The fact that the philosophers haven’t heard of this is likely an indication that it’s just not taken seriously by the profession. Now, as for Callahan not being a professional philosopher, I’ve seen his list of publications, it’s actually somewhat impressive. In any case, the fact that Callahan and Murphy ripped Hoppe a new one when neither of them are trained philosophers only makes the case against AE even stronger.
Whether or not it did spark a debate is neither here nor there when the real issue is “was it worth sparking a debate over?”.
Yes, it is, I agree. Nonetheless, the opinions of the majority of any intellectual discipline should be a good prima facie guide to what is true in that discipline. If a Marxist were to make some grandidose claims about the subjective theory of value it’s quite clear that the burden of proof would be on him to refute it.
I recently made a topic on this, you might want to check it out
Actually Habermas is somewhat of a celebrity in European philosophical circles, so if argumentation ethics is not known/discussed by professional philosophers it belies their ignorance/reticence rather than anything else. Hoppe’s own theory is an extension of Habermas’s and Apel’s. And it’s not as though their objections have gone unanswered. I mentioned their not being philosophers because you claimed “professional philosophers” do not take it seriously or something to that effect. The only objections to AE I’ve seen so far that seem to hit the mark have been by Geoffrey Plauche who actually comprehends the theory and whether they’re insuperable is debatable.
Yes. Otherwise one might as well consider Kantian ethics not to be worth sparking a debate over because in its essence it is very similar.
What’s interesting is that Hoppe was Habermas’ PhD student who alleges that his works extends that of both Habermas asnd Apel. Yet, how many times has the former commented on his student’s work? Not once, as far as I know, and I also think that’s a pretty good sign that he doesn’t take it seriously himself.
I’m not arguing about Habermas’ original work but Hoppe’s “extension”, I presume that the former’s work has been discussed by the profession.
Not only do we need to take your word for it, but what about Hoppe’s radical ideas? You don’t think that this might have anything to do with not commenting on the matter? Not sure if you know this giles but anarcho-capitalist who and are rooted in Austrian economics and natural law ethics aren’t exactly a majority nor are they by any means accepted or popular.
More accurate to say what is thought to be true. e.g Majority of scientists believe the earth flat, doesn’t mean it is true in the world of science that the earth is flat.
“I recently made a topic on this, you might want to check it out”
Truth be told, I’m not even sure what it means for an “anarcho capitalist” to be “rooted in Austrian economics” and natural law ethics.
Look, libertarians aren’t very popular in academia because more often than not they’re crank who put poor arguments forth. To the extent this isn’t true, it’s also untrue that they’re not popular. There are, and have been, numerous popular, for lack of a better word, libertarian political scientists and philosophers. I don’t even think I need to mention Robert Nozick, for example, but there are also other libertarian philosophers who aren’t exactly unpopular (Schmitz).
Any attempts to blame it on some conspiracy is just a rationalization of the failings of the individuals involved.
It’s also completely fallacious to complain that Austrian economics is ignored, like so many associated with the LvMI do. Two Hayekians just won the Nobel prize!
Once again, I don’t really know what you’re trying to say. My point was that prima facie it’s a good idea to take the ideas of intellectual’s seriously. In no small part you believe the world is flat and gravity exists because a bunch of really smart guys agree that that’s the case. I’ve been on plenty of long distance flights and to me it just looked like I was going over a flat surface.
Which could just as well indicate that Habermas is dissatisfied with the conclusions of his own work leads to and reticent to deal with them. The only thing Hoppe does specifically is show how Habermas’s ethical theory leads to libertarian conclusions so if people don’t take it seriously they should also not take its basis seriously which is that which Habermas laid down. I think in truth Habermas’s work is not too well known amongst anglo-analytic philosophers and moreover will pose problems to anyone not familiar with Kantian theorising; as for Hoppe, he is not a well known figure so if his theory is not one which is the topic of much discussion by professional philosophers outside of Austrianism it is because he is not very famous outside of Austrian circles - in fact not even Mises is so this should hardly be surprising.
You don’t? Do you know what the definitions of Anarcho-Capitalists, Austrian Economics and Natural Law Ethics (so as not to confuse natural law in the sciences with that in Ethics)? If you don’t then why are you on this forum? Since this is an Austrian Economics forum, where a large share of the active members are Anarcho-Capitalists, and a fair number can identify with Natural Law Ethics.
Well you shouldn’t actually since he was really just going with the flow. Libertarianism was just a lovely thought experiment for him. He didn’t take it seriously. I’m taking Rothbards word on that one. Maybe I shouldn’t. Oh, and of course there is the fact that Nozick was a libertarian…
Frankly I disagree. If anything libertarians need to have better arguments in the first place. They are not popular in academia because they are arguing against the system that current academics act as apologists for at least, or argue for illusionary reforms at best.
Not that many, and they have been libertarian, not Libertarian.
Did I say its completely ignored? It isn’t. But that doesn’t mean that largely it is ignored. Especially by the establishment and the mainstream.
I think the problem here is that your confusing your softcore Austrian economics and libertarian political philosophy with my hardcore Austrian Economics and Libertarian philosophy.
No your point was to take as prima facie what the mainstream of a certain type of academic hold to be true, to in fact be true. And my point was that logic is just riddled with holes. It’s a logical fallacy (appeal to authority as you admitted). That just because the mainstream of an establishment hold something to be true, doesn’t make it so. Especially in the realms of things dealing with man. My example doesn’t prove that (after all it was merely one example). We both know I could offer many more, since this website is full of them. In fact our very beliefs are an example of them. But I don’t believe its necessary.
What you really making, is an inductive argument based on probability. Your saying, most of the time these smart guys get it right. However, for me, that probability of them getting it right, is so much lower, since I side with Hoppe and his interpretation of the State and Intellectuals symbiotic relationship, and find what they say to be BS.
I’m certainly no expert on Habermas (meaning, I haven’t actually read any of his work) but to the best of my knowledge Hoppe himself admits making some pretty big changes to the ethical system of Habermas and Apel. The point is, if Habermas even acknowledged Hoppe I think it would give the latter more credibility. The fact that Hoppe proclaims to be extending the work of his teacher and yet, receives no public recognition from him says to me that Habermas doesn’t really take Hoppe seriously.
The fact that Hoppe isn’t a well known figure is really just making my point for me! He’s a crank who isn’t, and shouldn’t, be taken seriously by the profession. Look, I understand that Danny’s a smart guy but he wasn’t even in grad school when he managed to rip Hoppe a new one in a blog post whilst being humorous.
Mises isn’t particularly well known, nor is Hayek (and before a few days ago the same would apply to Williamson and even more so to Ostrom). But Mises was known during his time, the fact that he isn’t now just shows that economists rarely read anything that’s over 5 - 10 years old.
Out of curiousity, what’s your opinion on Ostrom and Williamson?
I know what all three terms mean, my point was that I’m not sure how they can be connected. More specifically, I’m not sure what it means for an “anarchocapitalist” to be “rooted in” Austrian economics. Economic science is value free (and this is one thing Mises put a lot of stress on, by the way), it makes no policy recommendations, the only thing I can make sense out of this statement would be something along the lines of “a large number of contemporary, self described, anarchocapitalists believe the teachings of economics working within the Austrian tradition help enrich their positive understanding of the market economic from which they make their normative judgements”.
Perhaps if you push this you could say that their knowledge of “Austrian economics” gave them an understanding of the function markets and entrepreneuers in a way that neoclassical (in the narrow sense) economics couldn’t. But to say their political beliefs are “rooted in Austrian economics” just seems odd.
For what it’s worth, I too get the feeling that perhaps I’m not made for these fora. A feeling that’s growing on me recently.
As for libertarians having better arguments, well, look here and here for another opinion. And Feser’s not being ideological here, he holds philosophers such as Eric Mack in high esteem despite their disagreements. I’m not showing you this to prove that you’re wrong, I’m just saying that there’s a pretty good reason nobody took Rothbard seriously as a philosophy, because his whole political theory can be debunked in, what? An hour perhaps…
Likewise, Rothbard made a series of elementary mistakes when it came to economics. Whether it be claiming that the liquidity trap is caused by an infinite demand for money (it isn’t, it’s caused by an infinitely elastic demand for money) or his equivelant of the “social welfare”.
Well, let’s us allow Nozick to speak for himself
However,
Is it really all that suprising that Nozick philosophized instead of being a political agitator?
Really? Because, as far as I know, James Otteson and David Schmidtz (sp?) have been published by Cambridge, the latter is the head of the best political philosophy department in the US (or something like that). Den Uyl, Rasmussen and Sciabarra have had books published by Penn State Press. I could probably think of more if I really tried, I’m just going off the books on my book shelf.
My point is, the idea that libertarians or people who go against the status quo are ignored is silly. Hoppe, Rothbard and the like are ignored because they put foward bad arguments.
And this is the crux of the issue. Yes, perhaps I’m a leaker, a statist and a socialist. Or whatever other pejoratives you wish to use to show my “lack of principles”. But, ultimately, philosophers and economists advocated pretty radical things have done well in their professions. Whether they be economists advocation getting rid of central banks or philosopher saying that the state is largely (or entirely) undesirable.
I suppose I don’t judge things in terms of how “hardcore” they are, but how true they are.
Now, my point is a simple and well established principle. The burden of proof is one person challenging the mainstream.
If you wish to say that gravity doesn’t really exist and we would fly of the face of the earth if it weren’t for God holding us down, I’d tell you to go for it. I think it’s fairly clear of whom the burden of proof lies, however.
Growing on you? Just give out your address and see how many letter-bombs you receive.
Yet Nozick was held in high regard and his theories can be refuted quite easily. And Feser, who seems to be getting more and more popular by the day, uses some ridiculous reasoning as well. I just don’t think popularity matters (one way or the other). Just look a religion, popularity is ever-shifting, does the average Christian say “well Islam is growing, so there must be some truth to it.” Well… I don’t, but I doubt it.
However I find arguing about “good” and “bad” philosophers to be almost as pointless as arguing philosophy.
Probably because Habermas regrets the implications of his own work being left-leaning. See what I did there? I made up an alternative interpretation of it that is equally valid and less based on appeals to authority (oh but what will the professional philosopher-kings say!)
Shouldn’t? According to whom? And who cares whether Danny was in grad school or not? Many non-grad students can tear apart the works of many philosophers or economists even, including Caplan. Who cares? Are you so obsessed with credentials? And as for “ripping” anyone anything, that largely depends on whether the person is incapable of countering the critique. Absence of any response is not tantamount to concession of defeat particularly when Hoppe may not even be interested in the topic anymore (and to my knowledge he isn’t much interested in either ethics or epistemology at the moment as he is working on another project; so Kinsella, van Dun and some others would largely be the persons interested.) Does the fact that Kinsella &c. have not responded to Danny mean he is not and should not be taken seriously &c. &c.? I’ll reiterate, if any philosopher thinks they can safely ignore arg. ethics and not take it seriously they should apply the same attitude to Kantian ethics, regardless of how famous Kant is, because arg. ethics is a superior formulation to it and based on the same principles.
To be fair I know very little about them. I brushed up with Peter Klein’s Mises daily. From the sounds of it Williamson is a sub Hayekian and doesn’t care hugely mathematical theorising. You could see it as some sort of progress though “we” probably all thought that back in the 70s when Hayek won; I bet even Rothabrd thought so too. I just can’t get that excited about it. I think I’ll only start taking the Nobel Prize seriously when Hulsmann wins for his work on equilibrium theory- he put an obviously useful concept onto essentialist and realistic grounds thus sidestepping all the normal criticism and gaining new insights at the same time.
Let me put it another way: I really do not care in the slightest about any awards given to anyone however prestigious they happen to be. They may be useful in highlighting work previously unknown to me, like the BFI top 10 film list or the Cahiers lists, beyond that they just annoy me because I almost always disagree to who they’re given to. The worst example of this is the top 100 shows on Channel 4- they just make me angry.
I also don’t think that they are a good barometer as to how views are changing- it just comes across of Tory grassroots supporters naivety to think that since we’ve had one tax cut we’re on the way to a pre-second world war state.
Just to reiterate that Hulsmann’s work on equilibrium, IMO, is the best economics essay I’ve read from the last ten years.
