Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Sat Dec 9 17:07:52 2006 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
John, after reading your post carefully, it seems that you are inviting
me to have a discussion about the meaning of truth, about the "most
important elements in a man's life," and about your novel conception of
"gift." I do not regard the HES list as the proper forum for such a
discussion.
I will, however, make two comments on your interpretation of Mises.
1. Regarding the "method of imaginary constructions," there is no real
puzzle unless you are looking for something more profound than Mises
intends. I am sure that you will agree that to define anything, we must
imagine the thing without one or more of the attributes that we employ
in our definition. What we imagine is, to Mises, an imaginary
construction. This is all that Mises means by an imaginary construction.
It is also what he has in mind when he says that economics and
praxeology cannot do without imaginary constructions. He applies this
general idea to what he calls praxeological phenomena -- phenomena
related to what he calls action. The method of imaginary constructions
is a means of reaching an understanding of a specific case of economic
interaction by conceiving of the interaction in the absence of some
characteristic that we use to define it. The significance of the
procedure lies with how one comes to define economic interaction, an
issue that is too complex to get into here.
2. Regarding your interpretation of Mises's use of the terms
"contractual" and "hegemonic" to refer to "social relations" as a basis
for constructing a "theory of society" (your language), you seem to be
taking his terms out of context. You apparently want his terms to refer
to what you have in mind when you use the words "social relations" and
"society." However, you will see upon closer examination that he uses
these terms to refer to types of cooperation. So while his goal is to
build a theory of cooperation, your goal appears to be to build a much
broader or deeper theory. Do you think it wise to fault a writer for
writing about a subject that is different from the one with which you
are concerned? (I think that Mises does write elsewhere about the
subject you seem concerned with. I would elaborate on this but I prefer
that you first state independently, without reference to Mises or anyone
else, the issues that you think one should deal with.)
Permit me to end with a suggestion in the form of a question. If you do
not believe that you are a Mises scholar, then don't you think it
inappropriate to include a criticism of Mises's work in your writings
about other subjects?
Pat Gunning
|
|
|