Chapter One: An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, by Murray N. Rothbard
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/4675/it-all-began-as-usual-with-the-greeks/
It all began, as usual, with the Greeks
Previous post: The Mises Institute Bowtie
Next post: Under Siege: Voting Rights of Felons or Property Rights of Citizens?
{ 5 comments }
“Modern positivism is unequipped to understand or handle a system of analysis — whether classical Greek philosophy or economic theory — grounded on deductions from fundamental axioms so broadly empirical as to be virtually self-evident — evident to the self — once they are articulated. Positivism fails to understand that the results of laboratory experiments are only “evidence” because they too make evident to the scientists (or to others who follow the experiments), that is, make evident to the self facts or truths not evident before. The deductive processes of logic and mathematics do the same thing: they compel assent by making things evident to people which were not evident before. Correct economic theory, which we have named as “praxeological” theory, is another way by which truths are made evident to the human mind.”
I was persuaded by an article by Steven Yates that perhaps “self-evident” a bit too murky of a term compared with “irrefutable”, “undeniable” or “necessarily true”. I’m mulling it over based Rothbard’s comments above, but i think i may still agree with Yates. If Rothbard means self-evident as undeniable, I think I prefer undeniable. It really does seem clearer.
Curious – I don’t see any obvious mention of the Athenian economic policies of Solon, the tyrants, and then Pericles. There was considerable continuity to these measures. Perhaps they are hidden somewhere unobvious behind one of these links?
The section on Taoism was fascinating. Given the importance of China and the generally favorable attitudes toward capitalism that Chinese respondents supposedly voiced in a recent survey, perhaps The Mises Institute should target this market with its scholarship (it may already so).
My assumption is that the Chinese audience would be far more amenable to modern ideas of Economics and Political Theory that link back to their own traditions rather than to European thinkers. Aside from Rothbard, has anyone seriously explored this subject?
Man. Is this the best site on the internet or what?
It is!
There.
I’ve said it.
I used to come here and get in arguments with people who I thought were a tad too ideological. But when you have a mystery that’s been bugging you this is the place.
It’s been a mystery to me just how the Chinese could have done so damn well economically before the 1400′s. Of course I’m not saying the mystery is solved. But leave it to Rothbard to show that they had the philosophical background which would have made it at least possible.
So just in this one bit of blog we see clearly that philosophically speaking the Chinese had more to work with that would enable economic progress then anything the West could have come up with (presumably) for more then a millenia.
“My assumption is that the Chinese audience would be far more amenable to modern ideas of Economics and Political Theory that link back to their own traditions rather than to European thinkers. Aside from Rothbard, has anyone seriously explored this subject?”
My goodness what a brilliant and hopeful thought. I’m a cultural and not a racial chauvanist. But here we have the identification of one area where the Chinese got there first. Independently and better then the ancient Greeks. And if they knew this and took great pride in this as THEIR heritage what a terrific thing this would be.
Ten blogs at Mises.org could never be enough.
What a great idea to serialize this book!
Comments on this entry are closed.