[hill.travis18]

My question is pretty straightforward, is thinking action?

Thinking does seem to be purposeful, intentional, or teleological, in that it is goal-directed, however, purposeful action requires scarce means to pursue these goals praxeologically speaking. The problem there seems to be with the claim that thinking is acting is that there seems to be no scarce means pursuing an action.

Would it be your reason, knowledge, or ideas? But, these resources would seem to be general conditions of the environment and not objects of action or means. Rothbard seems to make that clear in Man, State, Economy as he describes knowedge, ideas, or recipes as general conditions of action once they are attained by someone.

I find this confusing, because you do choose to think, it is volitional, and is directed at some goal (attaining knowledge, visualizing a desired end, remembering a fond memory. To say that thinking isn’t acting, is to say, that we are not acting and content with our state of affairs and have no uneasiness.

Just something I could use a little help with, which I would greatly appreciate.

[jmherbener]

Ludwig von Mises thought that thinking and acting were inseparable. Take a look at his book, Human Action, pp. 24-25 and 177.

http://library.mises.org/books/Ludwig%20von%20Mises/Human%20Action.pdf

David Gordon believes that thinking is an action because it is purposeful behavior. Take a look at his book, Introduction to Economic Reasoning, pp. 18-20.

http://library.mises.org/books/David%20Gordon/An%20Introduction%20to%20Economic%20Reasoning.pdf

I think that Rothbard, Mises, and Gordon would agree that reason is the precondition for thinking while knowledge or ideas themselves are the product of thinking. If thinking is considered an action, then, it would employ the scarce resource of the person’s brain.

[hill.travis18]

So then if reasoning is a prerequisite to thinking, then they are two separate concepts, then my question would be how are they separate?

Mises stated that thinking is always thinking about potential action, or past action on pg. 177 of Human Action, this seems to be wrong in that I can think about an abstract concept without thinking about a concrete action, I can think about the visual of an apple, house, chair, etc. without thinking about pursuing a means to an end (unless he means action in the colloquial sense, however, then, thinking about abstract concepts would not be thinking about action in that sense either, or so it seems. What does Mises mean by this?

In regards to your possible solution to my scarcity question with regards to the means of thinking. David Gordon seems to say that thinking may not occur dependently of the brain, therefore the brain not being a means to the end of thinking.

This question seems to bring up philosophical problems that can’t seem to be fully resolved as indicative. Is my question outside the realm of praxeology then?

[hill.travis18]

So then if reasoning is a prerequisite to thinking, then they are two separate concepts, then my question would be how are they separate?

Mises stated that thinking is always thinking about potential action, or past action on pg. 177 of Human Action, this seems to be wrong in that I can think about an abstract concept without thinking about a concrete action, I can think about the visual of an apple, house, chair, etc. without thinking about pursuing a means to an end (unless he means action in the colloquial sense, however, then, thinking about abstract concepts would not be thinking about action in that sense either, or so it seems. What does Mises mean by this?

In regards to your possible solution to my scarcity question with regards to the means of thinking. David Gordon seems to say that thinking may not occur dependently of the brain, therefore the brain not being a means to the end of thinking.

This question seems to bring up philosophical problems that can’t seem to be fully resolved as indicative. Is my question outside the realm of praxeology then?

[jmherbener]

There are several equivocations involved.

First, it’s not reasoning, but reason that is a requisite of thinking. As Mises puts it, the logical structure of the mind is a requisite for human thinking.

Second, by the term “thinking” Mises is referring to what you have called reasoning. He is not talking about having thoughts in our minds or contemplating certain abstract concepts. He is talking about the process of drawing conclusions about the cause and effect connections in human action.

David Gordon says that creatures who are not human beings may also be able to think even though they lack a human brain. An obvious example is God. But for human beings living in the world, which is the subject matter of economics, a person’s body, including his brain, is a scarce resource.

Indeed, your questions raise philosophical issue that are beyond the scope of praxeology.

[Author]

Posts