Advertisement

Essentialism in the Austrian School

  • Alexander Linsbichler
Chapter

Abstract

Rothbard, Long, and Hoppe provide alternative defenses of praxeology. Rothbard champions an essentialist position. Therefore, the view held by representatives as well as by critics of the Austrian School and according to which the two most influential praxeologists, Mises and Rothbard, at the end of the day share similar epistemological positions is rejected. What is more, a conventionalist defense of praxeology passes Rothbard’s criteria for a fundamental axiom, whereas his own essentialist arguments fail to do so. Nominalism, a subjective value theory, and methodological individualism are incoherent with essentialism. Menger’s and Mises’ nominalist conceptual analysis is contrasted with Wieser’s twofold essentialist position.

Keywords

Austrian School of Economics Essentialism Praxeology Friedrich Wieser Murray Rothbard Carl Menger 

References

  1. Friedman, David. 1988. “The Trouble with Hoppe”. Liberty 2(2): 44.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 1995. Economic Science and the Austrian Method. Auburn, Ala: Ludwig Von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  3. Klausinger, H. 2015. “Hans Mayer, Last Knight of the Austrian School, Vienna Branch”. History of Political Economy 47(2): 271–305. doi:  10.1215/00182702-2884333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ———. 2008. “Wittgenstein, Praxeology, and Frege’s Three Realms. Wirth Conference on What Is Austrian”. In Austrian Economics, 2008.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 2013. Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action – Praxeological Investigations. Auburn, AL: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 1989. Zu den Lösungsversuchen des Induktionsproblems und des Abgrenzungsproblems bei Carl Menger. Sitzungsberichte/Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 541. Wien: Verl. d. Österreich. Akad. d. Wiss.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 1992a. “Nationalism, Volksgeist, and the Methods of Economics: A Note on Ranke, Roscher, and Menger”. History of European Ideas 15: 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 2008. “Inductivism and Anti-Essentialism in Menger’s Work”. In Carl Menger: Neu Erörtert Unter Einbeziehung Nachgelassener Texte, edited by Gilles Campagnolo and Stephan Haltmayer, 59–86. Wiener Arbeiten zur Philosophie Reihe B, Beiträge zur philosophischen Forschung 17, Lang: Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2010. “A Note on Menger’s Problem Situation and Non-Essentialist Approach to Economics.” In Hagemann, Nishizawa, and Ikeda 2010, 154–175.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2015. “Zur Entwicklung der Volkswirtschaftslehre an der Universität Wien von 1763 bis 1976”. In Reflexive Innensichten aus der Universität: Disziplinengeschichten zwischen Wissenschaft, Gesellschaft und Politik, edited by Karl Fröschl, Gerd B. Müller, Thomas Olechowski, and Brigitta Schmidt-Lauber, 341–354 650 Jahre Universität Wien – Aufbruch ins neue Jahrhundert; Bd. 4. Göttingen: V&R unipress.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Milford, Karl, and Peter Rosner. 1997. “Die Abkoppelung der Ökonomie an der Universität Wien nach 1920”. In Zur deutschsprachigen wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Emigration nach 1933, edited by Harald Hagemann, 479–502. Marbug: Metropolis-Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. Miller, David W. 1994. Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defence. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  13. ———. (1933) 2003. Epistemological Problems of Economics. 3rd edn. Auburn, AL: Ludwig Von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  14. ———. (1940, 1978) 2009. Memoirs. Auburn, AL: Ludwig Von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  15. ———. (1934) 2012. “Maxims for the Discussion of Methodological Problems in the Social Sciences: Paper Delivered at the Private Seminar”. In Monetary and Economic Policy Problems Before, During, and After the Great War, edited by Richard M. Ebeling, 325–332. Selected writings of Ludwig von Mises /ed. and with an introd. by Richard M. Ebeling; Vol. 1. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  16. Murphy, Robert P., and Gene Callahan. 2006. “Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethic: A Critique”. Journal of Libertarian Studies 20(2): 54–64.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 1975. Die offene Gesellschaft und ihre Feinde 1: Der Zauber Platons. München: Francke.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 1980. Die offene Gesellschaft und ihre Feinde 2: Falsche Propheten. 6. Aufl. Uni-Taschenbücher 473. München: Francke.Google Scholar
  19. Radnitzky, G. 1995. “Reply to Hoppe – On Apriorism in Austrian Economics”. In Values and Society: Values and the Social Order Volume 1, edited by G. Radnitzky and H. Bouillon. Repr, 189–194. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 1968. The Rise of Scientific Philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 1997. The Logic of Action One. Method, Money and the Austrian School. 2 vols. Economists of the twentieth century/Murray N. Rothbard; 1. Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  22. Samuelson, Paul A. 1964. “Theory and Realism: A Reply”. The American Economic Review 54(5): 736–739.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 1981. “Bertil Ohlin (1899–1979)”. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 83(3): 355–371.Google Scholar
  24. Schmelzer, Ilja. 2016. “Against Absolute Certainty.” http://ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/againstCertainty.pdf.
  25. ———. 2000b. “Two Competing Paradigms in Austrian Economic Theory”. Notizie di Politeia 59: 44–66.Google Scholar
  26. ———. 1990. “The Question of Apriorism”. Austrian Economics Newsletter (Fall), 1–5.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 1998. “Aristotelianism, Apriorism, Essentialism.” In Boettke 1998, 33–37.Google Scholar
  28. Stolyarov II., Gennady. 2007. “The Compatibility of Hoppe’s and Rothbard’s Views of the Action Axiom”. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 10(2): 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations