…I’m having an extremely hard time separating ignorance and foreknowledge; can someone critique me and get me back on track? Heh…
Foreknowledge is, of course, self-explanatory. As to ignorance, one aspect of the problem is the lack of knowledge based on resolution. To use a previous example, we should all be able to agree that a given object is, in fact, a rock. We observe it, we heft it - it’s obviously a rock. That’s about all we know. We can find out other things about the rock: it’s weight, for example, the composition of minerals on its surface - we may even be able to take interior core samples to give us an idea as to its interior composition. Even after all this, we still don’t know everything about the rock. We can approach absolute knowledge about the rock but we can never reach it.
Do we need to know everything about the rock? It depends on the application. A scientist performing an experiment in which certain elements must be present in given proportions may need a very fine understanding of everything about the rock. If I have a desperate need to apply the rock to the side of a Keynesian economist’s head, not so much.
are you basically saying that we have partial knowledge to our actions because we know the law of praxeology?
Heheh, of course not. If that were true, I (And pretty much every human being) would not have been able to act in the first place those first years of my life.
Imagine, GASP can’t act!!! Don’t know law of praxeology! hehe
This is one of the places where english breaks down.
The statement/axiom, “people are ignorant” might be better stated, “people seem ignorant in the majority of cases.” As Socrates said, “I know that I know nothing.”
To your point, a more accurate (pseudo)-axiom might be: “People have some knowledge”.
What does it mean for someone to seem ignorant “in the majority of cases”? That you don’t know what they know (or the other way around)? That you don’t agree with them? That at least 51% of the people that each of us knows seems ignorant to us?
Also, in “some knowledge,” “some” is implied. It’s not possible to have all knowledge, any more than it’s possible to live forever or to be everywhere at once.
Mises spends an entire chapter of Human Action upon uncertainty and states again and again that humans lack perfect knowledge of the future and almost all of Hayek’s work was spent around the imperfection of knowledge. Yes it is important to note, but it is already an important praxeological deduction.
The claim is not self-contradictory. The idea of “lack” does not convey complete absence - therefore, the axiom stands.
Tasman wrote:
A more accurate (pseudo)-axiom might be: “People have knowledge”.
“People have Knowledge” does not highlight the importance of ignorance in thought and action. The axiom “People are Ignorant” causes one to remember ignorance in actions as insignificant as our daily interactions with others to actions as potentially important as the development of and debate over new, more viable philosophies. “People Have Knowledge” or “People Have Some Knowledge” does not direct the mind in the proper direction although these axiomatic converses surely have their uses.
Yes it is important to note, but it is already an important praxeological deduction.
I believe that the purpose of an axiom is to make a concept more obvious and draw the mind in directions where new insights may be obtained. Also, the ability to formulate an idea into a self-proving axiom highlights the very basic nature of the concept and gives it force.
It is an unfortunate failing of our species, (highlighted by the very axiom I mention) that the manner of presentation of a thing often dictates how much importance is placed in its consideration. It is not my intention to be original - as you point out, Mises himself devotes much time to the topic - but to present the idea in a form easily grasped and remembered so that other, more original ideas might more readily incorporate this idea and avoid the pitfalls of utopian idealism.
It is not an axiom; it is a corollary of the action axiom. Because of scarcity of time and other means, it is impossible to gain perfect knowledge of everything. Every Austrian economist says as much, and Mises specifically uses the word “ignorant” in Human Action to describe acting man.
It is not an axiom; it is a corollary of the action axiom.
Dictionary.com describes an axiom as “a self-evident truth that requires no proof, a universally accepted principle or rule” The same also defines corollary as “an immediate consequence or easily drawn conclusion,a natural consequence or result” The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. In fact, is not the axiom “People Act” a corollary of the more general axiom “People Exist”? Yet, we find the Action axiom much more useful than the other because it focuses the mind on a particular aspect of existant people. “People are Ignorant” serves the same purpose - it focuses the mind on a particular aspect of the Action axiom and allows us to draw certain conclusions and foresee the ends of certain actions.
krazy kaju wrote:
Every Austrian economist says as much …
Again, my purpose here is not originality. I recognize that this idea has been discussed. The purpose of this, as with any other axiom, is to focus the mind on a particular aspect of human interaction and take thought in a different and potentially profitable direction.
OK, so what do we have at this point? Can we say that “People are Ignorant” is a praxeological axiom?
If an axiom is “a self-evident truth that requires no proof, a universally accepted principle or rule” then does the proposed axiom fit? So far, there have been no refutations on the basis that people are not ignorant, either in the case of foreknowledge or in the degree of resolution of a particular fact. Indeed several have stated that the statement is so obvious that it does not need to be stated. It seems that, as far as self-evidence and universal acceptance is concerned, “People are Ignorant” fulfills this requirement.
Does it require proof? Would anyone like to try to disprove the statement or is it so obvious that any attempt would fail before it was begun, as with the Action Axiom?
The arguments that the statement is too obvious to be an axiom, that it is a corollary of the Action axiom or that it is already spoken of and therefore doesn’t need to be stated have nothing to do with the statement not being a “self-evident truth” or “universal principle or rule” nor do the arguments address the need of requiring proof.
Therefore, it appears at this point that “People are Ignorant” is, in fact, a praxeological axiom.
