Your Wish Is My Command

By -
Bob M. has asked me just where in Mises' idea of methodological individualism is a denial of the possibility of things like the church composing a single body and mind. Ask, and ye shall receive:

"But society is nothing but the combination of individuals for cooperative effort. It exists nowhere else than in the actions of individual men. It is a delusion to search for it outside the actions of individuals. To speak of a society's autonomous and independent existence, of its life, its soul, and its actions is a metaphor which can easily lead to crass errors." -- Human Action, 998: 143

(Lord Keynes had already noted this passage here.)

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy9:08 PM

    Gene wrote:

    Bob M. has asked me just where in Mises idea of methodological individualism is a denial of the possibility of things like the church composing a single body and mind.

    *sigh* No Gene, I asked you to explain how MIses violated Winthrop's exhortation to his fellows. We're back at square one. I might as well post on my blog,

    "Gene has asked me to explain how a methodological individualist could possibly explain a team sport like basketball."

    I am quite sure that Mises would have no problem with the Winthrop exhortation, that he would think WInthrop was merely saying, "Let's act such that your brother's needs are the same as your own," etc. I'm sorry but I think you're pulling a MF here. You are redefining what someone in the history of economic thought meant by a term, so that your position goes through.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah9:12 PM

      "No Gene, I asked you to explain how MIses violated Winthrop's exhortation to his fellows."

      Bob, that exhortation WAS that the church should be of one body and one mind!!!

      Delete
    2. gcallah9:13 PM

      Oh, and Mises might have taken it as a metaphor, but that would not be Winthrop's understanding of what he said.

      Delete
  2. Josiah Neeley5:55 PM

    What does it mean for the members of a church to be of one mind?

    Does it mean merely that they share a common purpose and similar beliefs? If so, then I don't see Mises objecting to that.

    On the other hand, if it means something more than this, then I'm not entirely clear what that might be. In his autobiography, Cardinal Newman mentions having believed as a child that there was a race of spirits that gave intelligence and inspiration to groups of people (nations, races, political associations, etc.) I think I can understand that idea, though I suspect that wasn't quite what Winthrop was saying.

    Likewise, when confronted with the Chinese Room argument, some people will say that there is a kind of mind or intelligence created by the system as a whole that is separate from the guy in the room. I don't really understand this, but I understand that the view is out there and it's possible that's what someone might mean when he speaks of a group having a single mind or body.

    Are any of these on the right track?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more