|
On July 21 2011 07:19 xarthaz wrote:
Wrong. Bringing the consumer economy largely to a halt as more consumption is forgone is possible. However the higher orders of production boom - as investment increases due to increased savings. That is how economic growth happens!
mcc, The meaning of observable behavior of humans comes from attaching the definition of human action to it. You say it doesnt presuppose action axiom. If that is the case, then it is not perceived in a manner that does suppose action axiom. Yet that is incorrect, as human behavior gets its meaning from being interpreted as being action
Read the middle part of the Mises quote carefully - thats where the meat is. Now, it is quite an abstract concept so it requires quite a bit of concentration to grasp it, and reading it over and over again. I have seen this often in forums. I present the irrefutable evidence of the validity of action axiom, yet it is ignored. Sure, the readers think they answer it. But their reading is shallow, they move over the abstract meaty part of what Mises is trying to say, so they end up ignoring the belly of the argument. It is the kind of thing.
I'm going to reword your arguments so you can't confuse people with unnecessarily complex wording
"bringing consumption largely to a halt as consumption is stopped is possible. However, investment increases due to savings."
this is entirely unsubstantiated. There's no point in forming an argument against it.
"the meaning of observable human behavior comes from interpreting human actions."
cool, I agree. See how I did that without throwing around words like "axiom" and "presuppose" You really don't have to pepper SAT words into every sentence you type.
"if you disagree with me you haven't read my quote closely enough because you have to agree with me to be logically correct"
well, I don't know how anyone is suppose to argue with that.
|
On July 21 2011 07:04 Harrow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 06:43 xarthaz wrote:
No Blue's, the premises are perfect because the concept is necessary for perception of world:
All experience concerning human action is conditioned by the praxeo-
logical categories and becomes possible only through their application. If
we had not in our mind the schemes provided by praxeological reasoning,
we should never be in a position to discern and to grasp any action. We would
perceive motions, but neither buying nor selling, nor prices, wage rates,
interest rates, and so on. It is only through the utilization of the praxeological
scheme that we become able to have an experience concerning an act of
buying and selling, but then independently of the fact of whether or not our
senses concomitantly perceive any motions of men and of nonhuman
elements of the external world. Unaided by praxeological knowledge we
would never learn anything about media of exchange. If we approach coins
without such preexisting knowledge, we would see in them only round plates
of metal, nothing more. Experience concerning money requires familiarity
with the praxeological category medium of exchange.
Experience concerning human action differs from that concerning natural
phenomena in that it requires and presupposes praxeological knowledge.
This is why the methods of the natural sciences are inappropriate for the
study of praxeology, economics and history. Heh, googling for passages from this not only brings up the actual Mises book you copy-pasted from, but posts by you in other topics on TL as well as posts by you on other gaming forums. Have you tried reading some contrary opinions? Even most ardent anarcho-capitalists I've read/talked to don't point to Somalia as a success story. A better argument is that it's not a good example of the FAILURE of anarchy, since it hasn't developed as an alternative to an existing stable state. Instead it has risen from the ashes of other terrible, corrupt, chaotic states. I still think it serves as an example of some of the problems with anarchy, and I think there are reasons that democratic states have grown as the most stable and produced the best standards of living.
Wow you're right. Straight copy paste. http://mises.org/humanaction/chap2sec3.asp
So when you told me earlier in the thread that it was verbal vomit, what you meant to say was regurgitation.
|
Well elaborate on how it is wrong then. What mistakes does Mises make in the statements. Please chew it down for me, otherwise we end up ignoring each other. To me, the statements show how it is, to you, it doesnt show how it is. And how mises' examples fail to fulfill the criterion they attemt to describe.
When i try to debunk someone, i show how what they said was wrong, that gets the debate going you know. but the mises passage - havent received any feedback on its content.
|
|
|
It is not necessarily circular logic, although some adherents might fall into that trap. But it is purely theoretical construct, that has in itself no way to say anything about the world. The problem is that there is basically no way to actually prove that action axiom is a priori synthetic truth.
You're right, the circle is never really completed, you just have to keep pushing it back and back further until you reach the Ultimate Self-Evident Premise, which is what I suppose "the axiom of human action" is.
Well elaborate on how it is wrong then. What mistakes does Mises make in the statements. Please chew it down for me, otherwise we end up ignoring each other. To me, the statements show how it is, to you, it doesnt show how it is. And how mises' examples fail to fulfill the criterion they attemt to describe.
Unfortunately the simplest and most valid way, that of evidence, has been declared by you to be off-limits, and you have declared that your logic and premises are so airtight as to survive the strictest of inspection from Socrates himself, so we don't really have much to say in general other than to suggest that your methods of finding truth and then proving so are possibly lacking in rigor and justification.
|
On July 21 2011 07:38 xarthaz wrote:
Well elaborate on how it is wrong then. What mistakes does Mises make in the statements. Please chew it down for me, otherwise we end up ignoring each other. To me, the statements show how it is, to you, it doesnt show how it is. And how mises' examples fail to fulfill the criterion they attemt to describe.
When i try to debunk someone, i show how what they said was wrong, that gets the debate going you know. but the mises passage - havent received any feedback on its content.
In case that was directed at me.
Lets not discuss too many things at once, so let's for now ignore the higher level problem of interpreting actions,... Just show me your argument for why is human action axiom a priori synthetic truth. And use your words as I am not discussing Mises but you.
If any of your posts actually had such an argument, then reformulate it and show the logical steps as I did not notice it.
And a small note :
In my experience all that "fancy" language can easily be translated to a text at least half its length and half its obscurity, so try to do that.
|
Well the discussion is about Mises so might as well debunk him instead of me. He was the main guy who applied the kantian concept of knowledge as justification of action, rothbard kind of denounced that. "theory and history" also contains relevant passages in addition to "human action"
|
somalia isnt a success and saying it has a vibrant telecommunications industry means nothing when the country is gripped by civil war and violent internal divisions
|
Indeed, Somalia is not a success.
|
On July 21 2011 08:47 xarthaz wrote:
Well the discussion is about Mises so might as well debunk him instead of me. He was the main guy who applied the kantian concept of knowledge as justification of action, rothbard kind of denounced that. "theory and history" also contains relevant passages in addition to "human action"
Nope, discussion is about a statement, not about a person. The argument is independent of any person and quoting is not a valid way to argue, especially quoting those unclearly written texts. But if you must then quote at least only things that are relevant to the point someone is making.
And no I am not going to waste time reading these books unless I get convinced they are worth it, but that seems very unlikely judging by the quotes I saw.
|
Somalia is in huge trouble:
"10,000 people are dying of hunger every day in some parts of the Bakool and Lower Shabelle regions of Somalia", according to the UN.
link to article
|
On July 21 2011 08:47 xarthaz wrote:
Well the discussion is about Mises so might as well debunk him instead of me. He was the main guy who applied the kantian concept of knowledge as justification of action, rothbard kind of denounced that. "theory and history" also contains relevant passages in addition to "human action"
But just because Kant said it, it isn't necessarily true. I must admit, that I stopped halfway while reading Kant because I neither agree with him him nor does he provide proper conclusions.
Kant's main success was the insight that there must be some a priori ability of perception. What he didn't know about was evolution, so one can understand, why he just made educated guesses about the nature of the a priori given abilities of perception.
But for me, due to evolution, these a priori abilities of perception are a subject of natural sciences, mainly biology/psychology. I tend to assume that they might be far more general than Kant (and maybe Mises too) assumed.
+ Show Spoiler +If I am wrong on Kant please let me know.
|
On July 21 2011 19:50 Maenander wrote:Somalia is in huge trouble: "10,000 people are dying of hunger every day in some parts of the Bakool and Lower Shabelle regions of Somalia", according to the UN. link to article
Least they can make phone calls from ANYWHERE while starving to death.
|
This thread is a joke given the situation that has been building up over the last few months. Glad to see it's become major news so that the idea that the country is some success story can be laid to rest.
|
On July 21 2011 20:57 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 19:50 Maenander wrote:Somalia is in huge trouble: "10,000 people are dying of hunger every day in some parts of the Bakool and Lower Shabelle regions of Somalia", according to the UN. link to article Least they can make phone calls from ANYWHERE while starving to death.
You stole that from the second page of this thread.
|
Somalia is a very interesting case indeed.Without aid from outsiders let us see how these people improve in the next decade.
|
On July 22 2011 00:04 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 20:57 Adila wrote:On July 21 2011 19:50 Maenander wrote:Somalia is in huge trouble: "10,000 people are dying of hunger every day in some parts of the Bakool and Lower Shabelle regions of Somalia", according to the UN. link to article Least they can make phone calls from ANYWHERE while starving to death. You stole that from the second page of this thread.
Well gee, I guess we'd better get out the torches and pitchforks.
|
Xarthas - success story of copy/pasting pages worth of "his argument".
|
On July 22 2011 00:21 nemo14 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2011 00:04 Simberto wrote:On July 21 2011 20:57 Adila wrote:On July 21 2011 19:50 Maenander wrote:Somalia is in huge trouble: "10,000 people are dying of hunger every day in some parts of the Bakool and Lower Shabelle regions of Somalia", according to the UN. link to article Least they can make phone calls from ANYWHERE while starving to death. You stole that from the second page of this thread. Well gee, I guess we'd better get out the torches and pitchforks.
You forgot the ropes. Can't have a good lynching without good ropes.
|
Its nice that you so strongly believe in anarchy, I strongly believe in Marxism,but I am not so naive as to think it will be implemented in a working way in any State, until humans reach a new evolutionary step and don't want a bigger car than their neighbour.
careful analysis of conditions in the area
This is what you base most of opinion on and it is what is know here as "fancy bullshit".
This sentence means nothing except that the presented facts are out of context, well selected and for the most part will ignore any opposing facts or facts that might fuel any counter argument.
here is Somalia total success, this thread makes me puke.
![[image loading]](http://allartsangle.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/hunger2.jpg)
PS he doesn't have a mobile phone either.
On July 01 2011 13:04 xarthaz wrote:
The piracy is a display of free market enterprising - while one may not morally agree with it, it shows the fast adapting cheap operating cost efficient nature of free market solution...[]
edit:
Oh yeah one more thing. Your fucking clever pirates found another clever enterprise. Raiding unarmed supply convoys that are bringing food to the starving and selling it to other country's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
