I am about to engage in a critique of a video that “debunks” praxeology.
In the video, the person conflates human action with literal action and basically connects that epileptic fits debunk human action (praxeology).
However, from what I recall, Mises made intentional distinction between human action and literal action. That is, human action is not necessarily about me hitting a ball, but me attempting to achieve utility maximization. So epileptic fits are not “human action” per se because human action is (from my rusty inference) a conscious person purposefully using means to achieve ends for utility maximization.
Is my inference correct? If not, what am I missing?
EDIT: Nice. Right at the end of the video he implied that he understood the difference between human action and literal action. But, he’s still claiming that epilepsy debunks praxeology because he asserted that Mises “concedes” that some things are not in our control. Yet I’ve again inferred that human action’s sole concern is with the mental state of the individual actor thus physical effects like epilepsy don’t matter because the focus is on the individual attempting to achieve ultimate utility.
It doesn’t sound like this person has read Human Action, or got the point of praxeology.
It’s just a ridiculous strawman to claim that praxeology assumes that a person has absolute, omnipotent control over their body. Never mind epilepsy… Involuntary bodily functions like metabolism, respiration, dreams or indeed death itself would seem to “refute” praxeology by this logic.
If someone did have absolute, omnipotent control over their body, praxeology wouldn’t be relevant or true. It would be possible for someone to ensure that they never feel discomfort, regardless of the physical conditions bearing down upon her body, without ever acting to change her environment. Action to this end would serve no purpose. Praxeology concerns the willed, rational execution of action to the purpose of maximising utility - i.e. reducing discomfort.
If there were no such thing as involuntary epileptic seizures, people would not have acted to seek a medical understanding and treatment of epilepsy. The epileptic would not rationally act to avoid stimulii which she knows could precipitate a seizure, would not act to buy drugs to treat the problem, would not wear a medic alert bracelet to alert others to her condition in case of emergency etc etc.
That humans act does not mean that they always act, that every thing that our bodies do is an act. Does a beating heart disprove that humans act? Does sweating disprove it? His epileptic example was a poor one, because very few people suffer from this. In his misunderstanding, he might have used a better, more far-reaching example likea heartbeat. Nevertheless, it is still easy enough to debunk.
Humans act, his creation of that video on youtube is proof of this (or does he want to try to argue that a youtube video is a reflex action?).