What’s helped me with reading Human Action is the Study Guide to Human Action by Robert P. Murphy, Mises Made Easier by Percy L. Greaves, Jr., and using google as my dictionary. For the long confusing sentences, I just keep re-reading them and try to break them down until I grasp what he means.
A few examples :
-
“a rectangular triangle”. What is that?
-
“bla bla is a category” and the context makes clear it has nothing to do with the standard English definition of category/
-
Apodictic. No need for such a word to be used.
-
Catalectic. No need for such a word to be used.
-
Praxeology. No need for such a word to be used.
-
The ideas are much fresher in general than the cumbersome, stiff, Translated-from-the-German words that enclothe them. It’s like asking a ballet dancer to perform in combat boots.
-
All the Latin words straight to the trash bin. Ceteris parabis, the works, just toss em out. If you don’t know why, woe is you.
-
A right triangle- again, nothing more than unfamiliarity with english, but when you think about what it means, and what a rectangle contains, it becomes obvious.
-
still just unfimiliarity, but picking up the clues MAKES you think about it, depening understanding
3/4. what word would you use that maintains the same meaning
-
praxeology means “study of human conduct” (dictionary.com), and gives one word to sum up everything in “Human Action”, and in doing so, was designed for the time and circle it would be read in, and honesty, which sounds higher/fancier- praxeology or “study of human action”?
-
Mises said that it was not a translation, that it was a new book, completely rewritten, “The present volume is not a translation of this earlier book. Although the general structure has been little changed, all parts have been rewritten.” pg 23, “Human Action”, Scholars edition
-
So we need to trash the latin in all other things? and all the latin roots you unknowingly use every day?
A general intro to your comments. The best written book is one that does not include impediments to understanding [to “make you think”], but on the contrary, manages to present its ideas in such a way that you feel that you are absorbing the ideas directly from the mind of the author. Having to tackle an alligator full of words is, in a word, bad.
-
So you think it is better to say “rectangular triangle” than than “right triangle”? The point is not that you CAN waste time and figure it out, the point is that why should you?
-
It does not “deepen understanding” of an idea if you have to waste your time because of poor wording.
3/4. You really really think the English language, with half a million words, cannot find a happier wording than those clunkers? The point is not “can you think of a better one”. The point is that they interfere with my concentration on the ideas the words contain, forcing me to waste energy on the words themselves. A gifted writer would find better words, even if I can’t.
- “Higher/fancier” is bad. Understandable and simple is good. You aren’t trying to impress the reader. You are trying to get your idea across. Hey, why not rewrite the whole thing in iambic pentameter in Elizabethan English? That would be really impressive.
By saying it was written for a certain time and circle, you are admitting that it is an archaic in-crowd kind of word. Exactly what makes a book badly written.
-
It wasn’t translated? Of course it was. Mises’ native language was German. It was translated in his head as he wrote it. In short it has the disadvantages [=ugly clumsiness] of a translation with out even the minor benefit of faithfulness to some original.
-
We don’t need to do anything. But if we want a book to be more readable and understandable [=a superior work] , it goes without saying that it should be written in a language the reader understands. The second statement is a strawman.
I will say that although I haven’t read all of “Human Action”, none of MES, the quote I had came directly from Mises’ own intro to “Human Action”, I’d think he’d know what he did. I’ll admit I am not the best source for this, especially as I am not even starting in freshman comp, but the course below it, nor have I completely read Mises’ work. I’m sure I will understand more of your critisms as I read the work, but so far, about 100 and some-odd pages in, I have no long term trouble, and do not mind having to look things up and think about what he’s saying.
Anyone concerned about the difficulty of reading Human Action should read the Preface to Mises Made Easier - A Glossary For Human Action:
It seems that Mises chose his words carefully, but overestimated the ability of his readers or made assumptions about who they would be.
EDIT: I would recommend that if someone were to take on the task of rewording Human Action that they make sure they fully understand what Mises meant to say when he wrote it. The author of Mises Made Easier had read Human Action several times and still had to consult with Mises on what he meant, and on occasion, Mises would remark that it would take a book or at least a chapter to do justice with a particular definition. Providing a modern reworded version of Human Action would be no simple task.
“What’s helped me with reading Human Action is the Study Guide to Human Action by Robert P. Murphy, Mises Made Easier by Percy L. Greaves, Jr., and using google as my dictionary. For the long confusing sentences, I just keep re-reading them and try to break them down until I grasp what he means.”
“A general intro to your comments. The best written book is one that does not include impediments to understanding [to “make you think”], but on the contrary, manages to present its ideas in such a way that you feel that you are absorbing the ideas directly from the mind of the author. Having to tackle an alligator full of words is, in a word, bad.”
“The author of Mises Made Easier had read Human Action several times and still had to consult with Mises on what he meant, and on occasion, Mises would remark that it would take a book or at least a chapter to do justice with a particular definition.”
This is what I was referring to. I feel needing all of these resources (I have them all, too) and having to take a lot of time to break down some sentences and phrases just makes learning the material a much longer and more frustrating process. I can usually come away with what he is saying, but the fact that it takes so much to do so just makes me feel that many who lack our determination are kept from learning the most important work economics has to offer.
I understand wanting to read what Mises has to say, and not a translation of it, and wanting to keep it the way Mises wanted it. But the current state of our nation and complete ignorance the population has of Mises, in my opinion, might mean that it is necessary to make Mises as accessible as possible. As it stands now, the complexity of his writing keeps many from seeking Mises wisdom.
Mises’ HA is clear and concise.
"But often the manner in which it is written makes reading it a chore. "
Perhaps because it’s not an easy subject.
“If one were to write a lucid, modern translation of Human Action, would you buy it?”
No, not when I can buy the original.
“As it stands now, the complexity of his writing keeps many from seeking Mises wisdom.”
And the complexity of tensor calculus keeps many from seeking Einstein’s wisdom. Really, if you want a more accessible book try Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson, or Rothbard’s Man, Economy, and State. I don’t think HA should be completely rewritten - I’d suggest only correcting typos or logical defects.
I really think Mises’ seemingly awkward writing goes hand-in-hand with precise thinking about praxeology. Praxeology does, after all, involve deductive logic. If it’s rewritten to be much simpler, it will lose much of its force. On the other hand, if you can stomach Mises’ writing, I think you will eventually grow to like it. You will have learned the right way of thinking and a better understanding of praxeology.
I think it boils down to having low reading levels and not reading enough, or just reading garbage. Becoming phobic of foreign words that seem complex. Instead of just jumping into something complex, that in the long run will be more beneficial, people want to walk around the obstacles, and have everything made easier for them.
I thought it was veryclear and easy to understand the 1st time I read through it. I think there is a free online workbook, and I know there is an audio book for free in the media section. Maybe that would clear everything up.
[ Deleted: PM me if you have a problem with this]
Smiling Dave, Human Action is meant to be a definitive treatise, not a primer. We’re talking about Ludwig von Mises here; not Henry Hazlitt or Gene Callahan.
- So you think it is better to say “rectangular triangle” than than “right triangle”? The point is not that you CAN waste time and figure it out, the point is that why should you?
For all you know, “rectangular triangle” was THE way to say “right triangle” at the time. I was able to infer in 2 seconds what he meant by “rectangular triangle”. It’s all about the attitude you have when engaging with the text.
- It does not “deepen understanding” of an idea if you have to waste your time because of poor wording.
It’s not a waste of time. If you are going to try to understand economics and its philosophical underpinnings, you should understand the philosophical meaning of the word “category”.
3/4. You really really think the English language, with half a million words, cannot find a happier wording than those clunkers? The point is not “can you think of a better one”. The point is that they interfere with my concentration on the ideas the words contain, forcing me to waste energy on the words themselves. A gifted writer would find better words, even if I can’t.
Only a gifted writer can know one way or the other. You are welcome to propose superior words. If you cannot, you have know way of knowing if they in fact exist.
- “Higher/fancier” is bad. Understandable and simple is good. You aren’t trying to impress the reader. You are trying to get your idea across. Hey, why not rewrite the whole thing in iambic pentameter in Elizabethan English? That would be really impressive.
Mises was not going for “fanciness” or “highness” for its own sake. He was trying to strike an effective balance between exactitude and avoiding what he explicitly referred to as “pedantic heaviness”.
- It wasn’t translated? Of course it was. Mises’ native language was German. It was translated in his head as he wrote it.
You are contorting the meaning of words, perhaps so as to avoid conceding to an important point of fact made by mwaslh.
But if we want a book to be more readable and understandable [=a superior work]
Would you say then that “Economics in One Lesson” or “Economics for Real People” are “superior works” to Human Action?
-
From other books written in normal English at the time, it is clear that no on said “rectangular triangle”. Also, just beacuse you figured out in two seconds wht it is, does not make it a properly written book. For example, if a book writes “I is happy”, it won’t take you long to figure out what he is saying, but it is still poorly written.
-
Are you disagreeing in general and saying that a poorly worded phrase is never a waste of time, or that just the one word “category” is not a waste of time? If the former, I disagree and don’t see how the two seconds it took you to figure out rectangular trainagle is not a waste of two seconds of your life. And more, poor wording, even if you can figure out what it means, detracts from the understanding of the book. It is like listening to a lecture when a mosquito is buzzing around.
If the latter, that just the word category is OK, and you agree that the book will benefit from a rewriting, well fine. As for “category”, consider this paragraph:
“Man is in a position to act because he has the abiIity to discover
causal relations which determine change and becoming in the uni-
verse. Acting requires and presupposes the category of causality.
Only a man who sees the world in the light of causality is fitted to
act. In this sense we may say that causality is a category of action.
The category means and ends presupposes the category cause and
effect. In a world without causality and regularity of phenomena
there would be no field for human reasoning and human action. Such
a world would be a chaos in which man would be at a loss to find any
orientation and guidance. Man is not even capable of imagining the
conditions of such a chaotic universe”
It gains, not loses, clarity if every sentence that contains the word “category” were just omitted. So that it is unneccesarily verbose, for one thing, and for another, does not use the word category in a way that it is used by the vast majority of the English speaking race. Nor does it help to hide behind philosophy. Even the philosophical definition of the word category is not appropriate. Not to mention that the central idea of that paragraph has nothing to do with the study of philosphical categories. Face it, category is a very very pooor choice of words that detracts from, not adds to, the clarity of the exposition.
3/4. That’s not true. One does not have to be a gifted writer to know that something is poorly written. One has to be a gifted writer to rewrite it.
-
In other words, you agree with me that “higher/fancier” is bad. Good.
-
No. My point is that had English been Mises’ native language the whole book would look different. Which seems to me undeniable.
-
I am not comparing Human Action to other books. I am comparing a poorly written Human Action to a well written [by which I mean one that is more readable and understandable] Human Action, and saying the latter is the superior work.
“I think it boils down to having low reading levels and not reading enough, or just reading garbage. Becoming phobic of foreign words that seem complex. Instead of just jumping into something complex, that in the long run will be more beneficial, people want to walk around the obstacles, and have everything made easier for them.”
Yes. Those who run into some difficulty reading a book that is notorious for being a challenging read are guilty for having low reading levels. As for your second point, it is not a sin to want to have ideas transmitted in a clearer fashion. If anything it helps the spread of good ideas. Not everybody is like us, in that they will read Human Action regardless of the language used inside.
This is why I would prefer the original Mises work over a “modern translation”. I found every sentence in that quote to be important, yet someone that might rewrite the book might have removed much of it. Who knows what important stuff I might be missing in a “modern translation”?
I hear ya. Of course, the plan is not to make a big heap and burn all the originals.
And im sure they wouldnt just hand the book to some scrub to do the work. Obviously, having someone competent with a full understanding of H.A. and the Austrian school would be a requirement for transcribing it.
I think it is amazing (and wonderful) this discussion has carried on this far without one mention of IP. Now THAT is progress.
@Smiling Dave, perhaps what you mean is someone needs to rewrite the ideas of Human Action in an easier to digest form and publish it under their own name. No one has an issue with a derivative work, however editing Mises posthumously is going to get a lot of pushback.
Makes sense
Yes. Those who run into some difficulty reading a book that is notorious for being a challenging read are guilty for having low reading levels. As for your second point, it is not a sin to want to have ideas transmitted in a clearer fashion. If anything it helps the spread of good ideas. Not everybody is like us, in that they will read Human Action regardless of the language used inside.
The point is that it’s known for being a challenging read, it’s not something for beginners, yet people want the book watered down so they don’t actually have to think to understand the ideas. How about we rewrite Shakespeare and Neitzsche so the ideas are more clear to today’s modern readers also.
You can’t sit there and say to yourself, “I’d read it, but the language is beyond what I can comprehend, I won’t bother” when generally that’s the point of advancing your mind and learning, to gain something new and more of it. So far Human Action seems to have a huge impact, and nothing’s changed about it. It must be doing well in spreading ideas.