"Awful Austrians"

Economics Economics Questions
41

Is there any such thing as a thing? Why do apples have more existence than stem + skin + core + cell combinations? For that matter, why do apples have more existence than 1s?

Regardless, you haven’t given me your definition of “real-world phenomenon”.

Denying gravity doesn’t make any difference, since gravity’s existence (so to speak) doesn’t depend on your acceptance of it. But apparently you don’t actually want me to answer your question, because you go ahead and answer it yourself by saying “It’s a clever word play.” What exactly do you mean by that?

And I would call those things human actions. Your point?

Why in the world should I care about whether it’s anthrocentric? This is a red herring if I’ve ever seen one.

Irrelevant.

42

By the way, Laotzu, two words for you: methodological dualism.

43

Mises’ poinit was to differentiate conscious action versus instinctual action. He called it Human Action. Whether or not other animals can consciously act does not invalidate the action axiom. The difference between a man throwing his hands up to protect his face when being attacked versus a man typing a message on a forum is clear. One is instinctual, the other conscious.

It’s like the word “humane”. I’m sure we’ve all witnessed animals be kind to one another, whether in person or perhaps in a documentary. The word is still “humane” and not “animalane” or “creaturane”. Just because an animal may show compassion for another animal does not invalidate the idea of “humane”.

I get that. People have a propensity for taking me out of context. This specific point of mine (that it’s not striclty “human” action) was not part of my refutation. It was me saying it is anthrocentric to call it “human” action. It’s just conscious action.

44

Is there any such thing as a thing?

Other than the word “thing?” No.

Why do apples have more existence than stem + skin + core + cell combinations?

I wasn’t aware they did.

For that matter, why do apples have more existence than 1s?

Because apples exist. 1’s are made up so that we can easilier make sense of a dynamic world. I already explained this.

Regardless, you haven’t given me your definition of “real-world phenomenon”.

You’re being obtuse. Nobody has to think about an apple, or gravity for it to exist. 1’s don’t exist without someone thinking about them. Sure, 1s exist in the real world. But they are not “real world phenomena.” Rather, they are phenomena imposed (don’t take that word out of context plz) on the real world.

Denying gravity doesn’t make any difference, since gravity’s existence (so to speak) doesn’t depend on your acceptance of it. But apparently you don’t actually want me to answer your question, because you go ahead and answer it yourself by saying “It’s a clever word play.” What exactly do you mean by that?

I mean exactly what I said. It’s nothing more than a clever play on words. And I do want you to answer it, or I wouldn’t have asked. Just because I already have my answer in no way means I’m not open to new ones. I’m not dogmatic.

Why in the world should I care about whether it’s anthrocentric? This is a red herring if I’ve ever seen one.

It’s only a straw man (it’s not in any way a red herring. wherein was I trying to divert away attention?) if you assume I was saying it being anthrocentric refutes its’ validity. I had other reasons for refuting its’ validity. But I also wanted to point out the anthrocentric nature of calling it “human action.”

45

Because apples exist.

  1. An apple for our purpose exists

  2. If such a thing exists, are they not limited in supply? And the dealings with this limit in our actions, do they not exist as well? And if we can give something like an apple a name could we also not use terms to describe our dealings with such human action?

46

Just thought I’d throw in a quote from Bertrand Russell which may shed a little light on the toipc:

“It has now become possible to decide with some confidence as to the truth or falsehood of these opposing schools. It must be admitted, for the reasons already stated, that logical principles are known to us, and cannot be themselves proved by expereince, since all proof presupposes them. In this, therefore, which was the most important point of the controversy, the rationalists were int he right.” --Bertrand Russell, Problems of Philosophy.

47

Most of what we call “the rules of logic” (e.g., modus ponens) just tell you how you can rearrange a set of sentences in an equivalent manner, provided such sentences use words like “if” and “all” and “some” in a strict way.

48

But what does the word “thing” refer to?

You seemed to imply otherwise. Please be honest here.

How exactly do apples exist? In fact, what do you even mean by the word “exist”?

No, I’m really not. I asked you for a definition and you’re refusing to give me one. While I’m not being obtuse, you are being obstinate.

There’s a word for “phenomena imposed on the real world” - noumena (in the ancient sense). But the thing is, apples and gravity are noumena, just like 1s are!

Let me put it another way: I think asking me a question and then not waiting for me to answer it is rude, and I won’t abide by it.

The part I emphasized is the red herring. Whether “human action” can be said to be anthrocentric has no bearing on the topic of our discussion. Amazingly, you persist in trying to distract me from other things - it won’t work, I can assure you.

49

But what does the word “thing” refer to

It’s an abstraction we use to better understand a dynamic world. “Thing” doesn’t exist, even in the same sense as “apple.” And when I say “apples exist,” I mean the physical collection of cells we have chosen to give the word apple to. It exists, other than just as a word. “Thing” only exists as a word.

You seemed to imply otherwise. Please be honest here.

Actually I think I implied the opposite. Apples don’t exist, other than as a noun we have given to a collection of cells.

No, I’m really not. I asked you for a definition and you’re refusing to give me one. While I’m not being obtuse, you are being obstinate.

I’ve already gave you the definition. Yet you keep asking for it… obtuse? Go back, and slowly and carefully read my posts and you will see I define real world phenomenon as “things that exist regardless of someone thinking of them.” 1s have to be thought up, apples (again the collection of cells we call apple) and gravity (the physical process we call gravity) don’t. 1s are phenomena of the mental world. They don’t “exist” like “human” “apple” “key” etc.

There’s a word for “phenomena imposed on the real world” - noumena (in the ancient sense). But the thing is, apples and gravity are noumena, just like 1s are!

No, they’re not.

Platonic idealism died out centuries ago, friend. The word “apple” may be, but the collection of cells we call apples are not.

Again, this has been my point the whole time. Things like the word “apple” or “one” (which, the word apple, without an s, implies the number one) and “gravity” are terms we use to better understand a dynamic world. But I can show you an “apple.” I have to write a “one” to show it to you. Numbers are in an even less realistic class of words than even apple and gravity, as they refer only to abstractions. “Apple” is an abstraction we use to refer to a real world phenomenon, “one” is an abstraction we use to refer to an abstraction, in this case singularity. I swear to Christ if I have to repeat myself again…

Let me put it another way: I think asking me a question and then not waiting for me to answer it is rude, and I won’t abide by it.

Well, that’s your choice. Would I have made it any better for you if I said “In my opinion it is nothing more than a clever word play on words. Can you show me another place it is used, that is not economics?” If your feelings are going to get hurt everytime someone asks you a question they think they have an answer for, you’re going to get nowhere in debate.

The part I emphasized is the red herring. Whether “human action” can be said to be anthrocentric has no bearing on the topic of our discussion. Amazingly, you persist in trying to distract me from other things - it won’t work, I can assure you.

I’ve already answered this criticism. Notice the word “besides.” That implies that I am saying "stop this previous argument for one second. I just want to say that it is anthrocentric to call it “human action.” I’m not distracting you, I’m making two seperate arguments. Is multi-tasking too hard for you?

50

Platonic idealism died out centuries ago, friend. The word “apple” may be, but the collection of cells we call apples are not.

Nobody is talking about Platonistic idealism or words in themselves. It is probably doxastic, elentic radical ontic Aristotlean materialism if anything. British empiricism and it’s ilk is a messed up philisophical approach that over eager science hobbyists take too seriously

Please drop all claims to theology or Plato. Everyone knows that framework is dead. It would be up to the person arguing to state that is where they are comming from, rather than us assume it. In good faith, it is best to assume no one is a platonist or speaking about religion, etc. If anything, just assume the language is being used slightly different which causes confusion.

51

Nobody is talking about Platonistic idealism or words in themselves. It is probably doxastic, elentic radical ontic Aristotlean materialism if anything. British empiricism and it’s ilk is a messed up philisophical approach that over eager science hobbyists take too seriously

Please drop all claims to theology or Plato. Everyone knows that framework is dead. It would be up to the person arguing to state that is where they are comming from, rather than us assume it. In good faith, it is best to assume no one is a platonist or speaking about religion, etc. If anything, just assume the language is being used slightly different which causes confusion

My apologies.

52

lol, no need to apologize. It is just an error that we all, myself included, tend to make. The last paragrph is something that has been bothering me lately, and hopefully if I bring it to more peoples attention it will cause better habits and more fruitful dialogue rather than people getting mixed up in discussions that go no where. That’s the goal anyway.

53

Really? An apple isn’t a thing?

My point is that “apple” also exists only as a word - as do “collection”, “cell”, etc.

Now you’re contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that apples do exist. Which is it? (Note that this depends on your definition of “exist”, which you also haven’t provided.)

If you’re going to say “Apples don’t exist, other than as a noun we have given to a collection of cells”, you can make an analogous statement about “things”.

I searched through the entire thread, and nowhere did you explicitly provide me with your definition of “real-world phenomenon”. In fairness, though, I didn’t directly ask you for it - my question was implied when I said “It depends on how you define ‘real-world phenomenon.’” In any case, thank you for finally giving me an explicit answer to my (admittedly implicit) question.

Now, given your definition of “real-world phenomenon”, even atoms aren’t such. That’s fine with me, but I suspect you’ll want to disagree (and hence be inconsistent).

As William pointed out, I’m not talking about Platonic idealism. In fact, my understanding of Platonic idealism is that it would claim the word “apple” to necessarily have a particular meaning. (But I could be wrong.) Anyway, my point is that there’s nothing in reality that tells us to necessarily distinguish the pattern that we label (in English) with “apple” from any other observable pattern. Hence “apple” is a noumenon.

You can also show me a “one”. But while I agree that “one” is a more abstract noumenon than “apple”, they’re both still noumena. You’re actually saying the same thing above!

Do you expect this to have any particular effect on me? If so, don’t get your hopes up.

Let me put it this way: I consider your second and newer argument to be a distraction and completely unnecessary. In fact, it baffles me that you even brought it up.

54

Really? An apple isn’t a thing?

My point is that “apple” also exists only as a word - as do “collection”, “cell”, etc.

Now you’re contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that apples do exist. Which is it? (Note that this depends on your definition of “exist”, which you also haven’t provided.)

If you’re going to say “Apples don’t exist, other than as a noun we have given to a collection of cells”, you can make an analogous statement about “things”.

I think on this issue, we’re sort of talking past each other. I’m in agreement that the word “apple” as a word is just an abstraction, just like “one.” But the thing, the apple, the collection of cells, exists. “apple” is an abstraction we use to describe said collection of cells, whereas “one” is an abstraction we use to describe singularity, which is itself just an abstraction.

Now, given your definition of “real-world phenomenon”, even atoms aren’t such. That’s fine with me, but I suspect you’ll want to disagree (and hence be inconsistent).

I don’t follow. Atoms exist regardless of whether we think of them. Could you clarify?

ou can also show me a “one”. But while I agree that “one” is a more abstract noumenon than “apple”, they’re both still noumena. You’re actually saying the same thing above!

I’m arguing that the word “apple” is a noumenon, but an apple is not. Yet a one is purely a nounemon.

Let me put it this way: I consider your second and newer argument to be a distraction and completely unnecessary. In fact, it baffles me that you even brought it up.

It was just a side-note, because it irks me. You can ignore it if you please.

But again, are there any other performative contradictions that are usefull for explaining real world phenomenon, that are not in the field of economics?

55

I think the whole performative contradiction argument is misguided as well (whether used by Hoppe, Mises, or anyone), although I am forced to qualify that with a “…but I await a coherent explanation of it.”

56

But the thing, the one, the pattern that we discern from everything else, also exists - whether we also call it an apple, a pear, or a human being.

Certainly. The concept of an atom isn’t built into reality.

But a one can be any singular thing, including an apple. So by your reasoning, how is it purely a noumenon again?

Already done.

Do you consider disregarding the laws of thought to result in a performative contradiction?

57

But the thing, the one, the pattern that we discern from everything else, also exists - whether we also call it an apple, a pear, or a human being.

Apples, pears, and humans exist as functioning real world phenomenon. The words “apple” “pear” and/or “human” only exist as words. Nature makes no distintion between an apple, it’s stem, or the tree it grows upon. But, in order for us to better understand a dynamic universe, we have to make such distinctions.

Certainly. The concept of an atom isn’t built into reality.

I think I’m still misunderstanding you. Atoms certainly exist. The word atom is just a word we use to describe them. I am saying there is a stark difference between the words we use to describe things, and the things themselves. Again, nature makes no distinction between the carbon, and the hydrogen atoms in an apple. But we have to make that distinction… but that doesn’t make the distinction any more real.

Do you consider disregarding the laws of thought to result in a performative contradiction?

I think this lady has a lot to say on these supposed “laws.”

58

There are plenty of perfomative contradictions - and don’t take the fact that I’m illiterate as an argument against this point.

59

I didn’t realize we were necessarily talking about the human perspective. I thought we were talking about reality itself, which doesn’t care (so to speak) about our concepts. Are you sure you’re not changing the context?

I understand what you mean, in the sense that a collection of electrons “orbiting” a collection of protons and neutrons doesn’t have to be referred to by the word (sound-form) “atom”. My point is entirely apart from that. It’s about the fact that the concept that we refer to with the word “atom” doesn’t exist in external reality. For example, the nature of an electron doesn’t change because it’s bound to an atom - assuming electrons are fundamental particles of the universe, which may turn out to be inaccurate. In other words, what we call “atoms” have no meaning outside of our minds.

I’m sorry but where am I supposed to begin with that site? Honestly, it reminds me a lot of this.

60

The “laws of thought” are more like “advice on how to use words so as not to confuse people.” I don’t see any possibility of performative contradiction.