Who agrees with Hoppe on this?

[leonidia]

@twistedbydsign99

@leonidia

Therefore, all behavior involving choice i.e. requiring thought (purposeful) is action. And all behavior not involving choice and not involving thought (not purposeful) is not an action, but simply reflex behavior.

I am willing to accept this definition for your praxeological investigation into the action of man. But I also don’t ignore the fact that there is no true biological organ or behavior that is not purposeful in the evolutionary sense. Which is what I meant by the “undeniable purpose of preservation of life.” To deny this purpose is to remove yourself from the gene pool and be unrepresented, so in that sense it is undeniable.

Well yes, in the evolutionary sense, certain genetic characteristics have a “purpose”, but the term is loosely applied. Strictly speaking to say a gene has a purpose would be to imply it has a design, an intention, a thought, which it doesn’t, unless you believe in some kind of teleological doctrine like intelligent design.

@twistedbydsign99

So just be specific when you talk about behavior because that is more general than action.

I thought I was trying to be.

[twistedbydsign99]

Even without a designer I think the goal of preserving life must be held in order to exist. You can’t even be ambivalent in this goal because of scarce resources that must be acquired.

@leonidia

I thought I was trying to be.

You were my pompousness just bled through sorry.

[leonidia]

@twistedbydsign99

Even without a designer I think the goal of preserving life must be held in order to exist.

Of course. A person can’t exist if he has no goal of preserving his life. And the goal of preserving his life involves a choice: that of life over death. And such a choice involves thought and is therefore purposeful. I agree with you.

But genes, gene pools, populations, societies, nations have no personality of their own, they don’t think. Only individual people do. Only individuals act. Only individuals engage in purposeful behavior.

[twistedbydsign99]

So purpose is predicated on choice? Or does a bacteria engage in purposeful behavior.

[leonidia]

@twistedbydsign99

Or does a bacteria engage in purposeful behavior

If we’re talking about the (human) logic of action (which is what praxeology is all about) then it make sense to talk about purposeful behavior with reference only to human beings. If we define purposeful behavior a little more loosely, then of course animals can engage in purposeful behavior on an instinctual level (i.e. without the benefit of human reason). If we define puproseful behavior very loosely, then I suppose we could apply it to bactaria and such. It’s all a question of what you mean by the words “purposeful behavior”. I choose to apply it in the strict sense. You can choose to apply it any way you want.

[wombatron]

Just to clarify a bit, praxeology is only concerned with demonstrated preference, preferences that are revealed in action. One can speak of preferences in a psychological sense, and they can be purposeful or not, but if they aren’t acted on, praxeology has nothing to do with them; if they are acted on and revealed, they are necessarily purposeful, human action being “purposeful behavior” by defintion.

[twistedbydsign99]

Could it be that perhaps a human acts and a bacteria only reacts?