[hill.travis18]

Just a couple questions, professor.

How would you restate the axiom to logically say the same thing as only individual acts?

Also, when you say we must engage in conceptual analysis, then does that mean that we can’t deduce these implications mediately, through the use of a categorical or hypothetical syllogisms, from the action axiom? And we need to use our basic intuitions to understand the implications of action instead?

[hill.travis18]

Okay, thank you.

Well first we have the first premise person’s act.

Next are the implications, which are reflections based on the premise that person’s act. (at least the first 7 anyway).

1. Only individuals act
2. Action Takes Time
3. The future in uncertain (not completely random, but not completely determined).
4. Action is trying to change an existing situation into a more satisfactory situation
5. Means are Scarce
6. Means are allocated
7. Means are economized (different from being allocated because this implication gives a criteria for allocating, which is allocating based on higher-valued ends and using lesser valued means to achieve these higher-valued ends).
8. Value is subjective.
9. Cost is subjective
10. Profit is subjective
11. Value is imputed to means (imputed according to what ends they will serve).
12. The Laws of Utility (First is the diminishing law of marginal utility, and the second is the law of total utility).
13. The allocation of consumer goods (allocate to get the highest marginal utility).

These are the most fundamental implications of personal and interpersonal action. with 12 and 13 being implications in regards to interpersonal action.

Thanks,

Travis

[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?

[Author]

Posts