"It is fashionable nowadays to find fault with the social sciences for being purely rational. The most popular objection raised against economics is 
that it neglects the irrationality of life and reality and tries to press into dry rational schemes and bloodless abstractions the infinite variety of 
phenomena. No censure could be more absurd. Like every branch of knowledge economics goes as far as it can be carried by rational methods. Then it 
stops by establishing the fact that it is faced with an ultimate given, i.e., a phenomenon which cannot—at least in the present state of our 
knowledge—be further analyzed." (http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/308#Mises_0068_83)

At this point, John Médaille appears to be urging us to believe that any
effort to make economics more scientific should be eschewed in favor of
a romantic vision of the universe.  But I thought we were engaged in a
discussion of Mises, who does not care about which ends we pursue, but
only that human engage in the pursuit of their ends/goals given their
understanding of the available means.

The "reasonableness" of a definition is determined by whether using a term
as defined proves useful.  That's all.  In this case, nothing appears to be
at stake other than John's dislike (justified in romantic terms) of Mises'
choice of terminology. I am unable to understand this as a substantive
discussion of Mises.

As an aside, note that John has failed to deliver on his suggestions
that excavation would unearth an insidious ideology embedded in Mises'
definition.

Finally, I feel I must state the obvious, which is that there is a difference
between defending (or attacking) Mises and trying to understand his arguments.
I have been quoting Mises in this thread not out of any wish to "defend" him,
but rather to demonstrate that most of what it being said about him shows
profound ignorance of his writing.  (My own acquaintance with Mises is
extremely limited, driven by recreational rather than scholarly interest.)

Alan Isaac


John Médaille <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> When a person uses a word in a peculiar or limited sense, then it is up to him to “define” that word, but it is likewise the task of the critic to
> test that definition to see if it is reasonable. In this case it is not.
>
> It is not because it flattens all human experience to one emotion, discontent, when in fact human action is complex, varied, and arises from many
> different emotions, not just one.