====================== HES POSTING ====================== 
 
Regarding Robin Neill's first point in today's posting: 
The difference between the history of a nation state and 
the history of economics is this. The NATION STATE refers 
to a particular form of political organization -- 
a particular structure of rights, in the broadest sense. 
ECONOMICS refers to a social-intellectual interaction among 
distinctly human actors. The rise of the nation state 
and the progress of economics are two distinctly different 
ideas. To see this, we need to ask: nation state as opposed 
to what? economics as opposed to what? As an historian, 
one aims to explain "observable facts" in terms of the 
perceptions and understandings of the individuals who are 
deemed relevant to those facts. In this sense, the history 
of each is similar. But I think it is obvious that the 
"observable facts" should be placed in different classes. 
 
Regarding the second point: "A theory has application to 
all items of a certain class or kind [q = f(p) [cet. par.], 
for any individual consumer.], without reference to a 
particular time in history. (Ah! You see the point.). 
A thesis has application to only one set of events in some 
particular time and place." Notice that Neill uses the 
modifier "a" before the term "theory (or thesis)." One 
who was familiar with Mises's THEORY AND HISTORY would 
not use the term "theory" in this way. Theory means a 
way of organizing the "observable facts" by referring to 
the perceptions and understandings of the distinctly 
human beings whose choices played a causal role in their 
existence. Time is a necessary part of theory, defined 
in this sense. 
 
And, good grief, what is a "Whig view" of how history is 
(or ought to be) done? 
 
Pat Gunning 
http://stsvr.showtower.com.tw/~gunning/welcome 
http://web.nchulc.edu.tw/~gunning/pat/welcome 
 
==================== FOOTER TO HES POSTING ==================== 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]