Long Post: law of thought and law of reality

[wilderness]

Here’s a more recent paper by Geoffrey A. Plauche (2006) that covers this same material with further explanation. Example from Introduction:

@Plauche

Within the tradition of Austrian philosophy, this Aristotelian apriorism can be traced at least from Franz Brentano and his students to the realist phenomenology of the early Edmund Husserl, Husserl’s student Adolf Reinach, and Johannes Daubert. Among the Austrian economists, Carl Menger can be seen as developing economics as an Aristotelian a priori discipline. Ludwig von Mises developed this apriorism into the formal method of praxeology, and though he appears to be a sort of Kantian realist in his theoretical self-interpretation, it has been argued that Mises was thoroughly Aristotelian in practice (Smith 1990:282). More recently, Murray Rothbard attempted to return Austrian economics and praxeology to an explicitly Aristotelian-Thomist foundation but he did not do so in any great detail. It will be with praxeology as an a priori discipline that this essay will primarily be concerned. I will argue that Rothbard did not go far enough in giving praxeology an Aristotelian foundation, an oversight that I will attempt to (at least begin to) remedy in this essay.

–

Justin Spahr-Summers,

Plauche mentions Rand and makes explicit what you did as well in this thread, but unfortunately this paper doesn’t appear to have been updated to include a more thorough investigation as far as I have been able to find:

@Plauche

[IV. Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and Praxeology
It is fairly well-known among Objectivists and Austrians that Ayn Rand rejected Mises’s method of praxeology. In this section, to be added later, I will seek to show that praxeology is not incompatible with the philosophy of Ayn Rand. I’ve already promised Chris Sciabarra that I would submit this paper to JARS when it’s finished.]

–

Here’s a similar thread that E.R. Olovetto posted for the sake of reference material convenience.