Just, you know to hijack the thread, I don’t suppose anybody could go here: Primer on Epistemology. - #4 by hayekianxyz and recommend me any books on epistemology?
Giles, you might cringe, but bare with it and consider the following suggestions: Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and Evidence of the Senses. The former is good when you consider how much it reads from an oddly CompSci standpoint than it does anything else adn the latter, I’ve only had the luck of reading bits and pieces of it, but I found it useful to get the Objectivist point of view on epistemology in a more understandable manner.
I did intend to be somewhat elusive as my intention (with regard to my original post) was to see what other people thought rather than debate the things that I think (its clear that philosophical positions like mine are not going to be appreciated here and I honestly dont mean to troll)…
With regards to them being insulting, this is partly why I was trying to be a little elusive with my own position. I dont want to come on here and be basically saying “I dont agree with any of you, you’re all wrong”, the last thing i want to do was insult any of you people!
I’m trying to avoid asserting my beliefs, because its clear how badly they will go down. i certainly did not mean to ‘assign homework’, i mentioned one book which i made clear i genuinely thought he might find interesting and it turns out he did find it interesting. i think you’re maybe being a little harsh here.
look, i realise what i must look like here and i understand why you would react like this, but on a forum it is extremely difficult to express any kind of sincerity, etc. i’d still like to believe however that in a different context maybe we could communicate a little more effectively, we are after all, all here at the mises institute forums trying to learn i thing or two.
i really dont think that i am what i think you think i am but also im sorry if iv caused offense to anybody, i genuinely did not mean to and have tried overtly to indicate my beliefs in the gentlest manner in order to expressly avoid this type of thing but i suppose its the internet and it cant be helped.
peace anyway [;)]
I’m not quite sure that I understand the question. Are you asking if we would still support Austrian Economics if a prior/a posteriori distinctions did not exist?
Reality is what it is, or as Rand said, “Existence exists”. To wonder about a different reality is science fiction or science fantasy, and only useful if it tells us something about reality as it actually is. If reality were different, Austrian economics might indeed be irrelevant or worthless, it all depends upon the nature of that reality.
However, given that reality is what it is, and that things work as they do, philosophy is merely the attempt by humans to have a greater understanding of that reality and how it works. Such understanding is not merely interesting for its own sake, but useful in helping us accomplish our goals and desires, or helps us to act in the best and most appropriate fashion. Or sometimes, it helps us understand that something is impossible to achieve.
There are various and sundry reasons why I think liberty is best for the human condition, and of course, Austrian economics is a part of that. But none of this changes reality. If I’m right and liberty really is best, that will be true no matter how well or how poorly anybody understands that. Or if I’m wrong and something else is best, that, too will be true no matter my level of understanding.
More likely, libertarianism and Austrian Economics are not so much wrong, as merely primitive constructs that are approximately right, and it will take the work of better and later philosophers to refine and improve upon these ideas, as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was an improvement on Isaac Newton’s laws of physics.
I don’t know if that’s what you were looking for or not. [8-|]