Advertisement

A Conventionalist Interpretation of Mises’ Justification of the Fundamental Axiom

  • Alexander Linsbichler
Chapter

Abstract

Drawing on the methodological character of Mises’ dualism and a critical analysis of his defense of praxeology, it is argued that Mises – perhaps unintentionally – champions a form of conventionalism. All other classifications in Popper’s scheme are dismissed. The proposed classification resolves a number of interpretational problems in Mises’ writings, which otherwise remain open. This is in contrast both to the received view, which interprets Mises’ position as synthetic apriorism, and to Tokumaru, who takes the fundamental axiom of praxeology to be a methodological rule. Puster is one of the few interpreters who also take the fundamental axiom to be analytic instead of synthetic.

Keywords

Austrian School of Economics Ludwig von Mises Apriorism Praxeology Conventionalism Fundamental axiom 

References

  1. ———. (1982) 2003. Beyond Positivism: Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Century. London, Boston: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 1999. “The Austrian Search for Realistic Foundations”. Southern Economic Journal 65(4): 823–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ———. 1950. “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology”. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 4: 20–40.Google Scholar
  4. Chodorov, Frank. (1947) 1962. “Taxation is Robbery”. In Out of Step, 216–239. New York: The Devin-Adair Company.Google Scholar
  5. Duhem, Pierre. 1991. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. 1. Princeton Paperback Print. Princeton Science Library. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hahn, Hans. (1933) 1980. “The Crisis of Intuition”. In Empiricism, Logic and Mathematics: Philosophical Papers, edited by Brian McGuinness, 73–102 Vienna Circle Collection 13. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ———. (1937) 1948. “Economics and Knowledge”. In Individualism and Economic Order, 33–56. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 2010. A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics. The Ludwig Von Mises Institute’s Studies in Austrian Economics. Auburn, Ala: Ludwig Von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 1944. Methodology of the Social Sciences. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. ———. (1936) 2014. Felix Kaufmann’s Theory and Method in the Social Sciences. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science 303. Cham: s.l. Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Kirzner, Israel M. (1960) 1976. The Economic Point of View: An Essay in the History of Economic Thought. 2 edn. Studies in Economic Theory. Kansas City: Sheed and Ward.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 1997. “Between Mises and Keynes – An Interview with Israel M. Kirzner”. The Austrian Economics Newsletter 17: 1.Google Scholar
  13. ———. 2001. Ludwig Von Mises: The Man and His Economics. Library of Modern Thinkers. Wilmington, DE: ISI Books.Google Scholar
  14. Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter. 2001. “On Rationality, Ideal Types and Economics: Alfred Schütz and the Austrian School”. The Review of Austrian Economics 14(2/3): 119–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lavoie, Don. 1986. “Euclideanism Versus Hermeneutics: A Reinterpretation of Misesian Apriorism”. In Subjectivity, Intelligibility and Economic Understanding, edited by Israel M. Kirzner, 192–210. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lewis, Paul. 2010. “Certainly Not! A Critical Realist Recasting of Ludwig Von Mises’s Methodology of the Social Sciences”. Journal of Economic Methodology 17(3): 277–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Linsbichler, Alexander. 2015. “Otto Neurath and Ludwig von Mises – The Socialist Calculation Debates and Beyond”. In Interactions in the History of Philosophy II, edited by Ercan, Burçin, 311–324. Istanbul: Delta Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2004. “Anti-Psychologism in Economics: Wittgenstein and Mises”. The Review of Austrian Economics 17(4): 345–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ———. 2008. “Wittgenstein, Praxeology, and Frege’s Three Realms. Wirth Conference on What Is Austrian”. In Austrian Economics, 2008.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 2013. Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action – Praxeological Investigations. Auburn, AL: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Milford, Karl. 1986. “Zu den Lösungsversuchen des Induktionsproblems und des Abgrenzungsproblems bei Carl Menger.” Dissertation, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 1992b. “‘Poppers Lösungsvorschlag des Abgrenzungsproblems und die Methoden der Sozialwissenschaften: Zum 90’. Geburtstag von Sir Karl Popper”. Wissenschaftspolitische Blätter 4: 503–513.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 1933. Grundprobleme der Nationalökonomie: Untersuchungen über Verfahren, Aufgaben und Inhalt der Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftslehre. Jena: Gustav Fischer.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 1940. Nationalökonomie: Theorie des Handelns und Wirtschaftens. Genf: Editions Union.Google Scholar
  25. ———. 1978. Erinnerungen: Mit 1 Porträt und einer Bibliographie der Veröffentlichungen von Ludwig v. Mises. 1. Aufl. Stuttgart, NY: Fischer.Google Scholar
  26. ———. (1942) 1990. “Social Science and Natural Science”. In Money, Method, and the Market Process: Essays by Ludwig Von Mises, edited by Richard M. Ebeling, 3–15. Auburn, AL: Praxeology Press of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  27. ———. (1944) 1990a. “The Treatment of ‘Irrationality’ in the Social Sciences”. In Money, Method, and the Market Process: Essays by Ludwig Von Mises, edited by Richard M. Ebeling, 16–36. Auburn, AL: Praxeology Press of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  28. ———. (1949) 1998. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. The Scholar’s Edition. Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  29. ———. (1933) 2003. Epistemological Problems of Economics. 3rd edn. Auburn, AL: Ludwig Von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  30. ———. (1957) 2005. Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution. Liberty Fund Library of the Works of Ludwig Von Mises. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  31. ———. (1940, 1978) 2009. Memoirs. Auburn, AL: Ludwig Von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  32. ———. (1912) 2009. The Theory of Money and Credit. Auburn, AL: Ludwig Von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  33. ———. (1962) 2012. The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An Essay on Method. Princeton: Martino Fine Books.Google Scholar
  34. Möller Van Der, Bruck, A. 1923. Das dritte Reich. Berlin: Ring Verlag.Google Scholar
  35. Nock, Albert J. 1935. Our Enemy, The State. New York: William Morrow & Company.Google Scholar
  36. Oppenheimer, Franz. (1929) 1990. Der Staat. 3rd edn. Berlin: Libertad Verlag.Google Scholar
  37. ———. (1967) 1983. “The Rationality Principle”. In A Pocket Popper, edited by Miller, David, 357–365 Fontana Pocket Readers. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
  38. ———. 1994a. “Models, Instruments, and Truth”. In The Myth of the Framework – In Defence of Science and Rationality, 154–184. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. ———. 1994b. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Rev. edn., 8th impr. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  40. ———. (1906) 1997. The Poverty of Historicism. Repr. London u.a: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. ———. (1933) 2010. Die beiden Grundprobleme der Erkenntnistheorie: Aufgrund von Manuskripten aus den Jahren 1930–1933. 3. Aufl., durchges. und erg. Gesammelte Werke in deutscher Sprache /Karl R. Popper; 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  42. Prychitko, David L. 1998. “Praxeology.” In Boettke 1998, 77–83.Google Scholar
  43. Puster, Rolf W. 2014. “Dualismen und ihre Hintergründe”. In Theorie und Geschichte: Eine Interpretation sozialer und wirtschaftlicher Entwicklung, 7–50. München: Akston.Google Scholar
  44. ———. 1968. The Rise of Scientific Philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  45. ———. (1985) 2007. “Preface”. In Theory and History, xi–xix. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  46. ———. 2009. Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles; with Power and Market: Government and the Economy. Auburn, AL: MISES.Google Scholar
  47. Stadler, Friedrich. 2007. “History of Philosophy of Science: From Wissenschaftslogik (Logic of Science) to Philosophy of Science: Europe and America, 1930–1960”. In General Philosophy of Science: Focal Issues, edited by Theo A. F. Kuipers, 601–680 Handbook of the philosophy of science. Amsterdam, London: North Holland.Google Scholar
  48. Tokumaru, N. 2009. “Popper’s Analysis of the Problem of Induction and Demarcation and Mises’ Justification of the Theoretical Social Sciences”. In Rethinking Popper, edited by Robert S. Cohen, Jürgen Renn, Kostas Gavroglu, Zuzana Parusniková, and Robert S. Cohen. 1. Aufl., 161–74. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 272 v.No. 272. s.l, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Uebel, Thomas. 1996. “The Enlightenment Ambition of Epistemic Utopianism: Otto Neurath’s Theory of Science in Historical Perspective”. In Origins of Logical Empiricism, edited by Ronald N. Giere and Alan W. Richardson, 91–112 Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science v. 16. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Linsbichler
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ViennaWienAustria

Personalised recommendations