Pat Gunning wrote:  
>John Medaille wrote:  
>>  
>>If you merely mean that things can in general   
>>be analyzed with logic, then this is true but   
>>only trivially true, and we hardly needed   
>>praxeology to tell us this. But in any actual   
>>analysis of action, we run into three sets of problems.  
>  
>  
>This is not what I mean. When Mises writes of   
>the logical structure of the human mind, he   
>means something different -- something that you   
>have not yet understood. The structure he has in   
>mind is a structure based on the assumption that   
>individuals act, as he defines action.   
>Apparently, I am not able to persuade you that you have misunderstood him.  
  
Perhaps, but you could persuade me if only you   
would present some contrary evidence. But instead you say:  
  
>You continue to lift quotes from his text to   
>support your points and I must continue to point   
>out that there is a deeper meaning to the text   
>quotes than you have so far acknowledged.  
  
Fine. Where can I find these "deeper meanings" if   
not in the text? And if it is in the text, can   
you, as a Misean scholar, show me where?  
  
  
>As I said before, I do not which to engage you   
>in a philosophical discussion on the HES list. I   
>doubt that the list has the stomach for a   
>philosophical debate in which I largely try to   
>play the role of Mises. I only wish to point out   
>that you have not understood Mises well enough   
>to justify your remarks about him, which I   
>described in my initial post on bashing Mises.   
>Or, since "pointing out" requires communication   
>which does not seem to be occurring between us,   
>perhaps it is enough for me to simply express my opinion on this matter.  
  
I do think that it is important, as a matter of   
history, to get Mises right. Mises, far from   
being "heterodox," represents, in my opinion, the   
purest form of neoclassical orthodoxy, sort of an   
orthodoxy on steroids. After all, the man who   
accused his Mount Pellerian Society colleagues of   
being "a bunch of socialists" deserves some   
points for purity, if not for coherence. To   
understand Mises is to understand more than   
Mises; it is to understand more than Mises; it is   
to understand a whole set of justifications and   
rationalizations that are elsewhere implicit in   
neoclassicism but in Mises are explicit. For this, Mises deserves credit.  
  
As far as human actions go, it is clear that   
Mises identifies them with ratiocination. If   
there is something in HA that modifies or   
contradicts this, I am more than willing to read   
it. But you have presented nothing; your   
"arguments" take the form of a mere ad hominem   
("you just don't understand!") That may be true,   
but it is hardly persuasive. Show me where my   
opinions are contradicted by the text. Human   
actions cannot be reduced to praxeology, and this   
is easy to confirm. Call up the marketing   
department of any large firm (whose sole reason   
for being is to move people to the action of   
buying) and ask them how many praxeologists and   
how many psychologists they hire. In fact, they   
hire the best psychologists , sociologists,   
artists, and musicians and spend not a nickel on   
praxeology. Or just turn on the TV and do a   
critical analysis of any commercial. Clearly,   
they do not want people to think, but to stop thinking.  
  
  
>I can readily understand why you think that   
>Mises scholars, or perhaps only me, operate on   
>faith. If I have correctly interpreted your   
>earlier posts to the list, you tend to see values everywhere in economics.  
  
This is true. However, I don't think it much of a   
stretch to say that economics, the science of   
valuations, has something to do with values. In   
fact, the real challenge is trying to ensure that   
it has something to do with science.  
  
  
John C. Medaille