I meant that, in that quote, Mises was talking about “imaginary constructions”.
So you are saying that the system that you support makes no suggestions to other people?
So he was or wasn’t talking about the deductive method in that quote?
At first no, cause it’s presupposed.
A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.
I am not sure why you are trying to drag me into this.
Now you are just being silly.
An undefined, unproved starting point of a system, I guess.
Is coming up with “imaginary constructions” a part of his “deductive method”?
I have no idea what that means.
I. Ryan, we can use what scineram said here. It’s a decent definition except it needs tweaked.
An axiom is proved and is defined. That’s why it is self-evident. There is evidence and there is something defined.
It’s not that I dragged you into this per se. I was answering you’re question as to why I said there are praxeologists that are natural law theorists. It was indirectly implied before Esuric made his post, but Esuric made it explicit so that’s why I wrote it out more explicitly in regards to how Esuric phrased it.
I said that’s one of the options. I only repeated what Esuric said. Why am I silly and Esuric isn’t? I didn’t say he is this. I said he’s one of those three. I mean those are the only options I can think of at this point.
Being self-evident is not being proved or defined:
There, he is referring to “desire” as an axiom. If axioms were “proved” or “defined”, every deductive system would be a circular argument or definition.
We are talking about axioms. I’ll just get to the point of all of this. “Pre-supposed” are axioms. They are implied as self-evident. They are common sense. We’ve had this discussion before so we should be on the same page for the most part at this point. Do you remember that discussion? It was very fruitful I thought.
Lilburne was using that quotation to refer to deductive systems, not just axioms, I think.
What was silly about what you said, which was not present in what Esuric said, was that you were saying that being a proponent of “life, liberty, and property” were synonymous with being one of “natural law”.
Yes, exactly. According to Mises what makes the method of imaginary constructions require such care is that…
“…it can easily result in fallacious syllogisms.”
“Syllogism” is the Aristotelean term for deduction.
And yes wilderness, Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics is deductive. Read Rothbard on…
“Hoppe’s logical and deductive mode of thought and writing, demonstrating the truth of his propositions and showing that those who differ are often trapped in self-contradiction and self-refutation.”
Hume philosophically attacks common sense. Hume isn’t a good definer of what an axiom is because he shut them off. This is why the debate today, at now in this forum, is about axioms. Hume attacked what Arisototle said about axioms. Kant rebutted Hume. Karl Popper kept Hume’s skepticism out of the natural science department so they could continue to do science without Hume’s stuckness interfering. The Feynman youtube rebuts Hume. Hume ate so Hume is self-refuting.
The axiom is defined or else you couldn’t say what the axiom is nor what if there was an axiom. No definition. Nothing there.
I’ve really got to make a side point here. Hume really screwed up philosophy. lol Though in the end I think Barry Smith makes a good point concering Hume. It’s good to be skeptical if we know reality or not, but that doesn’t mean we can’t be certain about some things.
Now we are talking about two different definitions of “defined” and “proved”. (1) It is because of the very fact of circularity that it is “proved”. (2) We are talking about ‘desires’ so it is ‘defined’ as to what is being talked about. (3) Desires are ‘proved’ because they simply are. They are evidenced by my experience of them. If somebody comes along that doesn’t feel and couldn’t validate that ‘feelings’ do in fact exist, then ok. But most humans ‘feel’ and so they do in fact exist.
It is synonymous for natural law theorists. Why are saying that’s silly? Why are using rhetorical blabber in saying ‘silly’?
So we agree, good. (Maybe my use of “proved” and “defined” was misleading.)
If so, Lilburne, Mises, and I are “natural law theorists”. Cool.