Political Theory

Re: Rights on the view from your property

National Acrobat — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 02:47:22 GMT

Autolykos:
If you really understand that words can denote different concepts, then why would you have reacted the way you did when I said that "property" is just a word? You seemed incredulous. And as far as I'm concerned, I have been addressing the substance of your post.

Because you didn’t address the substance of my post there. You brought up a point that I started this thread with.

Do you think anything ever exists outside of the mind? Because that's what I'm talking about when I use the word "objective". It seems that you're using "objective" in a different way from that.

I would say things exist independent of human beings. Saying things exist independent of human beings and saying that there are objective facts are very different. An “objective fact” requires a passive theory of knowledge, that human beings can know something without interpreting it. It seems to me this is not possible.

So, yes, I think there is an existence independent of human beings. No, we cannot say anything objective about it, therefore objective facts do not exist.

It appears that our difference in perspective is deeper than I thought. We don't even seem to be using the word "exist" the same way. Let me ask you this: if one person stops believing in something, does that mean anyone else must also stop believing in it?

No, you can believe whatever you want. But what you believe can mean something very different if other people change what they believe. If your girlfriend breaks up with, stops believing you’re a couple and you continue to believe that you’re still together. You believe the same thing, but what that means is very different now that your girlfriend has left.

I'm sorry but saying things like "the concept of a contract exists" and "the concept of a contract ... is mutually recognized" still sounds like reification to me. That is, it seems to imply that concepts have some kind of existence that is independent of any human mind. However, as I noted above, we seem to have different definitions of "existence" itself.

But even momentarily accepting arguendo that concepts create new possibilities for socially relevant action which did not exist previously, how is that anything other than an instrumental function? Possessing a car creates new possibilities for physically relevant action which did not exist previously (i.e. travelling from New York to California within a week under one's own power), and that seems to be entirely instrumental in nature.

Finally, let me ask you this: would you say that I'm free to speak to you in any language whatsoever - even one that I make up?

No it does not imply that concepts exist independent of human minds. People create concepts, their understanding of these concepts have an intersubjective quality. Where’s the existence outside of human minds here?

The creation of a concept can change the actors party to an interaction. The creation of universal rights changed the parties involved in a variety of interactions. Before, there was interaction between serfs and lords, with those identities possessing completely different agencies. When they became individuals, equal in a substantive way which did not previously exist, they became different actors. I would agree cars serve pretty much an instrumental function, not everything has constitutive effects (however, I could imagine someone making an argument for the constitutive effects of the car).

Sure you’re free to speak to me in any language.

Again, talking about "recognizing anything [I] did" sounds like reification to me. At the very least, it seems to imply that there's a correct answer to the question, "What role is this person performing?" There's no correct answer to that question - it's all a matter of opinion.

What exactly do you mean by "effect [sic] the world around you"? Can I not affect the world around me by picking an apple from an apple tree, for example?

Well, given my position on objective facts, obviously I don’t think that there is a “correct” answer to what role someone is playing. It’s a matter of interpretation. But is that not what anarcho-capitalist are trying to affect? To change the recognition afforded to state officials? Is a cop inherently a cop? I would say no. But the mutually recognized role of that person is that of a cop, possessing a very specific agency, not possessed by others. AnCaps want to alter the identity of that cop, change the intersubjective understanding of what it is that person can or cannot do justifiably.

By “effect the world around you” I was speaking socially. To change things socially around you, like changing the status of a cop with a set of privileges to an individual without privilege.

Are you claiming here that methodological individualism can't explain where any social context comes from? Is that what you're trying to say here?

Yes.

How does falling off a cliff not require the laws of physics? If there was no gravity, then a person wouldn't fall off a cliff, now would he?

So the laws of physics exist outside the human mind? The laws of physics are concepts that human beings impose on phenomena they experience in order to understand them. They aren’t just out in the ether waiting to be found by someone.

Speaking of reification...

I'm sorry but I think you're shifting the goalposts with regard to incorporating the effects of things on human actions. A person can take into account the notion that he'll fall down if he runs off a cliff. He doesn't have to explicitly encode a (let alone the) law of universal gravitation in his head, that's true, but nevertheless the laws of physics give rise to the notion that he'll fall down if he runs off a cliff. So I'd say that the laws of physics in some way are informing (and thus effecting) his actions, and I see this as being entirely consistent with methodological individualism. Now methodological individualism can't explain where the laws of physics come from, but why does it have to?

The laws of physics and understanding you will fall off a cliff are not the same thing. The laws of physics are not necessary for the phenomena of falling. The laws of physics are concepts that are grafted onto a phenomena that allow people to understand it.

As I see it, you keep repeating this bare assertion in different ways. For some reason you apparently expect that to eventually convince me. It won't. Methodological individualism explains how social phenomena emerge from the actions and interactions of multiple (if not myriad) individuals. If what you're asserting were true, then methodological individualism couldn't be used as the basis for any economic theorizing whatsoever. It couldn't explain how economic phenomena like money, prices, supply, and demand arise. Are you claiming that methodological individualism actually can't explain those things? Or what? I once again ask you to please substantiate.

I don’t care if you’re convinced one way or the other. I’m not even sure you’re well read enough for me to even have a shot at convincing you otherwise. That’s not my goal.

I think it can provide an explanation for those things, however it will be an explanation that has to make assumptions (like the freedom and equality of market participants) that it does not explain. Any explanation will do this as you must make assumptions which you then make deductions from. My point is MI is not sufficient for explaining the identities, preferences, and interests of actors.

That's your (necessarily subjective) opinion, and I'm in no way obligated to agree with it. Here, let me put it in terms you might be more familiar with: your "recognition" of my judgement "sucking" in no way requires me to "recognize" it in the same way.

Ok.

Well, if you're going to claim that methodological individualism can't explain all economic institutions, then I'd like you to substantiate that with reasoning and/or evidence.

How what makes you think that the state is more fundamental for understanding social phenomena?

I didn’t claim MI can’t explain all economic institutions, I said I’m not sure it can. I don’t know whether it can or not, so I’m going to say it can or not.

The state is the primary political institution within contemporary western societies. Therefore it has a massive constitutive effect on identities, preferences and interests.

My answer to that is no, because I don't think most Americans have any awareness of the reserve-currency status of the dollar in the global economy. Perhaps we're each using a different definition of "take [something] for granted" as well.

So if there is a factor that effects the actions of actors that they are not even aware of how would analyzing their actions and considerations fully explain a phenomena?

So where would you say those pre-human institutions came from?

I’d say they were created by pre-humans.

Re: Rights on the view from your property

Autolykos — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:36:06 GMT

National Acrobat:
I understand that words can denote different concepts. My initial post made that very point. So instead of bringing up this very basic point, why not address the substance of my post?

If you really understand that words can denote different concepts, then why would you have reacted the way you did when I said that "property" is just a word? You seemed incredulous. And as far as I'm concerned, I have been addressing the substance of your post.

National Acrobat:
The possibility of objective facts would require that human beings are capable of objectively experiencing the world, a position I take to be difficult to defend. Observation is not possible without interpretation and therefore any experience is colored by underlying assumptions and implicit theories. In other words, facts are not separable from theory and in important respects theory actually creates facts.

Facts are not objective.

Do you think anything ever exists outside of the mind? Because that's what I'm talking about when I use the word "objective". It seems that you're using "objective" in a different way from that.

National Acrobat:
Yes, ideas come from the individual mind, they however do not exist “quite independently” of the ideas of others, but are formed in relation and in response to the ideas of others. This interactive, or intersubjective, aspect of people’s understandings cannot be explained by actions that are the result of those understandings.

It appears that our difference in perspective is deeper than I thought. We don't even seem to be using the word "exist" the same way. Let me ask you this: if one person stops believing in something, does that mean anyone else must also stop believing in it?

National Acrobat:
Agreement to a contract requires that the concept of a contract exists (i.e. has been created) AND is mutually recognized by (i.e. is a common understanding between) the parties to the contract. This is a layer of social structure that not only provides an instrumental function, but has constitutive effects on the social relation of the parties and creates new possibilities for socially relevant acton which did not exist previously. The concept of a contract not only facilitates cooperation and agreement but actually creates types of action that could not exist without it.

I'm sorry but saying things like "the concept of a contract exists" and "the concept of a contract ... is mutually recognized" still sounds like reification to me. That is, it seems to imply that concepts have some kind of existence that is independent of any human mind. However, as I noted above, we seem to have different definitions of "existence" itself.

But even momentarily accepting arguendo that concepts create new possibilities for socially relevant action which did not exist previously, how is that anything other than an instrumental function? Possessing a car creates new possibilities for physically relevant action which did not exist previously (i.e. travelling from New York to California within a week under one's own power), and that seems to be entirely instrumental in nature.

Finally, let me ask you this: would you say that I'm free to speak to you in any language whatsoever - even one that I make up?

National Acrobat:
Imagine that no one recognized anything you did. When you entered a store the cashier did not recognize what you did as that actions of a costumer. When you went to school you were not recognized as a student. Essentially you lacked any type of common understanding between yourself and those around you. Socially relevant action requires that you act in certain ways that have meaning to those around you, and when you act in a manner not socially relevant you lack the recognition from others that gives your actions meaning and the potential to effect the world around you. You can expunge social relevance from the agency but then it loses much of its usefulness, imo. Why not just stick with action at that point?

Again, talking about "recognizing anything [I] did" sounds like reification to me. At the very least, it seems to imply that there's a correct answer to the question, "What role is this person performing?" There's no correct answer to that question - it's all a matter of opinion.

What exactly do you mean by "effect [sic] the world around you"? Can I not affect the world around me by picking an apple from an apple tree, for example?

National Acrobat:
MI is concerned with the actions of individuals and cannot explain the social context within which those actions take place. It can only assume their content.

Are you claiming here that methodological individualism can't explain where any social context comes from? Is that what you're trying to say here?

National Acrobat:
Falling off a cliff does not require the laws of physics. People understood that you will fall to your death if you step off a cliff long before they understood physics or even had any conception of physics as a subject of study. Besides that is not an actual incorporation of the laws of physics as an incorporation of them would entail use of actual theories of physics on the mechanism of decision making of individuals, which as far as I am aware no such attempt has been made. Attempts at incorporating biology and chemistry, much less physics, into the explanation of human action are in their infancy.

How does falling off a cliff not require the laws of physics? If there was no gravity, then a person wouldn't fall off a cliff, now would he?

I'm sorry but I think you're shifting the goalposts with regard to incorporating the effects of things on human actions. A person can take into account the notion that he'll fall down if he runs off a cliff. He doesn't have to explicitly encode a (let alone the) law of universal gravitation in his head, that's true, but nevertheless the laws of physics give rise to the notion that he'll fall down if he runs off a cliff. So I'd say that the laws of physics in some way are informing (and thus effecting) his actions, and I see this as being entirely consistent with methodological individualism. Now methodological individualism can't explain where the laws of physics come from, but why does it have to?

National Acrobat:
MI is a methodology for understanding social phenomena, and its inability to provide an explanation of social recognition is a problem for it and those who use it. This doesn’t mean that MI useless, far from it, only that it is not sufficient.

As I see it, you keep repeating this bare assertion in different ways. For some reason you apparently expect that to eventually convince me. It won't. Methodological individualism explains how social phenomena emerge from the actions and interactions of multiple (if not myriad) individuals. If what you're asserting were true, then methodological individualism couldn't be used as the basis for any economic theorizing whatsoever. It couldn't explain how economic phenomena like money, prices, supply, and demand arise. Are you claiming that methodological individualism actually can't explain those things? Or what? I once again ask you to please substantiate.

National Acrobat:
Well, your judgement sucks [sic]. Congrats.

That's your (necessarily subjective) opinion, and I'm in no way obligated to agree with it. Here, let me put it in terms you might be more familiar with: your "recognition" of my judgement "sucking" in no way requires me to "recognize" it in the same way.

National Acrobat:
I’m not sure if it’s actually the case that is can explain all economic institutions, and even if it could there are non-economic institutions which are more fundamental for understanding social phenomena, like the state.

Well, if you're going to claim that methodological individualism can't explain all economic institutions, then I'd like you to substantiate that with reasoning and/or evidence.

How what makes you think that the state is more fundamental for understanding social phenomena?

National Acrobat:
Sure. Do Americans, in general, not take the reserve currency status of the dollar in the global economy for granted?

My answer to that is no, because I don't think most Americans have any awareness of the reserve-currency status of the dollar in the global economy. Perhaps we're each using a different definition of "take [something] for granted" as well.

National Acrobat:
This is an interesting question. Well, I suppose that since human beings evolved from lower primates that the advent of human consciousness occurred within a context of stable social relations and understandings. So yes. Institutions did exist before the advent of human consciousness.

So where would you say those pre-human institutions came from?

Re: Rights on the view from your property

National Acrobat — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:59:49 GMT

Does this particular dogma have a name that its commonly known by? How can we determine if this position is correct or not?

Dogma?

You could start by providing an argument for the independent, natural existence of numbers.

How can it be an empirical question if there is no empirical testing possible to prove or disprove whether it is a fact about the world ?

It’s not possible to prove or disprove anything. If it were that would be an argument for unalterable truth (speaking of dogma), something that science as a reflexive practice cannot establish. However, we can find reason to believe that it holds well enough as far as we understand it to employ it in other endeavors to explain the world.

I don't know of any rocks that have been found without the senses of touch, sight etc. Yet for every rock that is yet to be discovered by these means, whose presence we remain ignorant of, does it only exist and rely on its existance due to having being sensed, and so not exist? Your philosophy will deny as-yet-undiscovered rocks their independant reality if we believed it. It makes the notion of undiscovered rocks ridiculous, when they would seem to me to be perfectly sensible. So that tells me something is up.

What I’ve written so far does no such thing. Given that we have discovered rocks (note: this requires we created the theoretical category of ‘rocks’ by which to identify them, providing us the means to interpret rocks as rocks) and that we are constantly observing previously unobserved rocks I have no idea how you would then conclude that we must now deny the existence of unobserved rocks.

Re: Rights on the view from your property

nirgrahamUK — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:33:50 GMT

>>Number and operations are not inherent to the world.

Does this particular dogma have a name that its commonly known by? How can we determine if this position is correct or not?

>>Simply positing 2 + 1 = 3 is not a fact about the world. It may be a fact with regard to internal consistency, but to say it >>holds in the world is an empirical question.

How can it be an empirical question if there is no empirical testing possible to prove or disprove whether it is a fact about the world ?

>>Facts are not simply out it the world. I don't know of any fact that has been found without interpretation of some kind.

Re: Rights on the view from your property

National Acrobat — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:18:20 GMT

2 + 1 = 3, in itself, doesn't say anything about the world because it doesn't refer to anything specifically about the world. To claim that it is a relation that holds in the world (which I believe it does, I'm not here to question basic arithmetic) you need to create the components of that statement. Number and operations are not inherent to the world. They were concepts created by human beings that allow us to make substantively useful interpretations about the world. And these interpretations yield facts about the world. Facts informed by that theory.

Simply positing 2 + 1 = 3 is not a fact about the world. It may be a fact with regard to internal consistency, but to say it holds in the world is an empirical question. And it this combination of theory, interpretation and observation that creates facts.

Facts are not simply out it the world. I don't know of any fact that has been found without interpretation of some kind.

As to whether there is a "fact of the matter" delineating abstractions from "real" facts, no there isn't. There is not a criterion for demarcating the two from each other independent of a theoretical interpretation that informs it.

Re: Rights on the view from your property

nirgrahamUK — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:49:47 GMT

Well, you are yet to offer reasons to think that 2+1=3 is not a fact of the world, all you have said is that facts such as the number of cars on the road are understood through interpreting the abstracts, I don't see how that begins to address your assertion that the part that you labelled as 'abstract' is not true about the world.

2 + 1 = 3 in itself says nothing about the world. It's an abstraction.

Isn't this a mere assertion? why aren't 'abstractions' 'saying stuff' about the world. They say things like 'in this world, these relations hold' . no ?

Here's a puzzle for you anyway.. Is there a 'fact of the matter' as to whether things that are only abstractions are or are not real facts about the world. ?

Re: Rights on the view from your property

National Acrobat — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:25:49 GMT

I don't think I have a falsificationist criterion. I'm saying that facts are not separable from the theories that inform the interpretation that makes them facts in the first place, and therefore they cannot be objective.

2 + 1 = 3 in itself says nothing about the world. It's an abstraction. If you say there's 2 cars on the right side of the street and 1 car on the left side, thus 3 cars on the street, that would be a fact. A fact that uses, among oter things, mathematical theory, an example of which is 2 + 1 = 3.

Re: Rights on the view from your property

nirgrahamUK — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:11:56 GMT

My spidey-sense is tingling that you have some kind of falsificationist criterion for determining what are proper facts about the world.

Why is it 'purely theoretic' that 3 countable objects can be counted as 2 objects and another object. ?

Re: Rights on the view from your property

National Acrobat — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 05:57:50 GMT

Cortes:

Facts are not objective.

2 + 1 = 3 is not objective or a fact? I understand the mathematical notation required to write it is subjective, though.

2 + 1 = 3 is purely theoretical and is not a fact about the world.

Re: Rights on the view from your property

Cortes — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 04:11:59 GMT

Facts are not objective.

2 + 1 = 3 is not objective or a fact? I understand the mathematical notation required to write it is subjective, though.

Re: Rights on the view from your property

National Acrobat — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 17:44:27 GMT

Presumably that's true, but it may be the case (and I think it is) that for our purposes (organizing society) the additional knowledge of empirical phenomena that a less flawed ontology might yield are irrelevant. By way of analogy, if you're playing billiards, Newtonian physics is just fine. It doesn't matter that it isn't strictly true, and to bring Einsteinian physics into your billiards game would not improve your ability to play.

I have to say I don’t buy that the added explanatory power of a better ontology is as useless Einsteinian physics in a billiards game. Organizing society is closer to time travel than a game of eight ball.

Knowledge can be pursued for its own sake (put on your truth hat), in which case it matters whether that knowledge is true, or knowledge can be used to achieve other ends (action hat), in which case it does not matter whether that knowledge is true, provided it works (enables one to achieve the desired ends).

...I'm not sure if that answers your question.

Libertarianism as a body of knowledge recognizes that human action exists.

Libertarianism as a political-social cause takes action.

So I don't know what you mean when you say it "lacks any substantive action."

Do you mean that libertarianism as a body of knowledge has an inadequate understanding of human action? If so, how?

Libertarianism (the variety promoted here at least) has had very little influence on the world, and hence little substantive action.

I would say libertarianism that takes a methodological individualist stance does have an inadequate understanding of human action. For details, I’ve been discussing this with Autolykos in this thread.

Re: Rights on the view from your property

National Acrobat — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 17:36:21 GMT

Yes. When I use quotes like that, I'm referring to the word itself.

Does it necessarily denote one particular concept?

My point is that there is no necessary definition for any word. All definitions are inherently arbitrary.

I understand that words can denote different concepts. My initial post made that very point. So instead of bringing up this very basic point, why not address the substance of my post?

There's no such thing as an objective fact? Ever? Since when? Please provide a basis for this contention.

The possibility of objective facts would require that human beings are capable of objectively experiencing the world, a position I take to be difficult to defend. Observation is not possible without interpretation and therefore any experience is colored by underlying assumptions and implicit theories. In other words, facts are not separable from theory and in important respects theory actually creates facts.

Facts are not objective.

If you really agree that institutions exist only within human minds, then you'll agree that institutions are no more than ideas. In order for someone to believe in or otherwise agree with an idea, he first has to create the idea anew in his own mind. No one can do that for him but himself. Hence the idea exists in his mind quite independently of its existence in anyone else's mind.

I would say an idea or set of ideas is what's agreed to.

I would say it comes from my own mind.

Speaking in terms of immediate origin, I would say it comes from his own mind.

See above.

Yes, ideas come from the individual mind, they however do not exist “quite independently” of the ideas of others, but are formed in relation and in response to the ideas of others. This interactive, or intersubjective, aspect of people’s understandings cannot be explained by actions that are the result of those understandings.

Agreement to a contract requires that the concept of a contract exists (i.e. has been created) AND is mutually recognized by (i.e. is a common understanding between) the parties to the contract. This is a layer of social structure that not only provides an instrumental function, but has constitutive effects on the social relation of the parties and creates new possibilities for socially relevant acton which did not exist previously. The concept of a contract not only facilitates cooperation and agreement but actually creates types of action that could not exist without it.

Okay, what do you mean by "socially relevant"? Regardless, though, my own definition of "agency" is different, such that it has no such qualification. In other words, "agency" to me simply denotes the ability to act, period.

Imagine that no one recognized anything you did. When you entered a store the cashier did not recognize what you did as that actions of a costumer. When you went to school you were not recognized as a student. Essentially you lacked any type of common understanding between yourself and those around you. Socially relevant action requires that you act in certain ways that have meaning to those around you, and when you act in a manner not socially relevant you lack the recognition from others that gives your actions meaning and the potential to effect the world around you. You can expunge social relevance from the agency but then it loses much of its usefulness, imo. Why not just stick with action at that point?

How exactly is methodological individualism unable to explain "social recognition"?

There are ways to incorporate the effects of the laws of physics on human actions. For example, a person can't run off a cliff without falling down (unlike in "cartoon physics").

MI is concerned with the actions of individuals and cannot explain the social context within which those actions take place. It can only assume their content.

Falling off a cliff does not require the laws of physics. People understood that you will fall to your death if you step off a cliff long before they understood physics or even had any conception of physics as a subject of study. Besides that is not an actual incorporation of the laws of physics as an incorporation of them would entail use of actual theories of physics on the mechanism of decision making of individuals, which as far as I am aware no such attempt has been made. Attempts at incorporating biology and chemistry, much less physics, into the explanation of human action are in their infancy.

MI is a methodology for understanding social phenomena, and its inability to provide an explanation of social recognition is a problem for it and those who use it. This doesn’t mean that MI useless, far from it, only that it is not sufficient.

Excuse me, but I will question your understanding of the concept as I see fit.

Well, your judgement sucks. Congrats.

You missed my point, it seems. My point wasn't that methodological individualism ignores any wider context within which an individual finds himself. Methodological individualism, as far as I can tell, does not actually do that. Austrian-school economics, for example, uses methodological individualism as its methodological foundation, and it certainly seems able to explain all economic institutions.

I’m not sure if it’s actually the case that is can explain all economic institutions, and even if it could there are non-economic institutions which are more fundamental for understanding social phenomena, like the state.

How not? Could you give me an example of what you're talking about?

Sure. Do Americans, in general, not take the reserve currency status of the dollar in the global economy for granted?

So you're asserting that one or more institutions existed before the advent of human consciousness? Or what?

This is an interesting question. Well, I suppose that since human beings evolved from lower primates that the advent of human consciousness occurred within a context of stable social relations and understandings. So yes. Institutions did exist before the advent of human consciousness.

Re: Rights on the view from your property

Minarchist — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:34:33 GMT

a less flawed ontology will almost certainly provide a richer and more expansive understanding of empirical phenomena over time than a more flawed one.

I have to ask the question here: “what action?”

...I'm not sure if that answers your question.

Is it not troublesome to you that libertarianism essentially lacks any substantive action whatsoever? Could it be that this is the case because it’s missing a huge piece of the puzzle that stunts its insights?

Libertarianism as a body of knowledge recognizes that human action exists.

Libertarianism as a political-social cause takes action.

So I don't know what you mean when you say it "lacks any substantive action."

Do you mean that libertarianism as a body of knowledge has an inadequate understanding of human action? If so, how?

Re: Rights on the view from your property

Autolykos — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 23:26:55 GMT

National Acrobat:
I mean, really? “Property” is just a word?

Yes. When I use quotes like that, I'm referring to the word itself.

National Acrobat:
Like obviously it’s just a word, but it’s a word, like the vast majority of other words I’m aware of, that denotes some concept, which in turn when it is used allows two or more people to communicate by representing this concept.

Does it necessarily denote one particular concept?

National Acrobat:
What is your point?

My point is that there is no necessary definition for any word. All definitions are inherently arbitrary.

National Acrobat:
One more time, there’s no such thing as an objective fact and I don’t believe institutions exist independent of human minds. Now, they can’t be created by an individual mind but through the interaction of two minds (i.e. they are intersubjective). This makes them still the product of the human mind.

There's no such thing as an objective fact? Ever? Since when? Please provide a basis for this contention.

National Acrobat:
When an agreement is made, what is agreed to?

I would say an idea or set of ideas is what's agreed to.

National Acrobat:
If you don’t have to consider every possible option, where does the subset of options you actually choose from come from?

I would say it comes from my own mind.

National Acrobat:
Agency is the location of the ability to act in a socially relevant manner.

National Acrobat:
Yes, the individual makes the decision to follow the script or not. We agree here. Now, where does the script come from?

Speaking in terms of immediate origin, I would say it comes from his own mind.

National Acrobat:
When you agree to something (when you consciously choose something) what are you agreeing to?

See above.

National Acrobat:
MI is intended to explain human behavior. It cannot explain social recognition which is a major component of human behavior. Therefore, it is deficient. If there was a way to incorporate the effects of the laws of physics on human actions, yes that would be an argument against MI.

How exactly is methodological individualism unable to explain "social recognition"?

There are ways to incorporate the effects of the laws of physics on human actions. For example, a person can't run off a cliff without falling down (unlike in "cartoon physics").

National Acrobat:
Let me be clear here, I’m well aware of what methodological individualism is. In fact, it’s very likely I’ve read far more individual methodologists (and from i far wider range of materials) than you have. So please, stop questioning my understanding of the concept.

Excuse me, but I will question your understanding of the concept as I see fit.

National Acrobat:
Purposeful action is the conscious employment of means to attain chosen ends. Purposeful action is not impossible. As I’ve said several times, individuals act. As you say yourself, “It [methodological individualism] simply says that action is individual regardless of the wider context. That doesn't make the wider context irrelevant, let alone non-existent.” This is exactly the point. All MI says is that people act. That wider context you mentioned can’t be explained by MI. That wider context, as you said, is still very important. MI therefore is insufficient for a complete explanation of social phenomena.

National Acrobat:
Absolutely not.

How not? Could you give me an example of what you're talking about?

National Acrobat:
Obviously all action.

So you're asserting that one or more institutions existed before the advent of human consciousness? Or what?

Re: Rights on the view from your property

National Acrobat — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 19:42:48 GMT

No, "property" is just a word, i.e. a certain sequence of sounds. There is an infinite number of meanings that that word can be used to refer to.

I mean, really? “Property” is just a word?

Like obviously it’s just a word, but it’s a word, like the vast majority of other words I’m aware of, that denotes some concept, which in turn when it is used allows two or more people to communicate by representing this concept.

What is your point?

Your use of the word "recognition" here implies that the rightfulness exists independently of any individual mind, and that it therefore exists as an objective fact. What reasoning or evidence do you have to support this notion?

The way I see it, rightfulness exists entirely within individual minds, which means it's subjective. So there's no recognition of rightfulness, only agreement and/or disagreement over it.

One more time, there’s no such thing as an objective fact and I don’t believe institutions exist independent of human minds. Now, they can’t be created by an individual mind but through the interaction of two minds (i.e. they are intersubjective). This makes them still the product of the human mind.

When an agreement is made, what is agreed to?

And why is that, in your view? I don't see how it at all follows that not considering, or not having to consider, every possible action indicates that there are factors other than individual agency at work. So far, you don't seem to have provided any logical basis for that.

If you don’t have to consider every possible option, where does the subset of options you actually choose from come from?

Maybe we're using different definitions of the word "agency". What definition are you using?

Agency is the location of the ability to act in a socially relevant manner.

The word "recognition" still implies to me an existence that's independent of any human mind. That being said, how are purposeful, considered actions by individuals and common understandings within social contexts categorically different things, exactly? What's your basis for making that assertion? As I see it - and I believe I may have said this before - agreement is a conscious decision. That is, a person chooses to follow a certain "script" or he doesn't. No one makes that choice but him.

Yes, the individual makes the decision to follow the script or not. We agree here. Now, where does the script come from?

When you agree to something (when you consciously choose something) what are you agreeing to?

The laws of physics are also prior to purposeful action, are they not? Would you say that the laws of physics thus also constitute an argument against methodological individualism - i.e. that it can't take into account how the laws of physics inform individual preferences and actions?

But regardless, I don't see how your response explains how methodological individualism fails to account for the full role and effect of institutional factors. What exactly is your definition of "purposeful action"? I have a feeling that it's different from the definition actually used by methodological individualism, in which case you've been attacking a strawman. From what little I can gather from your reasoning presented thus far, it would seem that what you call "purposeful action" is actually impossible, because there's always some wider context within which individuals find themselves. But methodological individualism does not actually assume or argue the converse. It simply says that action is individual regardless of the wider context. That doesn't make the wider context irrelevant, let alone non-existent.

MI is intended to explain human behavior. It cannot explain social recognition which is a major component of human behavior. Therefore, it is deficient. If there was a way to incorporate the effects of the laws of physics on human actions, yes that would be an argument against MI.

Let me be clear here, I’m well aware of what methodological individualism is. In fact, it’s very likely I’ve read far more individual methodologists (and from i far wider range of materials) than you have. So please, stop questioning my understanding of the concept.

Purposeful action is the conscious employment of means to attain chosen ends. Purposeful action is not impossible. As I’ve said several times, individuals act. As you say yourself, “It [methodological individualism] simply says that action is individual regardless of the wider context. That doesn't make the wider context irrelevant, let alone non-existent.” This is exactly the point. All MI says is that people act. That wider context you mentioned can’t be explained by MI. That wider context, as you said, is still very important. MI therefore is insufficient for a complete explanation of social phenomena.

Taking something for granted requires conscious awareness of it, does it not?

Absolutely not.

What exactly do you mean by "prior to action"? Do you mean prior to a particular action, or do you mean prior to any/all action?

Obviously all action.