Last night, I was reading the introduction to Economic Science and the Austrian Method, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, an adherent of the Austrian school. In the introduction, the author argues that economics is fundamentally an a priori science, rather than an empirical one, an intriguing proposition that encourages me to read on.
Definitions
Proposition: a proposition is a statement that can come after phrases such as “I believe that”, “I know that”, etc. “The sky is blue” is a proposition. The complexity of language allows propositions to be expressed in a variety of ways. For the purpose of analysis and investigation, it is often desirable to convert other forms into an “X is Y” format before proceeding.
Subject: “The sky is blue”. In the proposition, “The sky is blue”, “The sky” is the subject of the proposition.
Predicate: “The sky is blue”; in this proposition, the predicate – i.e. the thing asserted of the subject – is “blue”.
Copula: The copula is the part of the proposition that joins the subject to the predicate, usually some form of the verb “to be”. In “The sky is blue”, the copula is “is”.
Analytic: A proposition is classed as analytic if it is true by definition (by virtue of the meanings of words and the rules of language). “A bachelor is an unmarried man” is an analytic proposition. While this proposition is easy to understand and verify, it does not follow that all analytic propositions are so easy to grasp. Many are very complex.
Synthetic: A proposition is classed as synthetic if is true by virtue of how the world is. “Most species of tomato, when ripe, are red” is a synthetic proposition. It is not true that tomatoes are red by definition. It is possible to imagine a universe in which there are tomatoes in a variety of colours (as indeed there exist ripe yellow tomatoes in our universe).
A priori: A proposition whose truth can be determined by reason alone, without reference to data obtained from the senses, is said to be known a priori (because this is a Latin phrase, the convention is to italicize it when used in other languages such as English).
A posteriori: A proposition whose truth can be determined only by reference to data obtained via the senses is said to be known a posteriori.
Knowledge empiricism: knowledge empiricism holds that the truth of all synthetic propositions can be known only a posteriori. All a priori knowledge is confined to analytic propositions.
Knowledge rationalism: knowledge rationalism holds that there is a class or classes of synthetic propositions that can be known a priori – by reason alone.
Empirical science: empirical branches of science require sensory data to determine the truth of propositions whose investigation properly lies within their domains.
A priori science: a priori branches of science rely on reason alone to determine the truth of the propositions whose investigation properly lies within their domains.
I am of the opinion that a priori and a posteriori (empirical science and a priori science) can never be completely isolated from one another. For, as humans are made of both rational and sensual elements, if we are attempting to do so, simpiy makes us less than human and therefore operating outside of the scope of what it means to be a mixture of both body and spirit.
Thereby, there always remains some vestige of both in every proposition that man develops and subject to error, interpretation, sanity and insanity. We therefore have settled on ‘norms’ of what is acceptable and unacceptable interpretations and ‘givens’ for any useful outcome that will be beneficial to all human understanding and happiness in a societal context.
It is perhaps why our quest for happiness lies outside of ourselves to a conjectured perfection, not yet seen, but concluded by our realization that we, by our very nature, cannot attain that perfection but only approximate something which gets closer. The only way for that perfect condition to be attained is to surrender to that which above and beyond our cognitive and sensual abilities.
Corruption exists in us because there is a static, objective truth that is the Ideal universally sought after; whether love, knowledge, happiness or any other goal. Knowing this leads one to create a Perfection, not yet seen but at least theorized by faith, hope and love, that is our motivation to keep seeking and improving toward this goal: a perfection commonly known as perfect love or happiness and most commonly referred to as God.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In general I would agree with what you have said. An important distinction that is sometimes overlooked is the one between the origin of concepts and the acquisition of knowledge. It is in the world of experience that we learn what marriage is and therefore what a non-married person is – but the relationship between these concepts and associated derivations is formed by the mind.
In this series of posts (not sure how long they will be or when I will have opportunities to write) I’d like to think about some different aspects of economics and about how a free market view is compatible with Christian ethics. I am very concerned about of trend towards socialism found in many of the mainstream churches and an abuse of guilt about being wealthy. I would like the show that Christianity imposes an individual duty to care for the poor, but not a duty on the state to do so. I would also like to show that there are consequences to intervention by the state in a nation’s economy. How much I will achieve is another matter.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good luck, Nicholas. You’re correct of course. It is an individual duty, and besides not really delegatable, certainly not to the state. I’m not even sure that it can properly be delegated to the church, although that is less worrisome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess re: church it depends on your definition of church, and, practically speaking, on the identity of a church in law. Some are unincorporated associations, which means they have no separate legal identity – the church is just a collection of individuals working for a charitable purpose.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I know, and that is why it’s merely worrisome. And even if corporate, it’s a much less malign – nobody’s living depends on the situation continuing, as it does with the state.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed and I am even more in favor of this being an individuals mandate to help one another.
What the state has done is nothing less than societal experimentation and we are the lab rats. Hasn’t worked out too well so far in any country. Remember when they paid farmers not to plant crops? Now we’re going so far in places like California where they are seriously thinking of giving everyone a wage from the government . . . whether than work or not, can work or cannot. This should work out really good, don’t you think?
LikeLiked by 2 people
They’re still paying farmers to loaf, although not as much. 30%+ of the corn crop going into fuel isn’t very wise either. No. But I’ll say this, if we replaced (repeat REPLACED) al welfare with a tax credit, it would be an improvement. Take almost no administration. As an addition, it’s just more of the same. Heh! Spellcheck wanted me to change addition to addiction, not exactly wrong, but not what I meant. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Not sure NEO. Maybe spell check chose the better word. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
I know, didn’t fit the sentence structure, though! 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree with your analysis that we need to ease into a simplified system before we can go further. Too many shocks to the system at once are just not practicable. As you say, a major problem with welfare at the moment is that too much energy goes into administration and disputes rather than helping fix the actual problem.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Much too mild, Nicholas. There is no will to fix the problem, that would cost the bureaucrats their jobs. They are never going to do that.
Truthfully, we were all, even the poor, better off before any part of the welfare state developed. How we get back, other than burning it all down, I don’t know. We have developed two classes of dependants, the poor, and the welfare bureaucrats.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In my old age, I am getting so cynical that I am even against the large (and growing larger) charitable NGO’s. They have become large businesses with huge expenses and powerful political lobbies.
Now that we have such things as GoFundMe around . . . I would rather that we give money for a specific cause as we choose. Leave the government and the NGO’s out of it. I would like to see the NGO’s go out of business.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Me too, I am generally distrustful of them. I don’t tend to support a lot of mainstream Christian charities either. I’m not in a position to give much at the moment, being a student again, but when I give it goes to ministries I know and trust.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m in the same boat, Nicholas . . . though I have more disposable income than I ever had for such endeavors. Even though, I cannot give to the 2 biggest Catholic Charities that we have in this country. They are political entities and I want nothing to do with them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you want to know how bad NGOs are, look into the British ones. They are a positive interlocking evil. Ours are getting there, as well.
Me too, I give nothing to any corporate charity, even ones that supposedly have a good cause, not even the Lutheran ones. The sole exception is the Salvation Army.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I like them as well . . . but I usually give them stuff to give away rather than money . . . except when there is a national or international tragedy of huge proportions.
Another problem with the large NGO’s is that they package your money together with 1 cause that you might like to support with a 100 political causes that you want absolutely nothing to do with. Our Church Charities are as bad as any of the secular ones it seems to me. Campaign for Human Development and Catholic Relief Services seem to have become outlets for the politics of the USCCB and people somehow think that the USCCB is like the US Vatican . . . lending their credence to unpalatable usages of the laities moneys.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yep, it was more than 30 years ago that I quit giving to things like the United Way, didn’t know the term then, but they were more about corporate virtue signalling than anything else.
Sad about our church charities, shortly before they went so left, I seem to remember that the LCMS combined theirs with the ELCA. You can guess the results. 😦
No substitute for doing your own due diligence.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed. I prefer to put my money directly in the hands of somebody that needs it. And I am tired of having them spend church money for Political activism that goes against everything I believe. It is hocus pocus or flim flam charity at best.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, sir, it is, and it’s rarely at its best.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I applaud the task you are undertaking and there is no better school of economics as a model of our day than the Austrian School.
I wasn’t quite sure what you were going after in this post. For the definitions cross lines into everything in life and I have been toying with a remark a saw in a youtube video from a friend I knew from my cab driving days some 45 years ago (about). He was the son of Michio Kushi (the US guru of Macrobiotics). Anyway, he set up a proposition in one of the videos I watched (Just look up Norio Kushi if you want to have a listen to some Eastern thought). His main thesis seemed to be:
Nothing is broke so there is nothing to fix.
One could write a series of volumes on this as there are so many ‘lenses’ to view our existence through. Maybe I’ll write a book . . . 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people