Ignorant austrians

Miscellaneous General
1

Definitional ambiguties

Austrians use words without defining what the word means. This leads to definitional and axiomatic disputes. For example, they claim that Microsoft was not a monopoly, but they did not define their interpretation of the word “monopoly”.

Showing off theorems

Austrians theorize without explictly defining all their axioms. Austrians use the buzzword “theoretical”, but theorems cannot be interpreted on others without explicitly defining their axioms. What one considers a “theorem” may in be an axiom on a different individual. Austrians try to “prove” things without first showing their axioms.

Avoiding proofs

Why didn’t I hear even one single rigorous proof in Austrianism?

Buzzwords

They use buzzwords such as “optimal”.

Emotionalism

Austrians claim that they use axiomatic reasoning, but in fact they use emotional reasoning and invisible assumptions. They argue their stance on specieism and child abuse, etc., but their argument is purely non-logical propaganda.

Rejection to empirical science

Austrians use a knee jerk denial empirical science such as cognitive science. However, they try to incorporate praxeology with neuroscience. https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/praxeology-and-reactive-actions/598

I understand the reason of why Austrians reject statistics: they are upset of the pseudoscience of the demographic and wealth distribution statistics. But they shouldn’t extrapolate their anger to all empirical science.

Austrians waste their time on forums

Is there anything better to do?

Austrians like to write repetitive literature

Is there anything better than rewriting ideas in books about Austrian economics without inventing something new?

Participing in politics but rejecting politics

Some Austrians like to support some candidates, but they deny participing in politics.

Austrians think out loud

I understand that thinking out loud may help some individuals. I don’t think out loud now.

Rejection to altruism but helping others in this forum

Helping others in this forum is altruistic, why they are helping?

They make and repeat claims out of book without proof

This is dogmatic.

2

There is no ‘Austrian Collective’ for you to see this contradiction in.

Does disagreement exist with this definition?

3

“Austrians waste their time on forums.”

*As, apparently, do you.*

“Rejection to altruism but helping others in this forum.”

Are you confusing us with Objectivists? There may be some overlap but not all Austrians are Objectivists and not all Objectivists are Austrian.

As for the rest of these, it might be more helpful if you gave examples rather than give broad generalizations. If you have specific disagreements or questions they can be discussed.
4

Helping others isn’t necessarily altruistic.

5

True, but one of the areas in which I disagree with is in her definitions of the words “selfishness”, “sacrifice” and “altruism”. Perhaps it is because English was her second language or there was no adequate word in English for the concepts she was dealing with, but I disagree with the way she used these terms. I wish she had either used Russian terms for these concepts or better yet invented new terms.

6

It wasn’t a second language problem. Rand knew American English pretty well. Better than most Americans. And her definition of altriusm wasn’t bad. Why don’t you look up the origin of that word? It isn’t just a synonym for benevolence.

7

Are you in the mood for a rant libertarian?

8

Or is he Nathyn in disguise!!!

9

Optimum is not a buzzword, but a clearly defined concept meaning “best possible”. The opposite is pessimum, worse possible. Hence optimism and pessimism : this world is the best, or worse possible…

This one just shows your ignorance.

All the rest shows your ignorance of austrianism, and i have no time, nor will, to teach you. Just read if you want to know.

10

You forgot one:

Reading anti-austrian trolls

Austrians waste their time reading trolls despite knowing nothing worthwile would come of it right after the first sentence. Sometimes they even reply.

11

Define the term “time”. Stop using it if you can’t define it.

Axiom is undefinable by definition.

Because there is no possibility to proof anything. Every “proof” is based on the theoretical ground. Science is a vicious circle.

12

The term “altruism” comes to us from the philosopher Auguste Comte. He defined it as “vivre pour autrui” or “living for others.” Auguste Comte’s philosophy itself is one I strongly oppose. But the definition of altruism in - and - of - itself says nothing about force. A mother may live for the sake of a child. Ayn Rand might argue that this is not altruistic because she is “living for the sake of her own values.” If she were to argue that however she would be twisting the true meaning of the term. One can “live for others” with or without a gun being pointed at one’s head. You can “live for others” without insisting that a gun be pointed at the head of another person as well.

13

Welll, then, you’ve misunderstood Rand. Altruism, for Rand, is not by definition something one is forced to do. Altruistic ideologies tend to end up going down that road, but Rand didn’t define altruism as involuntary.

14

I know she did not claim alruism required force but what of the mother and child? She would say that a mother who died to save the life of her child was NOT being altuistic. But by the actual definition Comte gave us she was. She was “living for the sake of another” regardless of her motivation.

15

By Comte’s actual conception of altruism, not just the less socialist spin you want to put on the specific words in the definition, the mother may or may not have been acting altruistically depending on her motivations. Comte was a positivist and a technocratic socialist, and yet you insist on using a word he coined not long ago when there are perfectly good and more venerable words for the mother’s actions than his. You are also neglecting the classical roots of Rand’s ethical egoism - in Aristotle. Aristotle believed that loving others began with self-love and that true friendship involved seeing the friend as another self. Thus, Aristotle and Rand transcend the false dichotomy that people like Comte set up between immoral or a-moral self-interest on the one hand and the morality of putting others above one’s self on the other.

Some quotes from Comte:

“The individual must subordinate himself to an Existence outside himself in order to find in it the source of his stability. And this condition cannot be effectually realized except under the impulse of propensities prompting him to live for others. The being, whether man or animal, who loves nothing outside himself, and really lives for himself alone, is by that very fact condemned to spend his life in a miserable alternation of ignoble torpor and uncontrolled
excitement. Evidently the principal feature of Progress in all living things is that the general consensus which we have seen to be the essential attribute of vitality should become more perfect. It follows that happiness and worth, as well in individuals as in societies, depend on adequate ascendancy of the sympathetic instincts. Thus the expression, Live for Others, is the simplest summary of the whole moral code of Positivism.” (Comte 1973a, 565–56)

Of moral education, Comte declared:

“[O]ver and above the several means of repressing personality, the essential condition of purification is the exertion of sympathy, which regulates individual existence by the family relations, and these again by the civic.”

“It follows that, from every point of view, the ultimate systematisation of human life must consist above all in the development of altruism.” (1973b, 253)

And here is John Stuart Mill on Comte:

“Because the good of the human race is the ultimate standard of right and wrong, and because moral discipline consists in cultivating the utmost possible repugnance to all conduct injurious to the general good, M. Comte infers that the good of others is the only inducement on which we should allow ourselves to act; and that we should endeavour to starve the whole of the desires which point to our personal satisfaction, by denying them all gratification not strictly required by physical necessities. The golden rule of morality, in M. Comte’s religion, is to live for others, “vivre pour autrui.” To do as we would be done by, and to love our neighbour asourself, are not sufficient for him: they partake, he thinks, of the nature of personal calculations. We should endeavour not to love ourselves at all. . . . All education and all moral discipline should have but one object, to make altruism (a word of his own coining) predominate over egoism.” (Mill 1865, 138–39)

Here’s an interesting discussion (the soruce for the quotes above) of Rand’s of the term altruism and criticisms of that usage as well as the history of the term:

http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~campber/altruismrandcomte.pdf

I’ll stick to using the term altruism as it was originally conceived, thank you, and use better and more venerable words for what there is that is admirable in what people mistakenly call altruistic acts these days.

16

Trying to discredit a term by discrediting the originator of that term is what is known as a genetic fallacy.

Henry Ford invented the concept of mass production in the automative industry. Henry Ford was antisemetic. Therefore we should not use the term “mass production” when discussing automobile production because it has antisemetic roots. We must instead use a more positive term like efficaciousness.

As stated in an earleir post I am not a follower of the philosopy of Compte.

17

Look, however, at how he used and intended the term. The point is that Rand was justified in using it the way she did, since that was its original meaning.

18

I second Inquisitor’s remark and add the following: There are better and more venerable words to use than one that in its strict and original sense is downright evil and in its more watered down uses is vague, sloppy and often pernicious. And, as this makes clear, not that it wasn’t already clear in my previous post, the term altruism is worth rejecting not merely because of its original meaning given by Comte.

Additionally, there is this from the author of the aforecited article (from the last section):

“Even after due allowance is made for the way that altruism was watered down within three decades after Comte’s original presentation, Bass’s complaint about baiting and switching might still be justified. But only if the advocates of weaker forms of altruism held consistently to them, never sliding into the promotion of generalized living for others, or of submerging the individual in the collective mass. In examining the views of moral development researchers, John Christopher and I (1996a; 1996b) found that some of them do indeed slide around, from describing low-cost forms of generosity as altruistic to treating altruistic acts as frankly self-sacrificial; for instance, Eisenberg’s (1986) book on the subject fails to maintain a consistent standard of altruistic motivation or behavior from one chapter to the next. If advocates of weaker forms of altruism allow Comtean implications to slip in, and do nothing to repudiate them, they and not Rand are the ones who might be fairly reproached for baiting and switching.”

"By 1935, Ayn Rand was defining her moral views in contrast with a purported ideal of living for others. This was, in fact, altruism as understood by Auguste Comte, the man who introduced the word, although Rand made little use of it herself for several more years. Rand’s Comtean understanding of altruism had fully crystallized by the end of 1942, when she wrote Howard Roark’s courtroom speech, and it informs all of her later writings.

“Perhaps, then, it is the champions of weaker or more wavering conceptions of altruism that Bass should be complaining about, instead of a critic of altruism like Rand, who was being true to the intentions of the founder. At the very least, any moral theorist who appeals to “common sense” or “garden-variety” understandings of altruism owes the reader an account of his or her decision to keep using a word that Comte brought into the language and that is still quite capable of bearing a Comtean meaning.”