Of course. Mises had defined “human action” as voluntary action, and therefore does not include reflexes. Mises had defined means and ends only within the realm of voluntary action.
hence, the relevance to economics and political and moral philosophy.
of course other studies will have their interests and modes of analysis.
but please leave us ours! [;)]
Yet again you misrepresented me. As I mentioned this fallacy twice earlier, I do not “reject” the means-end-dichotomy that way. I simply believe that the means-end dichotomy simply has less precision than “desires, instincts, reflexes and habits”. Just like of how more precise kilo-chotomies does not count against our tetra-chotomy example from cognitive science.
My point is that it is arbitrary to select two concepts instead of any other number. Read my second post in this thead.
So you still remember the thing you need to do, right?
so sketch out for me how my reflexes are relevant to whether i ake the bus to work or drive myself?
sketch out for me how a desire that is not at all an end will instruct the same decision?
etc. etc?
irrelevant.
not more precision. confusion and nonsense.
So you still remember the thing you need to do, right? (Hint: ambiguous text.)
Instead of going into a red herring, like what you did in your last post, simply drop out the word “reflex” and analyze the “means-ends-habits” trichotomy.
Hint: Habits can be either a means or an end in certain contexts, or both in other contexts.
P.S. The red herring is actually my fault for being ambiguous.
a habit is simply a formed reflex that is not a gift of nature, but cause by an agent repeatedly behaving in a particular manner given a particular circumstance in the past. again it is a mere datum. it certainly does not disprove Mises. and it is irrelevent to economic and philosophical and political analysis. and now im feeling like im just repeatin myself against someone that isn’t saying anything substantial.
The means-end dichotomy neither can be proven nor disproven, because it is merely a datum. For something to not be disproven, then it must be proven. How did Mises “prove” the means-end dichotomy, when it is a mere datum?
it is logically necessary for understanding ‘human action’.
it is as necessary as having concepts as time and space.
is time unproven?
it is not only (or merely) a datum, it is methodology for analysis to be possible, it is logically necessary for the thing itself to be possible (action) , etc etc.
to the actor ‘means-ends’ is not only a datum, but also necessary for action to be possible.
Congratulations! You have written this clearly enough to distinguish our differences, setting aside an entire class of semantic issues. Now we can argue whether theorems “proven” by performative conradiction arguments are logically sound.
This is the more fundamental issue behind this debate on the means-end dichotomy.
How shall we start?
they are undeniable, so no-one would have true grounds for saying one was using incorrect methodology.
as such i prefer to use correct methodology which is above reproach.
you might choose differently.