this isn’t about vitalism
this is about referring to life and a rock so now it’s about reasoning, but if you can focus and intellectually apprehend life instead of jumping to reasoning (dividing and trying to make compositions of the two) between your introduction of a rock into the equation
unfortunately emergentism is just as unworkable. there is no logical coherence to the higher ‘levels’ of processes or objects, these themselves can only have influence and exist as the actual constituents, therefor their entire action and reaction is (in principle) entirely explicable in terms of their minimal constituent parts
The means still do not inform us of what ends a man stives after.
Just because as action is fulfilled does not mean an individual is more satisfied with the state of affairs afterwards than before for man can be mistaken as to what actions he should take.
State B is ideally reduced uneasiness, but it often is not.
Im not sure what lam is trying to teach us? is there a book he thinks we should read for background?
Yet they give indication, supplement that with the exclamation of the ends.
Yes it does or else why act? We act because we perceive it to bring a better state, even if our act fails we are still sustained with the bettering of knowledge concerning the action at hand. You look at this as a ‘If I don’t achieve everything then I have gained nothing’ that is simply not the case.
It’s amazing how much this topic diverged from the OP.
I think it is a rather intelligent discussion.
I have defiled this thread with my idealism 
We still are left with no absolute knowledge, and that is undeniable.
Action does not always bring a better state, and we do not always better our knowledge concerning the action at hand when we do an action for there is absolutely no absolute correlation between doing an action, and learning more about the situation for we could just be faced with knowledge we already know.
And yet again we are at the claim which I constantly say on these forums. Simply because we don’t have absolute knowledge does not mean we cannot predict what is likely to occur or to be. If a meteor is screaming towards the planet, are we to just sit there and be unable to predict what will happen next?
Then why would we act if it didn’t bring a better state? Are you trying to argue that action is not purposeful? And yes it does better our knowledge for even if we fail, we experience that which is wrong and are more easily deduce what the right course of action is. That is for all purposes a betterment of knowledge.
If we are faced with knowledge we already know then we are more likely to know the outcome and therefore if we continue to act we greatly expect a purposeful outcome. To know what we already know from an action we previously committed and expect a different outcome every single time [derived from the same action ] is in fact the clinical definition of insanity.
Don’t be an ass.
I wasn’t…lol If you ever figure out what principle is let me know.
You cannot claim that you know the ends which an individual strives after.
Meteors are not men.
The fact that our actions do not always bring about the intended results is an economic fact.
Assuming Kant, I don’t know if we can safely say that rocks are fundamentally different than life. We can say that our observations of them tend to show it, but the fundamental seems inherently unknowable.
Or one can simply commit frequent errors and fail to grasp particulars of a historical event. And whether or not we do in fact learn something new (other than sheer experiential changes which may imply nothing in particular) is not a matter within the scope of praxeology, it only involves that men may form ideas, not that any given event actually causes them to form ideas.
Is it? I don’t know. I only read one of his books years ago.
That simply means no intellectual apprehension of this being a rock and this being life.
What it means is that debates about existence are moot because we don’t know anything outside of our own observations in the first place. It’s kind of tautological, yet also very insightful.
It’s moot that a rock exists even though I observe that it exists. whatever floats your boat
By examining the means by which they act and asking ‘What ends do you have?’, yes…yes I can.
Fine, if presented with their death, what is an individual more likely to do? Beg to live or plead to be killed?
Yet we act purposefully in order to enhance ourselves. Again, you postulate then if we can’t have everything then we have achieved nothing. If I walk to my deli to buy a sandwich and the deli is having a buy one get one sale then I get what I want and more. If the deli is closed that day, then I receive the knowledge that I cannot buy sandwiches that day and for the future know that.
One can fail to achieve the exact means but if one continually does the same exact means hoping to achieve a different end then before then one is insane, literally.
It is implied with the means/end scheme by use of reason. It would be illogical to state that in failing to achieve an end through specific means that one has learned absolutely nothing. One certainly has and it will cause them to reevalulate which means are best suited for their end. That is all contained in the means/end scheme which is apart of praxeology.