vive la insurrection: Either way I don’t think critiques are all that important as “a critique for the sake of critiquing”. In fact, it probably does more harm than good. There is too big of a risk of everythingfalling on pure skepticism, which is pure gibberish. It’s best if you are critiquing the foundations of something, you lay your cards on the table if you want someone to be able to make sense of things. If that is pitting Kant vs Dewey, so be it.
I agree about some of this. I think, especially in the last section, that it does come across as too “skeptical.” My basic conception of economics (or praxeology, I guess) is that it concerns “durations” of time and how action occurs within them. This is fundamentally about actualizing one of many parallel states rather than aiming at something in the future. The appearance of aiming at something in the future is due to the conceptual extension of these parallel states further in time. It is from this basis which I wish to “critique” Mises. I’ve started to formulate a theory of value based on this durational conception here. My primary goal isn’t to refute Mises, but to establish a better foundation for the science of economics. If I am to publish this here, it obviously makes sense to reference Mises. Whenever I’ve disagreed with people here in the past, they’ve always told me to read Human Action. Now that I have, I feel like I ought to give a response.