? Once an actor always an actors? I thin the original poster raises a fine point. If we are to take it that all men act, then what about those that do not act?
It does not say "Humans are always acting," it says that humans do act. A person who has acted before the coma and will act after is by definition a being who does act. He just does not happen to be acting at that exact moment. It is the same for a sleeping person.
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