On Man, Nature, Truth, and Justice | Hans-Hermann Hoppe
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 มี.ค. 2015
- The Ludwig von Mises Memorial Lecture, sponsored by James Walker. Recorded at the Austrian Economics Research Conference at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on 14 March 2015. Includes an introduction by Joseph T. Salerno.
![[TH] VCT Pacific Stage 2 - Playoffs Day 2 // PRX vs GEN | DRX vs TLN](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gmrSk-_ahlA/mqdefault.jpg)
![แฉ [2/4] 11 ก.ค. 67 ‘ขวัญ อุษามณี’ เผยความจริง 16 ปีที่แล้วเกิดอะไรขึ้น? | GMM25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/K4pXnUiObbk/mqdefault.jpg)
Ze best speech ever, so to speak.
hahahaha
I have to say, his accent and way of speaking alone make his speeches incredibly entertaining. And prepare to be physically removed when making such statement under statist conditions
Cara, eu sai de um vídeo seu pra ver este vídeo hahahaha
Hahahaha
porto postagens
i become more and more hoppean everyday.... so to speak...
If only everyone did...
I get older everyday :P
Yes, so to speak :-). If only I could be an undergrad student at UNLV 10 or 15 years ago.
As always Hoppe is worth listening to, twice.
Only Twice?.. you are wrong.. unless you meant twice a day
Doug8521 I'm never wrong, but this time you got me. I stand corrected and ashamed. Twice a day is the correct answer.
Doug, I'm listening once again.
Doug8521 I'm listening once again. I have failed. This is only my third time.
Hoppe is our hope.
Drop it like it's Hoppe!
Mises, since I read him years ago, has felt like a black hole that just keeps dragging me back regardless of how much I've tried to get away. I agree with Hoppe that trying to "add" to his work is very difficult, and usually diminishes it. The exception is Hoppe himself, who is covering Mises' action axiom along with how human interpretation impacts what is "functional/correct" and helping to show us the deep power and obvious ramifications of these perspectives. Like Bastiat, Mises knew where to stop in this ideological speculation, and stay within the realm of direct and useful reason. This is a very rare trait in philosophers, and something that I've become convinced is the most powerful approach.
In any case, I place Hoppe in my top 2-3 favorite living philosophers, and I am extremely grateful for his work.
Similar experience here. I binged on Rothbard for a bit, but Rothbard felt a bit dated after reading Hoppe. But I always go back to Mises as I feel his philosophical/methodological insights are at the core of my views. I almost feel like the term "neo-misesian" could be used to describe post natural rights ancaps since Hoppe is merely applying Mises' praxeological approach to ethics and politics.
This speech is so fantastic. I can't wait for whatever book Hans is working on related to this, so I had to listen to it again... better the second time!
There's something about a straight shooter explaining complex ideas. Thank you for providing this to the public!
I must say that he lectures much better than before. No more pauzes, no more hesitations and no more 'So to speak'.
My compliments Mr. Hoppe. Hervorragend.
This breakdown of 'natural science by way of human instrumentation' is mind blowing and yet painfully obvious once pointed out.
Physically removed, so to speak
Either I am tired or I am not ready to understand this lecture. I will come back once I have levelled up
just grind for your economics skill until you unlock the "physically remove" ability. I recommend the dungeons of Stefbot molyneux or reading mises book "theory of money and credit" Latter dungeon can be entered freely, you can find it in the google empire in the pdf region. When you gathered enough xp, you can continue farming with Thomas Sowell and Milton Frieman lectures and tv apprearences. So to speak
Did you return some video tapes?
I would very much like to have a written transcript of this speech. Hoppe is too thoughtful to absorb by way of listening alone.
Now there is one! In "The Great Fiction" second edition, released by the Mises Institute couple weeks ago
I feel like this is as metaphysical as Hoppe gets in terms of thinking, which is in stark contrast with a lot of the more popular self-declared "libertarian" thinkers.
yeah
Ein großartiger Vortrag!
Der Akzent ist Klasse ^^
The more our perceptions are aligned with reality, i.e. the more truth we know, the more right actions we can successfully perform. Even more than that, I would hazard to wager that we actually become bound to perform right action (wright action) as we learn to see truth. This comment is applicable at about 39:00 of this enlightening message. I sure would like to talk to this gentleman; He reminds me of some of my uncles.
Phew! It's a while since I've heard one of Hoppe's lectures. I've missed him.
brilliant speech !
Around 54:00 ...I agree and furthermore iterate that: To state, "There is no objective truth", is the simplest and most powerful performative contradiction I can imagine. The art of introducing this fallacious concept into society has found recent exercise in the new age philosophical school of solipsism. The belief that there is no objective truth has actually come to be known as Solipsism; almost its own religion. Watch out for all its variants. There is objective truth and it is knowable. There is an absolute difference between right and wrong and it may be discerned with certainty. We have boundary conditions present always and, always, we act within that framework through our faculty, Will, known as free will. This is one level of understanding of the statement, "know the truth and the truth will set you free". You see, the truth is that You Are Free. Of course,one of the constraints (boundary conditions) of the system is our friend the Law of Causality. I know that the people watching this presentation likely know all this: I am posting it for my son. He also studies.
You cannot prove objectively that torturing babies is wrong.
@@nullclass0813 It flatly is on the face of it. If you don't what "wrong" even means, your Egoist bullshit is the childish nonsense it's often taken for.
@@nullclass0813 Sure you can! The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob said “you shall not murder”. God is the only absolute!
@@TesterBoy not proof. Truth is in subjectivity
@@gloriouscontent3538 show me the scientific formula to objectively prove this as a law
I forget how many times I've watched this
Thank you for the intriguing insights, Dr. Hoppe. You have incited thoughts about how to best use language and reasoned argument to try to convince ordinary thinkers that anarcho-capitalism is much more in their best interest as a way to organize society than democracy or, heaven forbid, socialism.
I just started this video, but by gauging the comments so far I think I'm in for some repetitiveness....,so to speak.
my exact thought atm
I love this man
Highly undervalued speech
This guy is an amazing thinker
Big Papa Hoppe
Where can i find the quote where he says "physical punishment"
mises.org/library/my-battle-thought-police
"For instance, on p. 218, I wrote "in a covenant concluded among proprietors and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, … no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant ... such as democracy and communism." "Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. … [violators] will have to be physically removed from society.""
16:47
we thank you good sir o7
Yes!
Damn when will he finish his book on method? This talk was amazing.
I have to get his book.
Хоппе молодец!
I have only one question after watching this. Why are there empty chairs?
I feel like I am going to get sucked into some argumentitive feedback loop and never be able to get out.
Regarding "unopposed prior possessions" this is good stuff, but who gets to decide at what point I possess, say, a large chunk of land. Is building a fence enough? What if I took it via violence and then sold it? Since a large portion of current land holding have a history of being taken by force to some extent, if we take this literally, then most land titles are currently invalid. We will get very different interpretations of justice in these cases, and so to say, "we know how to restore justice if injustice has occurred" is a false statement, due to the lack of consensus on a large portion of supposedly legitimate property claims.
Later, I love the talk of argumentation ethics, but I think it falls short of "refuting all talk of ethical relativism and... of might makes right." If land was taken by force and then sold, and the resources from that land were also sold and made into products which where then sold (see exploitation colonialism) , then all of this is stolen property. To even start to unravel what claims are just and injust in such a case will, obviously, involve a sort of ethical relativism, unless you insist that you know exactly how it can be made right, and imply we should trust your argument is correct, even if our values do not agree with it. As far as might equals right... well... this is what is being implied here by implying that something like the U.S. Indian treaties being broken then has led to land claims that should be now honored comes down to, doesn't it?
Ultimately, even the way that property rights are determined and measured will be to a very real extent by human consensus or lack of it regarding these matters. This is ethical relativism around property rights, and it stems from the fact that it is a somewhat arbitrary point how property is initially claimed (what are legitimate means of claiming it and how to resolve past illegitimate confiscations), whether or not maintenance should be paid on non-created by found goods (ala Georgian LVT ideas). Who says that a land claim should be instant and eternal? Yes, there are real benefits to doing this way, and this is my preference, but to imply it is cut and dry that this is justice is a matter of interpretation, not of fact.
A Crack, as always! a pure ACADEMIC
*S O T O S P E A K*
It's astonishing how such a literate individual, who's wrote books english, has a huge vocabulary, still has such a heavy accent, it's really strange how that's possible. Maybe he learned english a little late, IDK, but it would be much better if he had a less eccentric accent.
Listen to Hayek and Mises, both have very strong accents as well. It just be a german thang :^) it still ups the entertainment value his speeches by at least 200% so to speak
Laurin Haase yeah I'm aware of that, but look at Christoph waltz, for instance, he's German and his accent isn't nearly as strong as Hayek's, Mises's or Hoppe's.
Harto simplón su enfoque. Para entender mejor cómo opera el ser humano en sociedad recomiendo leer aquí facebook.com/guillermo.b.deisler/posts/10222050626990666
Are you seriously sharing your own autistic dribbles on facebook in the youtube comments?
30:30 this is exactly the same point made by engles and Marxists against kantianism
Hoppe himself claims that Marx managed to make decent points regarding exploitation, but his lack of economic knowledge caused him to misunderstand the nature of exploitation
Where is the funny banana part?
16:47
PrDelahaye you’re a life saver
Now a criticism. Hoppe is a great political philosopher, but a philosopher of science he is not. Does he seriously think that a great philosopher like Feyerabend thought that our knowledge of physics is insufficient to build toasters, or that he was claiming that toasters might suddenly explode at random due to the laws of physics (as currently understood) not being reliable? This is a complete misunderstanding of what these philosophers of science were meaning. The problems they were dealing with are issues like the demarcation problem and what can be safely excluded from science. I certainly hope that he has at least read Feyerabend before calling his work "absurd".... this is quite disappointing as I am a big fan of Hoppe. Also, scientific anarchism is about not having authorities deem what is and is not science/the "official" scientific method... especially at the fringes of theory and the less well understood areas: it is quite ironic to hear an an-cap leaning philosopher imply that thinking that authority is not necessarily correct by default is a bad idea.
"These authors claim in their various ways there exists no rock solid foundation..."
"Reasoning and scientific inquiry can never bring full ease of mind, apodictic certainty, and perfect cognition of all things. He who seeks this must apply to faith and try to quiet his conscience by embracing a creed or a metaphysical doctrine."
-von Mises, Ludwig (2009-03-30). Human Action: Scholar's Edition (LvMI)
"....and no systematic and methodical progress."
They made no such claim, and stating this only proves Hoppe has not read them (I'm not terribly familiar with Quine, but I am very familiar with Kuhn and Feyerabend). The claim is that there is no "final truth" possible in science, something that is commonly accepted, even by Mises. True that these issues don't impact most actions of physical production, but they certainly can. For example, Feyerabend critiqued things like attempts to prematurely exclude traditional Chinese medicine from science, at least until the entire approach and system is well understood and well tested (and not necessarily using western medical science paradigms exclusively). Could rejecting a system that could provide valuable medical products too early damage productivity? Of course it could. These men fought rigidity and claims of authority as to exactly how science must be done and how areas are excluded from it, they were both (Kuhn and Feyerabend) huge supporters of science and scientific progress.
+Kon Berner There are so many errors and straw man arguments in this speech (Hoppe misunderstands and misstates others' positions, so he only argues against a construction of his own making) that anyone with any knowledge of those things cannot possibly take Hoppe seriously.
ttnah5 Yes, I think the term "straw man" is overused, but in this case it seems to fit. These people were not anti-rationalists, they were fighting the tendency to turn science into a dogma, and this is very important work: breakthroughs almost always require out-of-the-box thinking. Newton was wrong, and Einstein is likely to be wrong too as new problems keep piling up in physics.
+Kon Berner Feyerabend was part of Hoppe´s intellectual training under Habermas during his studies at the Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main.
Maybe you should write him and discuss the topic, it might be most interesting.
ThomasNigelHawkins I'd be glad to. Also interested to hear more specifics from him on the demarcation problem, if he has solved it, we are all eager to look at his findings.
Sorry,
What positive influence did Habermas have on your thought? Were there negative influences from him as well?
Hoppe: Habermas was my principal philosophy teacher and Ph.D. advisor during my studies at the Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, from 1968-74. Through his seminars I became acquainted with British and American analytical philosophy. I read K. Popper, P. Feyerabend, L. Wittgenstein, G. Ryle, J.L. Austin, J. Searle, W.v.O. Quine, H. Putnam, N. Chomsky, J. Piaget. I discovered Paul Lorenzen and the Erlangen school and the work of K.O Apel. I still believe that this was a pretty good intellectual training.
Personally, then, I have no regrets. As for Habermas' influence on Germany and German public opinion, however, it has been an unmitigated disaster, at least from a libertarian viewpoint. Habermas is today Germany's most celebrated public intellectual and High Priest of "Political Correctness:" of social democracy and welfare-statism, of multi-culturalism, anti-discrimination (affirmative action) and political centralization spiced, especially for German consumption, with a heavy dose of "anti-fascist" rhetoric and "collective guilt"-mongering.
www.mises.org.br/Article.aspx?id=1644
"(...) with that, we can immediately dispose of all talks of solipscism, of other egos or [indistinguishable] subjectivism and all hobbesian ruminations of a war of all against all as idle mental gymnasitics or pseudo-problems; because whoever writes about these matters refutes himself by virtue of the fact that he writes and argues his case in a public language and, thus, shows himself to be a cultured and socialized person - neither a solipcist nor a wolf." th-cam.com/video/in3sacFHcck/w-d-xo.html#t=3386
How so? I fail to see how my writing this comment is somehow, by definition, incompatible with being a "wolf" or a solipcist. In the war of all against all, feigning culture and socialization is incredibly conducive to achieving one's own goals of survival and reproduction... Ask any con-man, sociopath, politician, autist or Wall Street banker about the importance of seeming human and sincerely emotional.
Who's to say that I don't seriously believe that we're all deterministic robots but enjoy the discussion anyway or know that pretending is useful? Or, that I'm writing this comment to an audience of my own psychotic design and know it but don't care?
Sure, it might be a cynical perspective and it might not be particularly fruitful but it's not immediately disposable either. Or?
Anyway, thanks for the lecture, mr. Hoppe :)
I keep hearing he does not like to speak publicly in English anymore, is it just interviews he's opposed to doing?
The weak point in "natural account of man" is the word "natural" or "nature". The word "nature" is not a scientific word, but meta-physical, an assumption, an article of faith on which then science founds theories. But what was precisely in question was whether nature minus God = nature. It was a question not conclusion. Yet scientists simply take that as conclusion. The term "nature" is not naturalistic and they take that non-naturalistic term as naturalistic as basis not of ideology but of science!
When God made the world, he originally intended air to be a scarce resource, until Hans Hermann Hoppe told him otherwise.
😂😂
I disagree, there is absolutely truth in nature, the misapprehension of which is falsehood. Any property which can be measured objectively is truth, is it not? There is no contradiction, only gaps in our knowledge... We simply don't understand all of events going on which allow us to remix ideas in our heads, or have intent, or whether the nature of intent is what we arrogantly presume it to be. Meaning unrelated to truth is clearly an emotional expression and so is also not suggestive of us being supernatural in any way. Everything we can measure suggests we are of nature, so why do we feel the gaps in that knowledge are an invitation to proclaim the existence of a soul? Doesn't seem consistent with the rest of the lecture wherein Mr.Hoppe makes superb arguments for empiricism and its _much_ greater incorporation into social sciences.
chromanin "I disagree, there is absolutely truth in nature..." is that your argument, or the truth? His point is that the sort of truth you speak of is a human form of truth. It is using ways of measuring what SIMPLY IS, through human standards. In this case, you use the term "absolute", what does this mean as far as a measuring instrument is concenred? Nature simply IS, it is not interpretation or measure, and interpretations and measurements do not change it.
This stuff is very much like some common Asian philosophical perspectives. What happens, especially in the West, is that we are brainwashed into thinking that X way of measuring something yields absolute truth about it. Instead, what it yields is an accurate measurement of something, via a means of human interpretation... this is not THE TRUTH, it is A truth FROM a specific perspective. When it comes to many practical scientific issues, this makes no difference whatsoever, but when dealing with claims that have substantial subjective inputs (e.g. the ethics of private property), it is CRITICAL to get this right.
Brilliant, brilliant stuff, and something that few Western philosophers get anywhere near directly confronting.
Kon Berner But what you are measuring is *a* truth -- not the complete whole truth of the universe, something I would never claim to be able to apprehend. Despite being limited by my physiology and technological advancement in apprehending more of those truths, I do not see any reason to suppose that objective truths aren't the only truths. I agree, nature simply is... So when we make factual observations about nature, we are apprehending truth... Incomplete truth most certainly, but in no way invalid. For instance, a colour blind individual may note that an apple is spherical, while being unable to sense that it is also red... Yet this does not invalidate their initial observation... It is still true. As you know, I think that subjectivity is a smoke screen for gaps in knowledge... Instead of saying 'Hey, maybe morals should be derived from information on what is actually most conducive to everyone's happiness and autonomy', we'd rather cling to notions that we feel good about, and don't tax our rational faculties overmuch. I think it's philosophically lazy to be honest, no offense intended. Philosophy is love of wisdom, which is critical or meta-intelligence (not mysticism), whereas the common approach these days is more like logophilia.
chromanin For example, were Newton's laws absolute truths or not? Answer, they were/are not, and Einstein proved it. Now, are Einstein's laws absolute proof or not? Answer, inconclusive. Where is the absolute truth that you can point at?
As Hoppe stated, human varieties of proof make sense within the context of getting things done... in that case, they are extremely valuable, but attempting to assert universals based on measurements is to fall into the fallacy that the way you are measuring something is someone sacred from every perspective. Who says? And try to prove it. Measurement itself has elements of subjective influence in some cases, as Hoppe's "point of view" example is a good example. Further, what is the point of doing this? Usually, the point is to try and ram something down someone's throat instead of just dealing with the valuable practical applications of measurement.
This is not a rigorous reflection of Hoppe's argument. For that, you can look at what Mises said about history and interpretation of it. He was a master philosopher, breaking new ground, and my own mind still gets tied in knots a bit thinking about this stuff... sadly, it is very important, especially to sociology.
Kon Berner I wasn't claiming knowledge of absolute truth, I was saying that there 'absolutely is' truth in nature... Where else would it be? You're right, measurement can itself alter what is being measured, but you're still collecting data, and measurements can be refined and controlled with many observers. Please refer again to my 'colour blind' example.
Is there any other source of truth, incomplete as it may be? If not, should principles not be derived from how we understand the universe to work? Granted, these principles may be as incomplete as our undestanding, yet I see no other honest path.
I in no way intend to deny the amazing rational abilities of great thinkers such as Mises. We must, however, admit they had technologically limited perspectives, and so it is possible they would alter their insights in the light of advancements in neuroscience for example. Furthermore, no one gets everything 100% right, but they can still be mostly right, which is my argument in a nutshell :)
chromanin Human history and sociology are much more sensitive to these issues than the hard sciences. The reason Mises brought it up was due to economics, which is a form of sociology. In the hard sciences, this problem is usually (but not always) a distinction without a difference, but it has a strong impact on sociology. Hoppe explains partially why this is the case, and that is because human judgments about when and how some things are "working properly" are a matter with substantial subjective input. In fact, as he pointed out, from a naturalistic perspective, a "broken clock" is in absolutely no sense broken. This "brokenness" is 100% human overlay from the perspective of the laws of physics, which continue to function perfected if it is "broken" or not.
This is an brilliant point, which means we should separate the realm of "human function" from "natural function", and be VERY CAREFUL to not conflate the two.
Yes, Wittgenstein also made similar points about how language can easily slip and cause problems to appear to exist that do not exist in reality, but only in language. To keep insisting that such a problem exists in reality is a grave and common error.
My comments here are less that perfectly clear, but talking about this problem is difficult... perhaps it would make a good topic for a book: I think it would.
"We cannot deny that argumentation must be the starting point of all intellectual endeavors".
Yes I can.
This is the same fallacy as "I write, therefore I am", or "I think, therefore I am", but worse. First YOU ARE. Existents exist. They exist without your observation. They don't pop up, because you happen to look their (whose) way.
So too, to claim that intellectual endeavor begins with the proclamation of what you have already thought of, is the destruction of reason. The intellectual insight must be there, and the only way it could've gotten there, is because of your own individual thought. It is foolish to state that an existent comes into existence by presenting it.
look out everyone! its an objectivist!
what a terrible epistemology.
If civilization is based on scarcity we would have become cannibals
hoppe isn't a libertarian, and he's most certainly not an anarchist by *any* stretch. all anarchists are socialist. hoppe's a liberal.
not sure about that
LOL
tell me u haven’t read hoppe without telling me u haven’t read hoppe