Austrian economics is a priori

[NoTreason]

Everyone agrees that Mises praxeology is a priori, but is it analytic or synthetic?

[Kevin Beal]

If you define a priori as Wikipedia does like:

 

 

 

A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example "All bachelors are unmarried")

 

And you define analytic propositions as Wikipedia does like:

 

 

 

Analytic propositions are true by virtue of their meaning, while synthetic propositions are true by how their meaning relates to the world.

 

Then they are effectively the same thing.

 

I could take the definition of analytic reasoning to be just a tautology, but then why would that be of any use to anyone? Rather I'd assume it means that you can work out the validity of a proposition through reason alone.

 

I'm not a philosophy buff or anything, certainly not of the academic variety, but it would seem to me that if you can determine that something is true simply by virtue of it's meaning, then there is no evidence required. It's a priori.

 

If I trade my five dollars with you for your pen, then you value the 5 dollars more than you value your pen and I value your pen more than my 5 dollars. That's both a priori and analytic reasoning.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Everyone agrees that Mises praxeology is a priori, but is it analytic or synthetic?

 

Who is everyone, and as Kevin pointed out, what is meant by a priori, synthetic, and analytic in this context? What did Mises have to say about praxeology? (He did not invent the term.)

 

I would postulate that if "everyone" agreed with Mises, we would have far fewer problems than we do.

 

Do you mean that everyone "agrees" only so far as they can arrogantly dismiss his reasoning? (That would be true of many in the field of economics.)

 

Finally, to claim that "Austrian" economics is, simply, about Mises' views is to miss the point entirely. Austrian economics is a body of work generated over many years by many people. It continues to this day.

 

Please try to avoid this type of condescension. How is it possible to condense so much work into an either-or of analytic vs. synthetic? (The truth is that his work, and that of most Austrians, is both.)

 

If you, truly, wish to know about Mises, mises.org has most, if not all, his works available, for free. Reading what the author, actually, had to say, is usually a good practice; rather than relying on what someone else has to say about them.

[NoTreason]

I only bring this up because Mises was all over the map when using the distinctions of analytic and synthetic a priori, using them correctly and incorrectly, and then later claiming the distinctions made no difference to praxeology at all...

 

I'm with you guys, I also believe that the distinctions between analytic and synthetic don't apply to praxeology at all. but why then did Mises continue to use them at times and use them incorrectly as well?

 

I've read nearly everything Mises and have no answers...I guess It doesn't matter much either way but it was just something I was thinking about at the moment...