1 / 86

Truth has value.

Truth has value. Towards an Objectivist foundation of Austrian Economics. Brecht Arnaert – 7 th of November, 2011 – Madrid . Structure of the presentation. The Kantian epistemology Two deadly fallacies The crisis of the Kantian system What is truth? How do we form concepts?

sienna
Download Presentation

Truth has value.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Truth has value. Towards an Objectivist foundation of Austrian Economics Brecht Arnaert – 7th of November, 2011 – Madrid

  2. Structure of the presentation • The Kantian epistemology • Two deadly fallacies • The crisis of the Kantian system • What is truth? • How do we form concepts? • The foundation of praxeology Instituto Juan De Mariana

  3. 1. Kantian epistemology Two deadly fallacies

  4. The epistemological problem How do we know … Instituto Juan De Mariana • That ice will float every time we drop it in water? • My wife won’t cheat on me? • The sun will come up every day? • An apple never will fall up the tree? • My children will do “the good thing”? • Unemployment will grow?

  5. The Kantian answer Hoppe, 1995 (ESAM p. 18) “The characteristic mark of Kantian philosophy is the claim that true a priori synthetic propositions exist.” “Propositions are analytic whenever the means of formal logic are sufficient in order to find out whether they are true or not; otherwise propositions are synthetic ones.” And propositions are a posteriori whenever observations are necessary in order to establish their truth or at least confirm them. If observations are not necessary, then propositions are a priori.” Instituto Juan De Mariana

  6. “Analytic” versus “synthetic” Ice is a solid Ice floats on water • Requires no validation through experience • Logical analysis of the concept suffices • Self-evident “in a logical way” • Is necessarily true: to deny is to contradict Instituto Juan De Mariana • Requires experience in order to be valid • Logical analysis alone is not enough • Self-evident “in a visual way” • Is contingently true: to deny is not to contradict

  7. “A Priori” versus “A Posteriori” “A tapir is a mammal” “Two plus two is four” • Some propositions are a priori true • We can think them without looking at the world • A priori sciences: logic, mathematics, praxeology. Instituto Juan De Mariana • Other propositions are a posteriori true • We cannot think them without looking at the world • A posteriori sciences: biology, astronomy, physics, ...

  8. The Kantian method Synthetic A posteriori contingent contingent Hoppe, 1995 (ESAM p. 18) “The characteristic mark of Kantian philosophy is the claim that true a priori synthetic propositions exist.” Instituto Juan De Mariana A priori Analytic necessary necessary

  9. Question Instituto Juan De Mariana • Footnoteleadingto German philosopher, Friedrich Kambartel • Noconsensusamongstphilosophers • Ifyoumake a distinction, youhavetovalidate it. How did Kant justify this theory of concepts? “I cannot go into great detail to explain how Kant justifies this view” (Hoppe, 1995, p.18)

  10. 2. Two deadly fallacies There are no two kinds of truth There is no a priori knowledge

  11. The first fallacy Man has only two eyes Man is a rational animal Analytic Analytic Rationality? What is that? Synthetic Synthetic Instituto Juan De Mariana Two eyes?Of course.

  12. Proof: the concept of man … a thing that moves and makes sounds … a living thing that walks on two legs and has no fur … a being that can do things other beings can’t … an animal that can write books … a rational animal Instituto Juan De Mariana Fatal error = Dividing characteristics of existents into two groups: those that are already in the concept, and those that are not yet integrated by the human mind.

  13. Illustration Instituto Juan De Mariana The chemist versus the bonehead

  14. The Chemist “Two quantities of water mixed with two quantities of ethyl alcohol yield 3,86 quantities of liquid at 15,56° Celsius.” Analytic or synthetic?Analytic to the chemist.  Intellectual jokes Instituto Juan De Mariana Illustration: A programmer, e-mailing to a colleague: “There are only 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary code, and those who don’t”

  15. The Bonehead “Two quantities of water mixed with two quantities of ethyl alcohol yield 3,86 quantities of liquid at 15,56° Celsius.” Analytic or synthetic?Synthetic to the bonehead.  Very visual humor Instituto Juan De Mariana Illustration: A bonehead, e-mailing a YouTube-video of people that fall.

  16. Preliminary conclusions • The same proposition can be analytic from one point of view, and synthetic from another. • What is true in the Kantian universe depends on how much knowledge the individual has acquired. • The judgment on truth thus is depending on the person. This is unscientific subjectivism • The act of determining if a proposition is analytic or synthetic cannot be a universal way to find truth. Instituto Juan De Mariana  The analytic-synthetic dichotomy is FALSE.

  17. The second fallacy Mathematics is a priori: “Two plus two is four.” We can think this without looking at the world Biology is a posteriori: “A tapir is a mammal.”  We cannot think this without looking at the world Instituto Juan De Mariana

  18. Proof: contradiction On the science of Economics: “Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori.” Mises: 1966 p. 32 Instituto Juan De Mariana • An “a priori” proposition is said not to need observations for it to be valid. • But in order to find those “a priori” starting points in the first place, we must look at reality. • Conclusion: even axioms have to be arrived at by induction

  19. Illustration Even Mises had to conceptualize the axiom of Human Action. How? By a process of induction. Conclusion: Every human being acts Denying is an action too Denying action thus is impossible  Action is an axiom Observation:My mother acts My father acts I act … Instituto Juan De Mariana There is no essential difference between introspection and extro-spection. Both the axiomatic concept of “human action” as well as the concept “tapir” require reflection upon ones experiences. Inner observations are still observations.

  20. You are an empiricist! No, I am not. Empiricists claim that we cannot infer logic from reality, since the proof that the observed things could not behave otherwise, depends on logic. Reality is just a contingency. Instituto Juan De Mariana “There is no logical proof that things cannot suddenly be otherwise”

  21. You are a rationalist! No, I am not. Rationalists claim that we cannot infer reality from logic, since the proof that the starting points they have used to “think out” their system are correct, depends on reality. Instituto Juan De Mariana “There is no empirical proof that our axioms are valid”

  22. The age-old problem Empiricists: Concepts refer to this world, but, sadly, we cannot prove that they are necessarily true. Rationalists: Concepts are deduced from an axiom, but, sadly, we cannot prove that they are real. How did you guys find the axiom?  Trough trial and error, which is, after all, experience! AHA! How did you guys connect the dots?  Trough reasoning, wich is, after all, logic! AHA! Instituto Juan De Mariana Insoluble contradiction

  23. I am an objectivist. The distinction between “logically true” and “empirically true” is false. Both positions deny the most basic law of science: THE LAW OF IDENTITY Instituto Juan De Mariana 1) Things can only be what they are. 2) As such, they only act according to their nature. Ice will never sink in water. The axioms of mathematics are induced.

  24. Preliminary conclusions • Axioms can only be found by a process of non-contradictory thinking about what one has observed in reality. • What one has observed in reality cannot be meaningfully organized without axioms. • Both axioms and observations presuppose eachother. Instituto Juan De Mariana  The dichotomy between “a priori” science and “a posteriori” science is FALSE.

  25. 3. The crisis of the Kantian system. Pretty devastating. Get a handkerchief.

  26. There is no analytic truth. An “analytic” proposition is just a proposition about characteristics that are already included in the concept. Synthetic A posteriori contingent contingent Instituto Juan De Mariana A priori Analytic necessary necessary

  27. There is no synthetic truth. An “analytic” proposition is just a proposition about characteristics that are already included in the concept. Synthetic A posteriori contingent contingent Instituto Juan De Mariana A priori Analytic necessary necessary

  28. There is no a priori knowledge. An “a priori” proposition is just an axiom. But axioms too have to be discovered by experience. Synthetic A posteriori contingent contingent Instituto Juan De Mariana A priori Analytic necessary necessary

  29. There is no a posteriori knowledge. An “a posteriori” proposition is just a hypothesis. But hypotheses too have to be logically connected to axioms Synthetic A posteriori contingent contingent Instituto Juan De Mariana A priori Analytic necessary necessary

  30. Kantian method = failure Instituto Juan De Mariana

  31. Now what? Are you happy now? Having destroyed everything? YES.

  32. Redefining the problem Instituto Juan De Mariana How can you make any statement about what is true if you claim that reality in itself is unknowable?

  33. The cave of Plato • The only thing people can see are imperfect representations of perfect and real Forms. • Some characteristics are reflected, some are not: those of the Shadows are accidental, those of the Forms are essential. • The cave = our worldThe outside = ANOTHER world • No notion distinction between our mind and reality. Instituto Juan De Mariana  Plato’s essential error is NOT make a distinction between epistemology and metaphysics: he claimed that the essence of things was in another, parallel world, only knowable through “revelations”. This is a denial of the axiom of consciousness. This is MYSTICISM.

  34. The brave in Aristotle • “Plato is wrong. Only concretes exist. There are essences, but they are to be found in this world, and more specifically in each of the concretes we observe.” (paraphrase) • Rejected the supernatural realm of Ideal Forms. (but cannot be called an atheist) • Maintained that essences can be known trough a process of reason. (but cannot be called an objectivist) Instituto Juan De Mariana  Aristotle’s unique feat is assuming that only concretes exist, and that the Platonian “essences” are in fact abstractions performed by the mind. His only weakness was not being able to prove his assumption. And what is not well founded, will eventually collapse. And it did.

  35. The crave of Kant “I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.” (Kant:1787) • German Idealism: a strong belief in the limits of reason. Man cannot know everything • A division of tasks: morality is the province of religion, science the province of philosophy. • The mind imposes its (12) categories on reality. Instituto Juan De Mariana • Kant denied the discovery of Aristotle, and maintained that the mind creates the world. He completely obliterated the difference between metaphysics and epistemology. Kant also closed the door to the possibility of a “this-world ethics”. On the frontiers of reason, religion takes over.

  36. The rage of Rand “The “phenomenal” world, said Kant, is not real: reality, as perceived by man’s mind, is a distortion. The distorting mechanism is man’s conceptual faculty. (…) The “noumenal” world is unknowable; it is the world of “real” reality, “superior” truth and “things in themselves” or “things as they are”. (…) His argument, in essence, (is that) man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears—deluded, because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them.” (Rand: 1963, p. 30) Instituto Juan De Mariana • Rand is furious in her condemnation of Kant, because to her account, he revived the old Platonic confusion between metaphysics and epistemology, the evidence 2000 years of scientific progress notwithstanding. She set out to defend the metaphysical foundations Aristotle had left undefended.

  37. Kant, son of Plato Metaphysics: Two worlds Forms with necessary characteristics Appearances with accidental characteristics PLATO • “Plato was more than a Platonist; despite his mysticism, he was also a pagan Greek. As such he exhibited a certain authentic respect for reason, a respect which was implicit in Greek philosophy no matter how explicitly irrational it became. (Both quotes from Peikoff, 1983, p. 32) Instituto Juan De Mariana KANT Metaphysics: Two worlds “Noumena” in a world of Ideas “Phenoumena” in our world • “The Kantian mysticism, however, suffers from no such pagan restraints. It flows forth triumphantly, sweeping the prostrate human mind before it.”

  38. Rand, daughter of Aristotle ARISTOTLE “No matter what remnants of Platonism did exist in Aristotle’s system, his incomparable achievement lay in the fact that he defined the basic principles of a rational view of existence and of man’s consciousness”(Rand:1961, p. 22) Metaphysics: “essences”Epistemology: reason RAND Instituto Juan De Mariana Aristotle regarded “essence” as metaphysical; Objectivism regards it as epistemological (Rand: 1990, p. 52) Metaphysics: objective realityEpistemology: reason Objectivism= Aristotle minus the Platonism still left in it

  39. Kant’s “solution” “So far it has been assumedthatourknowledge had to conform toreality”. Insteaditshouldbeassumed“thatobservationalrealityshould conform toour mind.” (Kant, cited in Hoppe: 1995, p. 20) • Epistemological impositionism: • We have categories in our mind … • Twelve to be precise … • But what validates these categories? • Nothing but a new dictum. • There is nothing but to accept this on an argument from authority. Instituto Juan De Mariana

  40. Final conclusion • Since Kant, Western philosophy has come to believe that, in the end, everything is a dictum, even the definition of truth. • The cause of this ignorance is the total confusion of metaphysics and epistemology. • The real challenge is to prove that existence exists independent of our consciousness Instituto Juan De Mariana

  41. 4. What is truth? The problem of the fridge

  42. Rand’s definition “Truth is the recognitionof reality”(Rand: 1984, p. 14) • Extended, paraphrased version: • “Truth is the correct identification of reality by means of logically connecting observations to earlier established knowledge” • Presuppositions to prove: • Reality exists independent of our thinking • The rules of logic are to be found in reality • Axioms can be validated in reality Instituto Juan De Mariana

  43. The problem • Recognizing reality involves an act of consciousness • If so, then how can one be sure that what we perceive as reality is not just: • Our imagination? • A dream? • A divine idea? • The Matrix? • … Instituto Juan De Mariana

  44. Rand’s axiomatic framework “Existenceexists—and the act of graspingthat statement impliestwocorollaryaxioms: thatsomethingexistswhichoneperceivesandthatoneexistspossessingconsciousness, consciousnessbeing the faculty of perceivingthatwhichexists.”(Peikoff: 1991, p. 8) Metaphysical objectivity: Conciousness cannot come prior to existence. If it would, then its mere existence would invalidate the claim it would be trying to make. If nothing yet exists, then neither can consciousness. So we are certain of the primacy of existence. Our grasp of it comes later. Instituto Juan De Mariana

  45. The axioms in detail • Existence • Denying existence is impossible, since by doing so one would have to use ones own consciousness, which is proof that at least that exists. • Consciousness • Denying consciousness is impossible, since the act of doing so is an act of consciousness. • Identity • Denying identity is impossible, since to be is to be something and to deny a thing is to deny some thing. One cannot deny anything without acknowledging that it is something. Instituto Juan De Mariana E-C-I These three axioms are respectively the basis of metaphysics, epistemology, and logic, which is the bridge between the two: the consciousidentificationof existence. It is the Law of Identity

  46. Corollaries of existence • Infinity • Denying infinity is impossible, sinceexistencecannot start out of nothing. It doesn’t matter ifone is accepting non-existencenow, or at some point in the past, is stilldenyingexistence. Andthat is impossible • Eternity • Denyingeternity is impossible, since time is a measurement of motion; and motion is alwaysperformedbythings. Eternity is a corollaryaxiom of infinity Instituto Juan De Mariana Science identifies relationships that are true independent of place and time, i.e. universal. Knowledge is not a convention, neither are its building bricks: our concepts.

  47. Corollaries of consciousness • Free will • Denying free will is impossible, since it takes a conscious action to do so. If our will would be determined, we would not have consciousness. We would be automatons, asking no questions. And certainly none about the existence of free will. • Valid senses • Denying the validity of the senses is impossible, since it takes a consciousness to validate truth; our senses only transmit what they receive. If one maintains that the senses have consciousness themselves, then what they would need in order to validate information are … senses. Instituto Juan De Mariana Man is not omniscient. If he were, the whole field of epistemology would be void of content. Free will implies the fact that man can make errors. But that does not render him impotent. He can correct them using reason.

  48. Corollaries of identity • The validity of induction • To deny the validity of induction is impossible, since things can only act according to their nature. To say that a black swan invalidates the concept “swan” is equal to defining a man by his nose: by non-essentials. • The validity of causality • To deny the validity of causality is impossible, since an action is always performed by a thing. And things can only act according to their nature. Actions cannot exist in themselves. They are a potentiality of a thing, and as such, they are defined by it. Instituto Juan De Mariana • Both logic and causality are validated by the Law of Identity. Logic is the application of the Law of Identity to things. Causality is the application of the Law of Identity to action. Truth is not a convention. Truth is the correct identification of reality.

  49. The Law of Identity Instituto Juan De Mariana A cat is not an apple. An apple is not a man. A man is not a cat. We know this for sure, because we know that existence exists prior to our understanding of it, and thus our mind does not have the power to alter the metaphysically given.

More Related