PART ONE. HUMAN ACTION
Chapter I. Acting Man
Summary
The first part of this book is focused on establishing the foundations of Praxeology. Mises goes into the a priori state of man, which would enable him to develop his theory of human action.
1. Purposeful Action and Animal Reaction
Mises distinguishes purposeful behavior with purely reflexive behavior. Human action is purposeful, meaning that the actor sets a goal and acts based on that. Praxeology is the study of human action. Also, every action is a choice.
2. The Prerequisites of Human Action
1. The actor must be in a state of uneasiness or dissatisfaction.
2. The actor must be able to imagine a more satisfactory state.
3. The actor must believe that purposeful behavior has the power to remove or reduce the uneasiness.
3. Human Action as an Ultimate Given
Praxeology takes for granted that action exists. Mises believes that human action must be studied (if for practical reasons) in a methodological dualism. This is because we don’t fully understand the mind-body connection, so it’s useful to have a distinction between the material and mental world.
4. Rationality and Irrationality; Subjectivism and Objectivity of Praxeological Research
All actions are rational actions. This means that all actions go through the process in the mind previously described. It doesn’t matter if someone’s ends are very different from another’s and that they might appear “irrational”, but this only implies the subjectivity of choosing ends.
5. Causality as a Requirement of Action
*”Causality is necessary for action, because without understanding cause and effect an actor could never hope to alter the flow of events and thus increase his happiness.”
6. The Alter Ego
All events fall in the areas of causality or teleology. They are either the intentions of the actor or the result of a physical law.
Why It Matters
The passages concerning happiness (pp. 14–15) relate to the evolving doctrine of utilitarianism. In its original Benthamite form, the criterion for goodness was that which caused more (net) pleasure than (net) pain. Even here the utilitarians recognized that certain pleasures (such as fine art or literature) pro- vided a longer duration of enjoyment than others (such as tobacco or wine). However, much of the literature did seem to be a sophisticated version of hedonism. Moreover, economists in the late 19th century tended to think of “utility” as a measurable quantity of psychic satisfaction. As Mises explains in this section, when he says that man acts to increase his happiness, this is a purely formal statement with no physiological assumptions. Both the bank robber and missionary act to increase their utility. What praxeology has to say about the actions of the former are just as valid for those of the latter, because praxeology concerns action as such.
The first part of this book is focused on establishing the foundations of Praxeology. Mises goes into the a priori state of man, which would enable him to develop his theory of human action.
1. Purposeful Action and Animal Reaction
Mises distinguishes purposeful behavior with purely reflexive behavior. Human action is purposeful, meaning that the actor sets a goal and acts based on that. Praxeology is the study of human action. Also, every action is a choice.
2. The Prerequisites of Human Action
1. The actor must be in a state of uneasiness or dissatisfaction.
2. The actor must be able to imagine a more satisfactory state.
3. The actor must believe that purposeful behavior has the power to remove or reduce the uneasiness.
3. Human Action as an Ultimate Given
Praxeology takes for granted that action exists. Mises believes that human action must be studied (if for practical reasons) in a methodological dualism. This is because we don’t fully understand the mind-body connection, so it’s useful to have a distinction between the material and mental world.
4. Rationality and Irrationality; Subjectivism and Objectivity of Praxeological Research
All actions are rational actions. This means that all actions go through the process in the mind previously described. It doesn’t matter if someone’s ends are very different from another’s and that they might appear “irrational”, but this only implies the subjectivity of choosing ends.
5. Causality as a Requirement of Action
*”Causality is necessary for action, because without understanding cause and effect an actor could never hope to alter the flow of events and thus increase his happiness.”
6. The Alter Ego
All events fall in the areas of causality or teleology. They are either the intentions of the actor or the result of a physical law.
Why It Matters
The passages concerning happiness (pp. 14–15) relate to the evolving doctrine of utilitarianism. In its original Benthamite form, the criterion for goodness was that which caused more (net) pleasure than (net) pain. Even here the utilitarians recognized that certain pleasures (such as fine art or literature) pro- vided a longer duration of enjoyment than others (such as tobacco or wine). However, much of the literature did seem to be a sophisticated version of hedonism. Moreover, economists in the late 19th century tended to think of “utility” as a measurable quantity of psychic satisfaction. As Mises explains in this section, when he says that man acts to increase his happiness, this is a purely formal statement with no physiological assumptions. Both the bank robber and missionary act to increase their utility. What praxeology has to say about the actions of the former are just as valid for those of the latter, because praxeology concerns action as such.
Chapter II. The Epistemological Problems of the Sciences of Human Action
Summary
1. Praxeology and History
These are the two main branches of the sciences of human action. History is the collection and systematic arrangement of all data of experience concerning human action. Praxeology aims to arrive at a priori truths that are valid for all action, both in the past and future.
2. The Formal and Aprioristic Character of Praxeology
The human mind has a logical structure and if we try to prove this we would get stocked since we would need the same system (logic) to prove it. Also, the principles of causality and teleology are necessary prerequisites.
3. The A Priori and Reality
Even though Praxeology has an a priori nature, we can learn from it. It focuses on past experiences that we could analyze and use for predictions of the future (although we cannot be certain that it would happen the same). These past experiences can be past exchanges, costs, and prices.
4. The Principle of Methodological Individualism
Praxeology focuses on the actions of individuals. Groups of people are abstract concepts we can’t deal with, but only the individual actions are the ones that exist.
5. The Principle of Methodological Singularism
Again, Praxeology deals with individual actions and not vague actions in general.
6. The Individual and Changing Features of Human Action
We must not confuse that the actor, choosing his actions in a conventional or traditional way, is not thinking for himself since all actions are individual.
7. The Scope and the Specific Method of History
This refers that the historian can’t study or let the facts be without any interpretation. He must interpret this facts with his prior knowledge.
8. Conception and Understanding
*”The task of the sciences of human action is the comprehension of the meaning and relevance of human action. Conception is the tool of Praxeology, while understanding is the tool of history.”
9. On Ideal Types
Historians deal and can use ideal types depending on the particular period of time they are interpreting, but Praxeology cannot use ideal types because of their general nature.
10. The Procedure of Economics
*”Economics proceeds with logical deductions from the fact of action. It can study special cases of action by considering specific conditions in which action could occur.”
11. The Limitations on Praxeological Concepts
Praxeology can only be applied to acting human beings. Other inclusion of beings in the study in Praxeology would be useless since it’s out of its scope.
Why It Matters
Epistemology seeks to answer the question, “How can we ever ‘know’ something?” In this chapter, Mises establishes the epistemological foundations of praxeology, that is, he explains how it is that economists and other social scientists can arrive at beliefs concerning actors and have confidence in their conclusions.
Especially as the 20th century progressed, most economists thought that they needed to ape the method of the physicists to arrive at “scientific” laws in their field. Mises’s insistence that praxeology’s propositions are “a priori” thus struck them as shocking and quaint.
If a statement is a priori, its truth can be established without external observations. For example, we can verify the Pythagorean theorem without measuring triangles to “test” the claim. On the other hand, if a statement is a posteriori, then logic alone cannot verify or refute it. For example, if someone says, “the sun emits heat,” then sensory observation is necessary to evaluate the claim.
1. Praxeology and History
These are the two main branches of the sciences of human action. History is the collection and systematic arrangement of all data of experience concerning human action. Praxeology aims to arrive at a priori truths that are valid for all action, both in the past and future.
2. The Formal and Aprioristic Character of Praxeology
The human mind has a logical structure and if we try to prove this we would get stocked since we would need the same system (logic) to prove it. Also, the principles of causality and teleology are necessary prerequisites.
3. The A Priori and Reality
Even though Praxeology has an a priori nature, we can learn from it. It focuses on past experiences that we could analyze and use for predictions of the future (although we cannot be certain that it would happen the same). These past experiences can be past exchanges, costs, and prices.
4. The Principle of Methodological Individualism
Praxeology focuses on the actions of individuals. Groups of people are abstract concepts we can’t deal with, but only the individual actions are the ones that exist.
5. The Principle of Methodological Singularism
Again, Praxeology deals with individual actions and not vague actions in general.
6. The Individual and Changing Features of Human Action
We must not confuse that the actor, choosing his actions in a conventional or traditional way, is not thinking for himself since all actions are individual.
7. The Scope and the Specific Method of History
This refers that the historian can’t study or let the facts be without any interpretation. He must interpret this facts with his prior knowledge.
8. Conception and Understanding
*”The task of the sciences of human action is the comprehension of the meaning and relevance of human action. Conception is the tool of Praxeology, while understanding is the tool of history.”
9. On Ideal Types
Historians deal and can use ideal types depending on the particular period of time they are interpreting, but Praxeology cannot use ideal types because of their general nature.
10. The Procedure of Economics
*”Economics proceeds with logical deductions from the fact of action. It can study special cases of action by considering specific conditions in which action could occur.”
11. The Limitations on Praxeological Concepts
Praxeology can only be applied to acting human beings. Other inclusion of beings in the study in Praxeology would be useless since it’s out of its scope.
Why It Matters
Epistemology seeks to answer the question, “How can we ever ‘know’ something?” In this chapter, Mises establishes the epistemological foundations of praxeology, that is, he explains how it is that economists and other social scientists can arrive at beliefs concerning actors and have confidence in their conclusions.
Especially as the 20th century progressed, most economists thought that they needed to ape the method of the physicists to arrive at “scientific” laws in their field. Mises’s insistence that praxeology’s propositions are “a priori” thus struck them as shocking and quaint.
If a statement is a priori, its truth can be established without external observations. For example, we can verify the Pythagorean theorem without measuring triangles to “test” the claim. On the other hand, if a statement is a posteriori, then logic alone cannot verify or refute it. For example, if someone says, “the sun emits heat,” then sensory observation is necessary to evaluate the claim.
Chapter III. Economics and the Revolt Against Reason
Summary
1. The Revolt Against Reason
This movement against reason was originated by the social opponents of the classical economists since they couldn’t defeat their arguments, and so challenged reason itself.
2. The Logical Aspect of Polylogism
Polylogists, like Marx, claim that different groups of people have different logical structure of the mind. In the case of Marxism, there exists the bourgeois logic and the proletarian logic.
3. The Praxeological Aspect of Polylogism
In this section, we can see how Marxists employ the term “ideology” to denote that a doctrine is faulty and that it’s used because it serves the interests of a particular group.
4. Racial Polylogism
This is the type of polylogism that says that different races have different logical structures.
5. Polylogism and Understanding
6. The Case for Reason
*”Reason is an ultimate given, a nonrational fact; one cannot establish the validity of reason itself through logical argument…There can be no such thing as an irrational mode of thinking. To renounce reason and return to guidance by “instinct” would destroy the foundations of civilization.”
Why It Matters
Mises considers it crucial to demolish the Marxist notion of polylogism. Without tackling this idea directly, the entire body of praxeology would rest on quicksand. Regardless of the coherence of his demonstrations throughout the rest of the book, the critic could dismiss it all as based on “bourgeois logic.”
1. The Revolt Against Reason
This movement against reason was originated by the social opponents of the classical economists since they couldn’t defeat their arguments, and so challenged reason itself.
2. The Logical Aspect of Polylogism
Polylogists, like Marx, claim that different groups of people have different logical structure of the mind. In the case of Marxism, there exists the bourgeois logic and the proletarian logic.
3. The Praxeological Aspect of Polylogism
In this section, we can see how Marxists employ the term “ideology” to denote that a doctrine is faulty and that it’s used because it serves the interests of a particular group.
4. Racial Polylogism
This is the type of polylogism that says that different races have different logical structures.
5. Polylogism and Understanding
6. The Case for Reason
*”Reason is an ultimate given, a nonrational fact; one cannot establish the validity of reason itself through logical argument…There can be no such thing as an irrational mode of thinking. To renounce reason and return to guidance by “instinct” would destroy the foundations of civilization.”
Why It Matters
Mises considers it crucial to demolish the Marxist notion of polylogism. Without tackling this idea directly, the entire body of praxeology would rest on quicksand. Regardless of the coherence of his demonstrations throughout the rest of the book, the critic could dismiss it all as based on “bourgeois logic.”