Just wondering.
Is this a trick question?
As Gero just pointed out… yes, it is a trick question/assertion.
Action Axiom: For all x, if x is human, then x acts.
The real meat is contained in the stipulative definitions of “human” and “action” given by Mises.
Not that I know of.
What makes it a trick question?
What are those definitions?
Out of curiosity, why is it that only humans act? It seems to me that dogs act too and while their actions may have limited consequences their actions should be considered since their actions have consequences.
Hume recognized that they do, and Mises agreed.
I don’t just model other people on myself; I also do that with animals. I assume that you do the same.
[
I find this sort of argument disingenuous at best and downright discrediting at worst. I am highly disappointed with Hoppe’s use of the idea of a “performative contradiction.” The argument is simply worthless. It is not persuasive and it (necessarily) cannot prove anything that has not already been assumed. If it doesn’t need to be assumed, then it is the conclusion to another argument resting on some other assumptions.
There are no absolutely necessary truths and I find the effort to establish the action axiom (as in the above article) or the self-ownership axiom (cf Hoppe) as absolutely necessary truths to be disturbingly theological.
Clayton -
There are no absolutely necessary truths
not necessarily.
Care to exhibit one?
Clayton -
Clayton, would you care to go on? What is your view of the status of the action “axiom”?
Sorry, I should have quoted the person I was responding to:
((P->Q)&~Q)->~P
How about this:
I cannot say whether the sentence that follows is true or false. This sentence is false.
(Or am I yet again deeply mistaken…)
Oh, no problem.
“There are no absolutely necessary truths.”
lol, i already wrote ‘not necessarily’
:-p