By popular demand, here is a place to discuss Human Action by Ludwig von Mises.
The Mises Institute has a great page set up for this book here: http://mises.org/resources/3250
It includes links to purchase or download the book in many formats, including a free MP3 audio download (with an excellent narrator). You will also find some supplemental material there, such as the study guide by Robert P. Murphy.
I’m only 90-100 pages into the book but I have two questions which I think were touched on in the forums but for me, inadequately.
Did Mises’s definition of action run into contradictions since it seems even not acting, physically, is an action yet in the first 100 pages Mises makes distinctions between acting and not acting vis-a-vis praexology (which doesn’t need to take account of the physical) and yet he applies these distinctions to instances of physically not acting. Is it a category mistake?
I wonder why Mises would define teleology and causality as meaning consciously purposed action and mechanical programmed action respectively. The definitions just strike me as being unique to him and not in use anywhere else.
Im a bit confused by your questions. I didn’t get hung up on the action axiom or anything else. Most of it was contextually relevant I thought. Mises uses lots of analogies, LOTS, to get his points across.
Perhaps if you could provide what pages specifically?
action is understood teleologically; mere behaviour which is not action is explained causally.
not physically behaving is an action if it falls into an actors teleological framework of means and ends. if sitting still has been decided upon, acted upon, then despite no outward signs of ‘action’ this is definitely and unambiguously an Action. The difficulty for understanding Mises is that in common parlance, both the teleological concept of action and the behaviouralistic/mechanistic concept of action share the same word. All Mises contributes is a rational assignment (for the purpose of conducting study in praxeology) of mechanical change embodied by homosapien bodymatter unrelated to the conscious mind (i.e. bereft of teleology) as mere behaviour/causality and not action. whereas the word action is reserved for the teleological understanding. This allows for analysis and praxeology to have a place.
The definitions made sense to me immediately… Teleology from the Aristotle tradition and causality from the Newtonian (for want of a better icon).
There are two ways to answer the question ‘why?’
why did it rain? causality - because cloud density was this, and air pressure was that, and temperature rose, etc. etc.
why did it rain? teleology - because the rain god is angry with you.
why did joe kill sam? causality - because his brain fire nerve impulses towards muscles, which responded by contracting, thereby applying pressure to the trigger of a firearm. this causes an explosion which projected a missile at force through the weak barrier of air that separated joe and sam; the bullet at such high speed and kinetic energy; and of a hard material penetrated sam’s weak tissue membranes … and so on…
why did joe kill sam? teleology - self defence, joe feared for his life etc.
it is not that there are two kinds of actions some teleological and some causal. it is that there is only two ways to asses ‘behaviour’ , ‘material changes’.
they are causal explanations and teleological explanations. i hope it is clear from the above that only the teleological explanation is conducive to the study of purpusive behaviour. (of course the teleological explanation will refer to causal relations).
i.e. a man acts so as to get up early and farm; he puts aside the alternative of laying in bed and relaxing.
this is a teleological explanation for the behaviour and concerns purposive action. obviously causal explanations still have their place deeper in the analysis as the teleological motive for farming is the food to be gained. and of course this relies on causal relations between the performance of farming behaviour and the growth of crops.
let me know what you think
Thank you for those clarifications. Teleology and Praxeology aren’t words I used prior to beginning this book. I have just starting part 3. I simply assumed while reading the earlier sections that Mises was building a rationale for assertions that would come later in this voluminous book so I just kind of slogged through it. I did, however, get the general idea of what you describe but with out the precision and clarity you’ve just brought. So thanks again.
GREAT post, Nir.
Just one minor nitpick…
“Newtonian” causality can just as well be associated with Aristotle as teleology. Both kinds of causation were included in his Four Causes, the former termed “the efficient cause”, the latter termed “the final cause”.
still, I think this is closer to efficient cause whereas the final cause (the teleological one) would be that one needs rain to live.
Causality for me means a general idea of change which can include but is not limited to, the teleological cause. So I figured, why make a distinction between causality and teleology but with your definitions in mind i think I can have a better understanding of mises.
this is a minor point but the teleological analysis is not simply looking around at things that help or hurt you; assessing them functionally from that standpoint. i.e. what do i like about clouds raining; they do this for me; hence clouds are ‘functionally for’ this purpose. I understand that may be confusing since teleology is often used to mean that. the function of a knife is to cut, teleology. but this simply won’t do for the project of praxeology. You wont find an explanation of why a knife was cutting meat in the platitude that thats what knives are used for by intentional beings. the meaningful approach is to find an intentional being and look for a teleological explanation for why they chose to use the knife in that instance (in its ‘traditional function’). The teleological explanation is not . ‘knives are for cutting’ but 'so and so wanted something cut for reason X, and he understood that knives are a good technical method for cutting, so to achieve X he cut with the knife.
The, teleological analysis that Mises has in mind is useful only, and uniquely, in understanding ‘acting beings’, beings with ‘intentionality’, whose every action pre-supposes a telos to be understandable as such. hence to provide a Misesian teleological explanation for the propensity of clouds to rain, one must ascribe intentionallity and an action mind-frame to the cloud. this example is an obvious absurdity, and just underlines that Mechanical-causal explanations have their proper place (they are intelligable and useful) in the natural sciences; whereas teleology finds its place in praxeology and human history.
I think I understand your point. Its not as though teleological causes are not causes, they are causes too!
Both Teleology and Causality are types of causality. This is confusing only because its shorthand. Lets expand the shortened terms:-
Teleological Causes and Mechanic/physical Causes are both Causes.
I don’t know if I can say why exactly Mises used Causality as a short-hand for ‘mechanical/physical causality’ apart from expedience, and that it is a common use.
I hope it did help, feel free to ask more questions. Trying to answer is always a good test of ones own knowledge I find.
This is a little off topic, but I found it pretty interesting.
I came across a passage in a book that is completely lifted from HA.
The book is Mining Economics and Strategy by Ian Charles Runge. It’s the first full paragraph on this page.
Here it is in HA.
Hmm.
Great minds think alike??? Or maybe Runge is channeling Mises and is being told what to write?
Wow. They do seem pretty similar don’t they?
Finished Part 3 today. I enjoyed learning more about the subjective theory of value and how the classical economists failed to realize this. Mises sited a book on the topic that pre-dated the Austrian work on this called A Critical Dissertation on the Nature, Measures and Causes of Values. I found a free copy of this text on the B&N ebook store. Very cool. Any way, I really enjoyed his discussion about public debt and the fallacy of domestic debt issuance being dismissed as ‘borrowing from ourselves.’ I wish all members of the house of reps, senate, executive and judiciary were required to read this when taking office. I also wish free-market economics was part of elementary and HS education in our schools. But that would undermine the statist worldview of the public school system…
Ok, I’m up to only the mid 50s in this book and have read other Mises books and I’m a fan, but he’s speaking regarding the lack of objectivity in every historian and seems to be saying that a ‘true’ historian can lack certain bias by sticking with scientific methods and even that then disagreements can be narrowed to different proponents of different methods. If you have ever read Karl Popper, particularly ‘Open Society’ and Poverty of Historicism, he shows that because of biases we really can not rely on history to forecast. Any opionions?
Alright I’ll try to ascertain the accuracy of my definitions.
Is conceptual realism the doctrine that denotes the existence of physical manifestations regarding abstract concepts?
Could you comprehensively elaborate what tautology and apriorism are?
What is Geist?
What were Mises’s main qualms with positivism?
The Mises made easier Glossary, is a real wealth of info:
Conceptual realism. The theory that abstract universals, unobservable general classes or ideal types (q.v.) have a reality that is independent, equal and sometimes superior to the reality of their individual parts or specific examples. For instance, conceptual realists consider the abstract term “capital” as something real concrete and permanent with different uses and characteristics from those of the “capital goods” of which it consists. Another example would be “national income.” The philosopher A. N. Whitehead (1861-1947) called this the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness.
Tautology. Repetition of the same idea in different words.
A priori, (Latin). Literally, from the former or preceding. Self-evident knowledge known by reason alone without any appeal to experience or sensory perceptions. Nonempirical. Opposed to a posteriori (q.v.).
An a priori statement is one which the human mind can neither question nor contradict and which cannot be further analyzed, diagnosed, broken down or traced back to a logically prior cause. It is thus the original datum or premise which forms the starting point for deductive reasoning.
Apriorism. The doctrine that there is knowledge that is logically prior to experience (or sensory perceptions).
Geist, (German). Indwelling spirit of man; guiding mind or conscious intelligence. In the, philosophy of Georg Hegel (1770-1831), only Geist?not matter?is reality. Hegel believed that Geist revealed to him the “truths” which he spoke and which became the official doctrines of the Prussian state and universities.
Thanks, but I already use the glossary for reference. I’m hoping though you can expound on those yourself, or else I’m doomed to an existence of using the words tautology and apriori flippantly.
i don’t know what to tell you… sorry
In Section 3 of the Introduction, Mises writes:
“What is commonly called the “industrial revolution” was an offspring of the ideological revolution brought about by the doctrines of the economists.”
This doesn’t seem to be supported by the evidence of history. Richard Cantillon is considered to be the first full economist. His treatise was published in 1755. That is hardly early enough to have had a profound enough impact on policy for economics to have spawned the industrial revolution which started in England only 5 years later. Perhaps Mises is referring to the “Second Industrial Revolution” which centered on Germany and the United States?
You pose an interesting question.
I suppose the ‘full’ economist is maybe skewing things, what about all those that started to advocate laissez-faire and studying political economy even if they were not the ‘real deal?’. Even so, Cantillon’s book was published in France many years before that English publication date.. the physiocrats were laissez-faire and aware of Cantillon. Adam Smith stood on the shoulders of these people etc…his treatise wasn’t out of the blue, laissez-faire was in the air.
From Wiki:
According to historical folklore, the phrase stems from a meeting c. 1680 between the powerful French finance minister Jean-Baptiste Colbertand a group of French businessmen led by a certain M. Le Gendre. When the eager mercantilist minister asked how the French state could be of service to the merchants, Le Gendre replied simply “Laissez-nous faire” (‘Leave us be’, lit. ‘Let us do’).[2]
Earlier Mises wrote:
" The general theory of choice and preference goes far beyond the horizon which encompassed the scope of economic problems as circumscribed by the economists from Cantillon, Hume, and Adam Smith down to John Stuart Mill." So there’s another mention of Cantillon, but also Hume who lived from 1711 – 1776
I’m sure educated Englishmen of the mid 18th century would be familiar with both the revolutionary political ideas of John Locke, and with the laissez-faire ideas promoted across the channel by the Pyshiocrats etc. here is Turgot http://mises.org/about/3244
But the Industrial Revolution which started soon after these events was in England, and it didn’t reach France until much, much later (at which time the fruitfulness of liberalism had already been demonstrated to the Frenchman in facts, and not in ideas, by the miraculous economic growth of England.)
Hume’s writings were a flop in England (and famously so) throughout his early career. And anyway, his economic writings still come too late to have had much of an impact on policy early enough to aid the initiation of the Industrial Revolution.
John Locke was influential as a philosopher, not in his sparse economic writings.
Tableau économique (the prime early physiocratic work): 1759
Turgot’s Réflexions: 1760
Both far too late.
I think liberty in England was won in the battles of the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution by people who simply did not want to be trod upon, and had the means to do something about it. The economic growth that resulted from the liberalism they established inspired the economists to figure out how such growth came to be.