Premysl Bosak

Ke stažení zdarma zatím pouze zde : http://www.mises.cz/literatura/univerzalne-preferovane-jednani-72.aspx Snad během zítřka přibude ePub a Mobi verze. Tisk mohu poslat na dobírku, ale snad el. verze bude stačit BTW zítra 15/4 v Praze křest v Paralelní polis.

Books finally arrived at home.

Hi Nicholas, thanks. Actually typesetting will have to be done by a native Czech as the grammar rules are important for such work. But the design of the cover can be done be anybody. I would like to get a cover design in an appropriate digital format usable for printing. I guess it should be in some vector format such as SVG.

Hello community, I've recently finished translation of UPB into Czech language. At the moment I'm having proofreading done, but I'm not able to do the cover and typesetting. Is there anybody willing to help with those? Thank you.

I think that you turned to be unnecessary sarcastic and find it unpleasant and that I presented my point clear enough. My argument was neither to invalidate nor to disprove existence of concept "Government" as you can read above. My goal was how to better present/understand concepts. What concerns my term "abstract instance", what is then an instance of the crowd, forest? Such instances are not concrete so I can say they are abstract. I don't agree with your point with "All instances of concepts are abstract" since tree has a concrete instance with particular aspects shared with other trees. I agree that invalid concepts like "square circles" or "government" have no instances, but they still can "exist" in our mind so they should be at first invalidated through logic. Because you cannot know up front that they do not have any instances.

I totally understand and agree that all concepts resides only in our heads. But when you say "government" it can be "an instance of a concept" or "a concept" the same we can say for "tree". There can be an "abstract concept tree" or a "concrete perceptual instance of tree". That is the reason why I think that that justification was not appropriate and should have been specifally related to "instance" rather than to "concept". Otherwise it did not imply. I think that you are interchanging validity and existence. Math is valid (because logical, empirically verified) but exists only in our minds. Existence in reality is matter and energy and its effects which math has neither. Math has instances but only abstract ones. e.g. Podcast#743 Do numbers exists? I think that validity of concept government is another lets say "layer". We first acknowledge that it exist only in our head and then we can examine the validity. I think that Stefan argued that it is invalid because no instances of concept can have the opposite characteristics, but since in government are people that have opposite characteristics (like "it is moral for soldier to murder") that other people which it consists of, then it is invalid.

Thanks for reply. I think proposed division could help because it was misleading when Stefan used that example of instance of perceptual concrete concept (tree) and abstract concept (forest) and then said that all concepts do not exist in reality. I think that when Stefan said "government does not exist" and justified this statement by saying that no concepts exist in reality then this justification is not appropriate. I think that when we want to justify nonexistence of government we should say: "there are no concrete perceptual instances of concept government". And although it is true that no concepts exist in reality their instances can and it depends on which type of concept we are talking about.

In this video (28’28’’) “What is Existence?” Stefan used an example of a tree as a concrete object and a forest as an abstract concept, which exists only in our head not in reality. I’m quite bewildered with this explanation because e.g. in podcast #95 Stefan uses an example of rock as a concept and states: “concepts are mental organization of discrete sensual information based on common structure of atoms and matter”. Moreover, even in this video (35’30’’) he states that concept is “when you take an attribute and extrapolate it to include all like instances” which I’m both happy with, but in that sense the tree is also a concept – “e.g. wooden plant with roots and treetop” but it exists in reality. I understand that all concepts exist only in mind not in reality but there are concepts, which have its instances existing in reality like trees and those, which do not like forest or government. So I would suggest dividing concepts into two groups those with concrete instances in reality (e.g. tree, rock) and those which have abstract instances (crowd, forest). Any thoughts on that?

You know I totally understand that this nitpicking doesn't deteriorate the thought which the book should convey. I just wanted to clarify it for readers and was not sure about it. I understand your point with the gravity, but what he tried to show was that Stefan used implication which is not valid. That rock falls does not imply that earth is moving. What he described is not reality but when you start the proof you do not know the reality. The first part was that in the book is axiom - ... in theology holds true "that which cannot be perceived must exist" which implies that theologists claims that "everything that we cannot perceive exists”. And guy I discussed with said that no theology claims this.

Thanks for reply. You are right point 2) is well documeted. Can you see and comment also second part of point 3) please. My opinion is that theologies must hold that everything that we cannot perceive exists because otherwise they should have two cathegories - that we cannot perceive and exists and - that we cannot perceive and doesn't exist and if they want to be consistent they must hold that axiom in the book. Just back to number 1) He states that the fact that gravity exists, doesn't neccessarily leads to the fact that earth is moving. You can have a material object which is affected by gravity but this object doesn't need neccessarily to move. And in that hypothetical example the earth is in the middle of the universe so no further zoom out is possible. Can anybody also give me any reference to this statement from the book please: "There are no perfect circles in our direct experience, but because of a belief in God, all planetary motion had to be a “perfect circle” – a premise that retarded astronomy for centuries.

Hello everybody, I have started translating UPB into Czech language and publishing it on mises.cz recently. After publishing third part (Introduction – The „null zone“, The Causalities, „Middle Truths“) very ferocious debate started under this part. I will try to sum up main objections against it and ask the community to help answer them. I will appreciate also references or links. Thanks in advance. Last two points 4) and 5) I consider just as nitpicking. I will always start with the citation from the book. 1) “When we let go of a rock in our hand, it falls – this is the real evidence of the senses, not that the Earth is fixed and immovable. The idea that the world is immobile is an incorrect assumption that contradicts the direct evidence of our senses, which is that everything falls. If everything falls, the world cannot be fixed and immovable.” Critic contends that this whole implication is not true because the fact that rock falls does not imply that the earth move. In hypothetical situation, the Earth can be in the middle of the whole universe, gravity will hold, but the Earth is not moving. Therefore, he claims that Stefan uses the same nonscientific approach, which he criticizes. 2) “It is true that we are very different from animals. It is not true that we were created by a god and have a soul.” He claims that this just statement without proof and that existence of the god is neither confirmed nor falsified and that many scientists around the world accept it. 3) “Personally, a man believes that that which cannot be perceived does not exist –intellectually, science has proven this repeatedly. However, in the “null zone” of theology, the exact opposite proposition holds true – the axiom there is that that which cannot be perceived must exist.” Here he claims that things, which we cannot perceive, exist and give example of atoms. We cannot perceive them but they exist. And that science hasn't proven it. In addition, attacked the axiom where he claims that no theology holds that “everything that we cannot perceive exists”. 4) “If we look at the technological and economic progress of mankind, we see more or less a flat line for countless millennia, followed by massive and asymptotic spikes over the past few hundred years.” He contends that there is no asymptote for the curve of the wealth growth. 5) “The greatest mathematical theory cannot be valid if applying it returns incorrect change at the checkout counter.” Here critic contends that mathematical theories are not about counting and you cannot make checkout counter in differential calculus for example.

Hello, subtitles are ready, could administrators give an email adress where I can send it? Thank you.

Thank you very much Andrew, I'll prepare subtitles now.

Hello my fellow adherents of freeedom. I tried to make transcript the text of above mentioned video to make subtitles for it, but I'm not sure on some places. Could anyone check it please, so I can prepare subtitles.Thank you Text: Why is it that we are herded into the pews and why is it that we sit through these endless completely boring family dinners and why is it that we were herded into the stupid little robot rose public schools and just forced to be so tiny. This is the machine of the world that we are all crashed into these tiny cubes of self-doubt, self-loathing, controlled, repressed, conflicted, ambivalent, ambiguous, forgetful. Impulsive and regretful. Regretful and impulsive. Every action we take we question, every action we don't take we chastise ourselves for. Every decision we doubt, every indecision we scold us ourselves for. This is the machine of the world this is how humanities insight. This is the cage. The cage of selflessness I'm not allowed to have my instincts I'm not allowed to follow my passion because we are just afraid of being wrong. I mean we are taken from whole sleek mammals and turned into broken constantly turning sputtering sparking robots. And we're trying to come back to life and we are struggling and striving to come back to life. But all my brothers and sisters it is so hard. It is so hard and of course it's hard because if it wasn't hard God would not be humiliated if we didn't have to strain every muscle every fiber if we didn't have to evoke every atlas world lifting shred of strength that we could conceivably possess and continued day after day If didn't have to do that wouldn't that be ridiculous that humanity were enslaved and the bars went very very very thick. Would it be ridiculous for us to be enslaved to know. The bars aren't thick the bars are the world the bars are everyone. There is nothing larger deeper more powerful more rich more wonderful more beautiful than your sovereign soul and mind. And heart ////// well There is nothing larger than your judgments. But when somebody puts forward the proposition there is nothing in their mind that is larger than your judgment, nothing in their mind that is larger than your judgment and every concept that they appeal to is in their mind not in reality. I mean when you look at how strong human beings are when look at how magnificent powerful we are when we are free. Well. How strong the net to be to contain the great white. Without the doubt there is the connection between everything that happened in your past and everything that is occuring and to free yourself from there we must return and we have to reexperience the past. We have to understand as it was not with that stories but as it was. Not with that stories. We have to return to experience past directly because the stories that we make up to dilute and to dissolve the pain of the past is the prison we are in. We become addicted to stories for painkilling in the way that people become addicted to morphine to painkilling with similar results.