A true hero of economics and philosophy. His reasoning from first principles is absolutely amazing, and the conclusions he reaches are eye-opening and provoking.
Amazing presentation. I especially liked the emphasis on language. The only thing I'm unsure about is whether indeed children come to learn all of language from everyday life (14:39) or whether some parts of human language, like syntax and some of the grammatical rules, are innate and shared universally, as some schools of linguistics would argue if I'm not mistaken. And whether this could have logical implications. Explained differently, the idea/theory (which some linguistics studies appear to support), is that most, if not all human "languages" share a few common principles which are at the root of language development during early years (in the form of internal thought before learning to speak in whatever language is being spoken around). And while it is true that this amazing ability to learn so many new words and meanings early on needs some stimulation for the person to develop language at all, it also appears that no human is capable of learning a language that doesn't follow these common grammar rules shared throughout the world. And this would indicate that whatever genetic mutation that gave homo-sapiens the ability to use language also came with a bunch of constraints and rules as to what language even is in the first place, which still define human language today and presumably forever. And I'll just add that perhaps the most objective and human way to see these constraints and rules is as axioms of logic itself, or as the inescapable basis of objective human reality. Sorry if I'm a little confused, namely in some of the linguistics terminology but I'm far from an expert in anything, just curious and inquisitive.
Your basic irreducible rules of language might be logical rather than grammatical I.e. words have meaning and using them requires intent. Above that, it’s wide open. Syntax changes in the same language across time and among different languages at the same time.
What Hoppe stresses is Wittgenstein's idea of language games, that human beings can only develop language in groups, socially. The first purpose of language is communication with others, then we use it to elaborate more complex reasoning about reality than we could achieve using only images in our mind. As for certain universal patterns in language, which you find in various cultures, it could be a reflection of how our brain works, there may be a neuroscientific explanation, but that doesn't change the fact that we only develop language while we are in groups, in contact with other human beings. And language always needs to be described in terms of intent and purpose, it can never be reduced to constant natural causes. You can use neuroscience to describe certain patterns inherent in language, but can never reduce it to deterministic or probabilistic factors.
Thank you Hoppe! Interesting and not always easy to digest, but worth it. Thank you! I did at one stage try to present 'co-operation ethics' in standing with your 'argumentation ethics' at one point to Mises. Wasn't very good. May try later or someone else is free to work of that idea if desired. Praxeology is an interested science. I would pin it on the 'Wild West' or 'work hard for your fortune' venture. Meaning that there is plenty to explore. The aspect on 'time preference' alone is very interesting and dynamic. One subject that adds additional consideration to economic or any other form of calculation for human action.
One day some champion will push Hoppe’s thought to the next level by extracting out all the Humean and Kantian baggage and infusing it with Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy of nature
I've been thinking about it for a long time and even wrote some outlines on natural law, propety rights:their origin and nature, and more. This was all in an attempt to reconcile the flaws in libertarian theory. His work has been instrumental in my development and intellectual awakening. Unfortunately, I'm relatively midwitted compared to real geniuses like Hoppe. We're all just waiting for the last son of the west...
People who like this chat and want to take it further will probably like John Searle's work on speech acts and declarations of status. I sometimes wonder if such declarations can be thought of economically, like a kind of social currency: earned, banked up in good times, cashed in during a crisis, sometimes pilfered or got without deserving, etc
declaration of status is guided by actions of others, by those in power, with prestige networks, patronage networks. Humans being social creatures makes status for vast majority of people to be approval of those with influence, therefore no, it cannot be thought of as such
@@deborahdean8867 I think as always there's a controlled economy of status and a spontaneous order. The Chinese social credit idea is based on the controlled version, and when you think about it is the natural counterpart of the controlled economy in goods and services...
All this to say that human interactions can't be tested empirically but only "begriffen" or understood a priori. Our understanding of ideas like "mine" or "thine" and the constraints and conflicts they cause are part of the predicted behavior oh humans, not because they can be scientifically tested, but because they are predictable in the rules of our language. These rules are widely understood (verstanden). From there he quickly slices thinner and thinner segments of human interaction. So predictably , we know no one can simultaneously perform two contradictory actions ( not sure about this, suicide comes to mind ) aka be in two places at the same time, predict the future or avoid the law of diminishing returns . Therefore we know that if money supply increases, its value drops or that if we have a state that owns the means of production it will be unable to compare the layers of production with its output. Then he jumps to include prices and money supply and socialism or rent ceilings as part of the predictably - apodicticaly- wrong praxis. I think the jump from the origins of language ,and whether it reflects an underlying logic, to say that any economic theory is wrong a priori is making too big a jump. I could see how a socialist could argue along the same lines saying , for example, that collaboration and sharing resources is also part of the internal logic precisely because it can't be proven empirically but "a priori" . It is hard to dispute precisely because there is no way to do so as per his reasoning. This speech seems a bit lazy to me in the sense that it is looking for what it is convenient more than anything else: X is innate in humans so a combination of X,Y, Z and any word that contains those letters must be true.
I disagree that testing the deductively derived facts is useless and does damage. I think it is important to methodologically doubt everything, lest there be an error in our reasoning. However, it is annoying when they do such tests poorly and use no logic in their interpretation of the evidence and end up claiming that some fact is only conditionally true, when in fact the error was the result of misread statistics or of some change in the underlying curcumstances, because partial derivatives can only be derived ceteris paribus. Milton Friedman and company, by verifying what the Austrians already understood via careful analysis of data, showed people that yeah, this sht is flawless. It is important to use both methods, though Praxeology is the superior method in almost all respects. Think of positive analysis as a sort of a roundabout afterthought of a peer review that makes sure that the initial asssumptions and definitions people use apply to real life as we conceive of it.
The man should be in every podcast possible. imo
So to speak.
Hoppe is a very misunderstood man online. He is a titan and one of my heros.
Edit: wow, this aged like milk.
Hes in an intelectual... all intelectual are delusional
what happened meanwhile?
@EIE-BA5Avinash I now think Hoppe is a net negative to the movement. It was I who was misunderstood.
@@The_Schizoid_Man could you please elaborate?
@EIE-BA5Avinash I don't like his Kantianism and I don't like his argumentation ethics and I don't like his sociology and I don't like his race realism
Currently attending Mises U right now. So far so good, Hoppe was a great opening speaker
That’s cool, did you just join
Me too.
My dream! Any idea when they'll take applications next?
A true hero of economics and philosophy. His reasoning from first principles is absolutely amazing, and the conclusions he reaches are eye-opening and provoking.
That was quite the amazing speech I gave so to speak.
In an attempt to make me an anarchist Hoppe made me a monarchist lol, brilliant man, great speech, and I'm baffled at the audio quality being so good.
Ai clean up
Hoppe is brilliant, thank you ❤
What an amazing man
There is so much useful information here. I am currently watching it for the third time, and planning on watching it many more times.
A true international treasure!
Hoppe is the best!
Amazing presentation. I especially liked the emphasis on language. The only thing I'm unsure about is whether indeed children come to learn all of language from everyday life (14:39) or whether some parts of human language, like syntax and some of the grammatical rules, are innate and shared universally, as some schools of linguistics would argue if I'm not mistaken. And whether this could have logical implications.
Explained differently, the idea/theory (which some linguistics studies appear to support), is that most, if not all human "languages" share a few common principles which are at the root of language development during early years (in the form of internal thought before learning to speak in whatever language is being spoken around). And while it is true that this amazing ability to learn so many new words and meanings early on needs some stimulation for the person to develop language at all, it also appears that no human is capable of learning a language that doesn't follow these common grammar rules shared throughout the world. And this would indicate that whatever genetic mutation that gave homo-sapiens the ability to use language also came with a bunch of constraints and rules as to what language even is in the first place, which still define human language today and presumably forever.
And I'll just add that perhaps the most objective and human way to see these constraints and rules is as axioms of logic itself, or as the inescapable basis of objective human reality.
Sorry if I'm a little confused, namely in some of the linguistics terminology but I'm far from an expert in anything, just curious and inquisitive.
Your basic irreducible rules of language might be logical rather than grammatical I.e. words have meaning and using them requires intent. Above that, it’s wide open. Syntax changes in the same language across time and among different languages at the same time.
What Hoppe stresses is Wittgenstein's idea of language games, that human beings can only develop language in groups, socially. The first purpose of language is communication with others, then we use it to elaborate more complex reasoning about reality than we could achieve using only images in our mind. As for certain universal patterns in language, which you find in various cultures, it could be a reflection of how our brain works, there may be a neuroscientific explanation, but that doesn't change the fact that we only develop language while we are in groups, in contact with other human beings.
And language always needs to be described in terms of intent and purpose, it can never be reduced to constant natural causes. You can use neuroscience to describe certain patterns inherent in language, but can never reduce it to deterministic or probabilistic factors.
To hell with Hunter Hearst Helmsley, this the real Triple H.
Both that damn good though
I wonder if H^3 is aware of how many talented young people he's brought into Libertarian thought.
Thank you Hoppe! Interesting and not always easy to digest, but worth it. Thank you!
I did at one stage try to present 'co-operation ethics' in standing with your 'argumentation ethics' at one point to Mises. Wasn't very good. May try later or someone else is free to work of that idea if desired.
Praxeology is an interested science. I would pin it on the 'Wild West' or 'work hard for your fortune' venture. Meaning that there is plenty to explore.
The aspect on 'time preference' alone is very interesting and dynamic. One subject that adds additional consideration to economic or any other form of calculation for human action.
Aka Hoppe’s refutation of Ontological Naturalism, similar thesis to his talk at the PFS a few years ago
What an amazing scholar
I live in Turkey. It is a pleasure to live in the same country as Hoppe. I hope I can meet him.
One day some champion will push Hoppe’s thought to the next level by extracting out all the Humean and Kantian baggage and infusing it with Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy of nature
Thats impossible
I've been thinking about it for a long time and even wrote some outlines on natural law, propety rights:their origin and nature, and more. This was all in an attempt to reconcile the flaws in libertarian theory. His work has been instrumental in my development and intellectual awakening. Unfortunately, I'm relatively midwitted compared to real geniuses like Hoppe. We're all just waiting for the last son of the west...
@@screwstatists7324 What do you mean by last son of the west?
Alternative titles:
"Reflections on why econometricians hate me: It's apodictic!"
"Reflections on empirical laws: The proper study of nonsense"
Triple H
oh yeah. Hans Herman Hoppe is good :)
❤️❤️❤️
IQ. It is everything.
People who like this chat and want to take it further will probably like John Searle's work on speech acts and declarations of status.
I sometimes wonder if such declarations can be thought of economically, like a kind of social currency: earned, banked up in good times, cashed in during a crisis, sometimes pilfered or got without deserving, etc
declaration of status is guided by actions of others, by those in power, with prestige networks, patronage networks. Humans being social creatures makes status for vast majority of people to be approval of those with influence, therefore no, it cannot be thought of as such
Hoppe himself uses the John Searle’ books (as “Speech Acts”)
Exactly what the chinese are thinking snd everyone is dreading
@@deborahdean8867 I think as always there's a controlled economy of status and a spontaneous order. The Chinese social credit idea is based on the controlled version, and when you think about it is the natural counterpart of the controlled economy in goods and services...
All this to say that human interactions can't be tested empirically but only "begriffen" or understood a priori. Our understanding of ideas like "mine" or "thine" and the constraints and conflicts they cause are part of the predicted behavior oh humans, not because they can be scientifically tested, but because they are predictable in the rules of our language. These rules are widely understood (verstanden). From there he quickly slices thinner and thinner segments of human interaction. So predictably , we know no one can simultaneously perform two contradictory actions ( not sure about this, suicide comes to mind ) aka be in two places at the same time, predict the future or avoid the law of diminishing returns . Therefore we know that if money supply increases, its value drops or that if we have a state that owns the means of production it will be unable to compare the layers of production with its output. Then he jumps to include prices and money supply and socialism or rent ceilings as part of the predictably - apodicticaly- wrong praxis. I think the jump from the origins of language ,and whether it reflects an underlying logic, to say that any economic theory is wrong a priori is making too big a jump. I could see how a socialist could argue along the same lines saying , for example, that collaboration and sharing resources is also part of the internal logic precisely because it can't be proven empirically but "a priori" . It is hard to dispute precisely because there is no way to do so as per his reasoning. This speech seems a bit lazy to me in the sense that it is looking for what it is convenient more than anything else: X is innate in humans so a combination of X,Y, Z and any word that contains those letters must be true.
I hope Hoppe answered those emails
Lao Tzu?
I disagree that testing the deductively derived facts is useless and does damage. I think it is important to methodologically doubt everything, lest there be an error in our reasoning. However, it is annoying when they do such tests poorly and use no logic in their interpretation of the evidence and end up claiming that some fact is only conditionally true, when in fact the error was the result of misread statistics or of some change in the underlying curcumstances, because partial derivatives can only be derived ceteris paribus.
Milton Friedman and company, by verifying what the Austrians already understood via careful analysis of data, showed people that yeah, this sht is flawless. It is important to use both methods, though Praxeology is the superior method in almost all respects. Think of positive analysis as a sort of a roundabout afterthought of a peer review that makes sure that the initial asssumptions and definitions people use apply to real life as we conceive of it.