ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
The Science of Human Action | Hans-Hermann Hoppe
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.ค. 2011
- Archived from the live Mises.tv broadcast, Hans-Hermann Hoppe presents the opening lecture of the 2011 Mises University. Includes an introduction by Mark Thornton.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 75 | คู่เอก "คมเพชร vs โอมาร์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WugMG7Po8uw/mqdefault.jpg)
Game theory and complexity theory are reaffirming the Austrian view. Keynesians are already yesterdays men.
@Mourning Star hahahaha indeed!!
WOW! Human Action was the 1st book you read by Mises.
This is one of greatest lectures I have heard. This clarifies so many ideas that I have learned in school.
Hoppe You ROCK!
Epistemology is a really interesting field. When I think about it I always remember that when I was a kid I tried to conceive a universe where math worked differently. Then I'd give up and say my brain hurts. It still does.
The cosmos is uniform and static.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe is one of the last great german Philosophers.
Komme mal wieder nach Deutschland, wir brauchen dich!
Since no academe has weighed in, I'll give my layman-student view: Ron Paul has often mentioned the Mises and Rothbard's economic views are major influences on his own. I have not heard him specifically mention Hoppe, but undoubtedly they agree on many fundamental economic principles. Since both Rothbard and Hoppe reached the political conclusion that Liberty and Peace are not compatible with the coercion-monopoly of government, Ron Paul differs with them as a Constitutionalist.
@dhebert111
Yes. Peter Schiff was Ron Paul's economic advisor in 2008. He predicted the housing bubble collapse and meltdown and now warns of a dollar collapse. Ron Paul is a hero to most or all of the Austrian economists, who follow the teachings of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek: free markets without government interference; private property rights; sound money preferably tied to gold; acknowledging you can't predict future with certainty b/c it depends on human action and choices.
Oh Hans you brilliant bastard... you make a giant intellect look so effortless.
when a scientist says "we can only know something through empirical investigation" is this statement itself based on empirical information?
No; because it is not based on a material observation. Science studies categories. Only humans create categories. So it is the limit of categories we can use science for empirical study.
I like Mises' way of explaining it actually. He basically said that reason can simply allow you to know all of the potentially complex connotations of things you already know to be true.
Near the end when he was talking about needing to asume an ethical stance to prove or disprove an economic argument is true. For example if your ethics is that you like a small elite class to be rich while other classes are poor, then fascism is consistent with that. Ethics is subjective but if your ethics are for peace freedom and prosperity then Austrian economics is consistent with it.
@modelmark The key word is not observation or evidence, but rather 'empirical'. All of us have observations and evidence and all of us can indeed make speeches (at least in theory). But Empiricism holds that a theory must be disprovable by experiment in order to be valid, and equally, that all theories are necessarily false as they inevitably will be refined by future testing. This flies in the face of the simple logic that the theory that a thing cannot both be and not be, need not be tested.
No it just means it can't be dealt with empirically, it has to be approached by some a priori method otherwise it cannot be accepted as anything more than a historical fact. Austrians study the truism that action presupposes human valuation and choice to act in the way perceived to create the greatest happiness. This can't be disproved, because if are multiple ways to act but only one way to act a time people must make a choice, Austrian Economics is the study of the implications of this choice
I`m not an acedemic. Is this the type of economic philosophy Ron Paul is perscribing?
Essentially
Yes, Ron Paul's a great politician of Libertarian Party and a great apology of Austrian Economic School. I'm Austro-Libertarian, like him. Sorry about my English
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 Empiricists emphasize testing hypotheses in their search for truth. However in economics and human life no events are ever repeatable because we live in a three-dimensional world traveling forward through space-time. Therefore, anything that happens can never be exactly repeated. Empirical science procedures work for inanimate objects because they share the same exact properties and they can manipulate single variables which is impossible in the study of human behavior
" no events are ever repeatable " It's worse than that for the Empiricists because there is no way to measure and quantify the quality of desire and taste, which is the essence of any economics beyond the subsistence kind.
My notes,
If we didn't have to act then we didn't have to know.
Stones don't act, stones behave in certain ways, but they don't act, hence don't need to know anything.
But we do.
Knowledge is the tool of acting, explain the fundamental structure of our knowledge.
23:25 causation.
23:50 something rather than nothing. Not knowing versus not existing.
26:30 the unique action in space-time finggerprints.
36:00 logic of actions
37:00 last empiricist dogma "there is no such a thing as rational ethics", which it self is a contradiction due to Apriori argumentation.
In order to defend the argument "there is no such thing as rational ethics" one must acknowledging rational ethics.
Gin,
Thanks duh :-)
@Moragauth It does show that making economic arguments requires certain premisses. Though, you'd expect most people to follow the premises which should lead to following Austrian economics.
These premises people follow may not have to be universally valid. Someone may follow a beliefs and values which does not follow a Kantian universalisation test. While the universalisation test is may be good for finding principles which you can apply to a society equally it doesn't mean people will follow.
@escapeout I researched Peter Schiff a bit today and watched a few of his lectures. The guy speaks the truth and I can`t understand why, other than pure greed by a few, that the Austrian School is not the preeminent economic model in the world. Schiffs father has very valid points as far as taxation is concerned, and should be released right away.
What we are doing now as a society is shameful. The way I think about the economy will never be the same after today, unbeleivable.
@dhebert111 Yes, Ron Paul is an avowed Austrian economist. He is also strongly linked to the Mises Institute. I believe he has a formal position in LVMI, but I'm not sure if he's a fellow, member, or what. Lew Rockwell used to be on his congressional staff.
One day ı want to say same for you Mr Hoppe. I hope i will be there.🐛📝
3-4 days.. dang..
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 He states very clearly in the video that almost all knowledge is gained through the senses. However, some knowledge must have to be formed without the use of sense, and although the amount of knowledge gained through introspection alone is tiny, it still exists. Because no event in history is repeatable economics can't be empirical because if it were that would mean that for any hypotheses to be accepted after an experiment it must be repeatable which is impossible.
@dhebert111
Yes. It's the Austrian school of economic thought, the oldest continuous school in the world, the ideas of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Virtually all of the economists who predicted the financial meltdown (notably Peter Schiff) have been Austrian school.
Check out praxgirl's lectures on praxeology guys.
@93msinclair Okay, what about the universal idea of "all-against-all" as an example?
@AUSM92 Thankyou, I will try, this is relatively new to me.
@hennypenny247 From the small amount of knowlege I have gained from these Mises lectures, it just seems that this school of thought is more ethical, as far as my definition of ethics is concerned.
Come to gcc wolverines
@hennypenny247 I`ll have to admit, I have very little training in business, nothing compared to what most have in this feild. I remember totally disagreeing with GDP calculations in Financial Accounting, always argueing with the professor about dividend yeild, and such fairytales. I was an austrian ecomomist at heart, and have only realized it 15 years later, better late than never.
@god0fgod It depends on what that entails. Certain behaviours can never be universal such as theft or murder, since they impose an implicit double standard between the perpetrator and the subject. A thief takes property with the intention of keeping his property, and a murderer takes lives with the intention of living. Hence these are examples of non-universal behaviours which can never be part of a system of ethics.
But you see, Black is not Yellow, and Grey is not polka dots.
But in fact, as some philosophers have noted, not all Mises videos are saying anything at all. Ontology. We are actors, having to act in an external world. Stones don't act. Stones don't need to know anything, but we do.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Inspired by the first 22:18 of the vid. #LOL
@Panpiper if that is the definition of Empiricism, it indeed seems false. Thanks for the explanation.
@CKniz1 I became aware of that recently, Dr. Paul could really be in a position to make revolutionary change, and help the USA, in turn help the whole world if you really think about it. We are in the midst of a rare occasion in history in which we might see a new era started, in therory it would be a more ethical one.
Dave Smith sent me here...kind of.
"there´s no "objective truth"." Is that objectively true?
Ok I explained why praxeology must be correct, but somehow you left that out. Again Austrian Economics is based on the fact that there are many possible ways to act, however you can only choose one way to act at any given time, therefore in order to act a choice out of the many possibilities must be made. This demonstrated preference for the action chosen is the basis of everything that Austrian Economics claims. Next time actually read and try to understand the post you respond to.
@dhebert111 Ron Paul, like Hoppe, promotes Austrian economics but he is not an "anarchist" or a proponent of a private law society. He is more of a libertarian in the classical liberal sense, which is to say much like the conservative "Old Right" Republicans. He often describes himself as a Constitutionalist, upholding a strict, constructionist interpretation of the Constitution.
@god0fgod I would argue that having a small elite group ruling the masses is not ethics at all. A system of ethis must be universal. In ethics, we simply speak about whether something is right of wrong, without specifying individuals, because the principle must apply to everyone. In that sense, ethics itself is not subjective, but rather a person's preference for accepting ethics is subjective. Just as one's preference for accepting science is subjective, but science itself is not subjective.
@93msinclair If ethics must be universal. Yet the "all-against-all" may include acceptance of being killed.
Is this video about epistemology or action? I waited till half the video is played, nothing about action.
It's a rationalization.
@lovelplants Bai, apil sa "Filipino-Americans for Ron Paul 2012" facebook group. We are organizing the liberty-inclined individuals in the Philippines.
isn't every statement on humans preceded by the empirical observation of the existence of humans. What you get without a full suitcase of experience, are the utterances of a baby. Every man that holds speeches can only do so because of a wealth of experiences and empirical evidence.
Mary zinholts
Hayek? Muddled and confused? Never!
I think he is strawmanning the logical positivist position.
oh yeah yeah
Self-referential questioning for the win!
In fact, Rudolf Carnap, one of the early Logical Positivists, laid the foundation of modern symbolic logic. . .clearly because he disagreed that such had any value as knowledge . .. lol.
@dhebert111 Yes.
You need to consider the statement in its specific context and not as a universal generality.
@god0fgod I don't know what behaviours "all-against-all" entails. If it includes theft and murder then it is not universal.
@JohnRater A man of his cultural background is probably predisposed against personal associating with homosexuals, but using homosexuals as an example to elaborate on the concept of time preference does not make one a homophobe.
The uncertainty principle states that something CAN in fact be A and not A at the same time.
Sorry, rationalists.
On a tiny scale under very specific circumstances?
That was a good joke.
So the uncertainty principle states that something CANNOT in fact be A and not A at the same time?
@mjhonsun - Wrong. Do your research.
ok.
En. Español. En. Español. En. Español
Don’t you guys know how to comment under people’s comment
if mortgages are biggest burden along with medical? why not mass produce both? stop paying social workers judge lawyer teachers professors and redirect them to produce houses n medical care end interest loans deport fuckers an make rent cheap in middle of city by taxing rent since proximity is value
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 That is not what he is arguing at all. But nice try.
I'm an Austrian, but I disagree with Hoppe's claim. The Logical Positivists (which he attacks in another video) do view rational apriori thought as knowledge. I think Hoppe has a major bias towards science and frankly he's knowledge of the topic is very weak. I do respect his views on economic topics, but he's a second rate philosopher and that's me being generous.
Hayek was a very smart man with a lot of interesting insights but Hayek is fail compared to Mises , Hoppe and Rothbard in many ways.. I suspect that's exactly why he has gotten more attention by the mainstream. Because he seemed less ideologically driven. Really it was as Hoppe says, Hayek was "muddled and confused".
To pieces
I don't like the way this guy talks. I don't like him readingh off a script
I haven't given Hoppe his day in court. A lot of the brilliant people who work for the Mises institute seem to think he's great, but from the beginning he has seemed a bit off to me. Scholars like Guido Hulsmann, Salerno, and David Gordon just seem like a different class compared to Block, Tucker, Hoppe, and other speakers who focus on social philosophy.
The specific context is a universal generality, so it is illogical.
2nd time I see this guy give a presentation and tell lies about Popper.
lets go ahead and deport lots of fuckers
1755 or socialism works lol