I just created a new website, matthiasjenny.name. It will, among other, even more narcissistic things, serve as a platform for my new bilingual weblog Vom Funkturm / From the Radio Tower. This blog will on the one hand replace After:All and an old personal German blog of mine, but it is also intended to serve as a medium for me to write about other things than what is of strict libertarian interest. Since the blog is bilingual, you'll need to bookmark this link or feed this RSS feed to your RSS reader of choice if you want to avoid reading obscure German gibberish. But, of course, feel free to read that stuff too, if my English ramblings should turn out not to be obscure enough.
This means that After:All won't be updated anymore. I think I will, at some point, delete this blog and link it directly to From the Radio Tower.
Enjoy!
This means that After:All won't be updated anymore. I think I will, at some point, delete this blog and link it directly to From the Radio Tower.
Enjoy!
The following is a translation of a post that I wrote for the German left-libertarian group blog paxx:blog. Even though I've already gotten some feedback on the German version (among others, not necessarily justivied allegations of social constructivism), I haven't changed the contents. Feedback is very welcome!
Guercino: Venus, Mars, and Cupid
In my view, one of the greatest merits of the Russian American philosopher Ayn Rand is how she uncovered false dualisms, in the language of Rand expert Chris Sciabarra. [1] Following Rand's method of (social) analysis I will show in what follows to what extent the still predominant gender roles, which are probably best expressed by the thousand years old archetypes of Venus and Mars, are so-called "anti-concepts" and "package deals" and why we should---especially as libertarians and anarchists---disperse with the Venus/Mars-dualism. I will concentrate on the normative aspects of established gender roles, irrespective of any discussion about a possible biological foundation of these roles. [2] Furthermore and to simplify matters, I will confine myself to heterosexual gender roles. Similar demands which can be found in heterosexual gender roles can also be found in homo- and also in bisexual gender roles.
Roderick Long summarizes the Randian notions of "anti-concepts" and "package deals" in his essay "Rothbard's 'Left and Right': Forty Years Later" as follows:
I contend that the conepts of the typically female and the typically male are exactly these kinds of package deals. This becomes particularly apparent once we become aware of the normative demands, which are implied in these concepts. They demand from women and men to accept roles which, from a moral perspective, are full of inner contradictions. Furthermore, these gender roles wrongly suggest that the female and the male exclude one another and that a woman cannot have any typically male character traits and vice versa.
Let us first consider, which adjectives are associated with the archetypically female. On the one hand, we have adjectives such as "sensual", "empathetic", and "caring". On the other hand there are adjectives such as "irrational", "hysterical", and "maternalist". We find an almost mirror-inverted image when we find the archetypically male. On the one hand, it can be described through such adjectives as "rational", "independent", and "strong", but adjectives such as "unemotional", "aggressive", and "antisocial" describe it too. [3]
To reveal the inner contradictions and the one-sidedness of these six respective descriptions and demands, we will next look at an apparent dualism which advocates of a freed market are very familiar with: cooperation vs. competition. Many statists associate the peaceful, the orderly and the social with ("humane") cooperation, while they link ("cold") competition to violence, chaos and "the law of the jungle." That is why they demand competition to be surpressed or at least controlled to protect cooperation. Some of those statists recognize that this is only possible through the use of force but few of them are bothered by this contradiction.
One of the errors of this analysis lies in the failure to recognize that both cooperation and competition are generally possible in an aggression free but also in a totalitarian context. It is also not recocnized that cooperation and competition require each other in order for each of them to be realized and that their full realization is only possible in the absence of aggression. Thus, those who wish to maintain peace, order, and society are not given the choice between cooperation and competition but between liberty and aggression.
The picture is similar regarding gender roles. As we have seen, the female and the male can be described through both positive and negative adjectives -- through adjectives that support peace, order and society, but also through adjectives that oppose peace, order and society. But a humane, cooperative society with a healthy amount of competition requires both sensuality and rationality, empathy and independence, and care as well as strength.
These two respective concepts require each other: rationality needs to guide sensuality and vice versa; empathy is only possible with a certain amount of independence while empathy is also needed to guide independence; and finally, care requires strength while strength can only be achieved through care. And hysteria, irrationality, maternalism, lack of emotionality, aggression and antisociality all stand in the way of peace, order and society.
Thus, what we need is an anarchist Cupid, which internally brings together the better half of Venus and the better half of Mars in each person, instead of a statist Cupid, which tries to externally unite the contradictory package deals of Venus and Mars.
Or in other words: From a libertarian point of view it would be helpful to abandon the traditional Venus/Mars-dualism, as it is interpreted above, and to replace it with an idea of humans which unites the best traits of both archetypes, regardless of gender -- or of sexuality.
[1] See Sciabarra's monumental study Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical for a detailed discussion of Rand's methodology.
[2] I will only say this much: As a layman, I don't think much of the biological/biologistic arguments.
[3] Again for simplicity's sake, I have concentrated on character traits in a narrow sense, irrespective of the normative-aestetic demands which the established gender roles imply.
Guercino: Venus, Mars, and Cupid
In my view, one of the greatest merits of the Russian American philosopher Ayn Rand is how she uncovered false dualisms, in the language of Rand expert Chris Sciabarra. [1] Following Rand's method of (social) analysis I will show in what follows to what extent the still predominant gender roles, which are probably best expressed by the thousand years old archetypes of Venus and Mars, are so-called "anti-concepts" and "package deals" and why we should---especially as libertarians and anarchists---disperse with the Venus/Mars-dualism. I will concentrate on the normative aspects of established gender roles, irrespective of any discussion about a possible biological foundation of these roles. [2] Furthermore and to simplify matters, I will confine myself to heterosexual gender roles. Similar demands which can be found in heterosexual gender roles can also be found in homo- and also in bisexual gender roles.
Roderick Long summarizes the Randian notions of "anti-concepts" and "package deals" in his essay "Rothbard's 'Left and Right': Forty Years Later" as follows:
Rand used to identify certain terms and ideas as "anti-concepts," that is, terms that actually function to obscure our understanding rather than facilitating it, making it harder for us to grasp other, legitimate concepts; one important category of anti-concepts is what Rand called the "package deal," referring to any term whose meaning conceals an implicit presupposition that certain things go together that in actuality do not.
I contend that the conepts of the typically female and the typically male are exactly these kinds of package deals. This becomes particularly apparent once we become aware of the normative demands, which are implied in these concepts. They demand from women and men to accept roles which, from a moral perspective, are full of inner contradictions. Furthermore, these gender roles wrongly suggest that the female and the male exclude one another and that a woman cannot have any typically male character traits and vice versa.
Let us first consider, which adjectives are associated with the archetypically female. On the one hand, we have adjectives such as "sensual", "empathetic", and "caring". On the other hand there are adjectives such as "irrational", "hysterical", and "maternalist". We find an almost mirror-inverted image when we find the archetypically male. On the one hand, it can be described through such adjectives as "rational", "independent", and "strong", but adjectives such as "unemotional", "aggressive", and "antisocial" describe it too. [3]
To reveal the inner contradictions and the one-sidedness of these six respective descriptions and demands, we will next look at an apparent dualism which advocates of a freed market are very familiar with: cooperation vs. competition. Many statists associate the peaceful, the orderly and the social with ("humane") cooperation, while they link ("cold") competition to violence, chaos and "the law of the jungle." That is why they demand competition to be surpressed or at least controlled to protect cooperation. Some of those statists recognize that this is only possible through the use of force but few of them are bothered by this contradiction.
One of the errors of this analysis lies in the failure to recognize that both cooperation and competition are generally possible in an aggression free but also in a totalitarian context. It is also not recocnized that cooperation and competition require each other in order for each of them to be realized and that their full realization is only possible in the absence of aggression. Thus, those who wish to maintain peace, order, and society are not given the choice between cooperation and competition but between liberty and aggression.
The picture is similar regarding gender roles. As we have seen, the female and the male can be described through both positive and negative adjectives -- through adjectives that support peace, order and society, but also through adjectives that oppose peace, order and society. But a humane, cooperative society with a healthy amount of competition requires both sensuality and rationality, empathy and independence, and care as well as strength.
These two respective concepts require each other: rationality needs to guide sensuality and vice versa; empathy is only possible with a certain amount of independence while empathy is also needed to guide independence; and finally, care requires strength while strength can only be achieved through care. And hysteria, irrationality, maternalism, lack of emotionality, aggression and antisociality all stand in the way of peace, order and society.
Thus, what we need is an anarchist Cupid, which internally brings together the better half of Venus and the better half of Mars in each person, instead of a statist Cupid, which tries to externally unite the contradictory package deals of Venus and Mars.
Or in other words: From a libertarian point of view it would be helpful to abandon the traditional Venus/Mars-dualism, as it is interpreted above, and to replace it with an idea of humans which unites the best traits of both archetypes, regardless of gender -- or of sexuality.
[1] See Sciabarra's monumental study Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical for a detailed discussion of Rand's methodology.
[2] I will only say this much: As a layman, I don't think much of the biological/biologistic arguments.
[3] Again for simplicity's sake, I have concentrated on character traits in a narrow sense, irrespective of the normative-aestetic demands which the established gender roles imply.
Comments on Swiss Politics
2 Comments Published by Matt Jenny on Monday, October 22, 2007 at 1:19 PM.
I just posted the following comment over at Reason Hit & Run, in case you're interested in Swiss politics in general and last Sunday's elections in particular:
---------------------------------
Three minor corrections on the situation in Switzerland:
Like most European parties that call themselves "liberal", the Swiss Free Democratic Party is definitely more libertarian than what is considered "liberal" in the US, but it is nonetheless not particularly libertarian. They're pretty much middle ground on most issues. As a Swiss libertarian, I had no reason to vote for the FDP.
The Swiss abbreviation for the Swiss Social Democrats is "SP". In the Swiss political context, "SD" stands for the Schweizer Demokraten (Swiss Democrats), a minor nationalist and state socialist party (though not explicitly Neonazi -- there is a Neonazi party in Switzerland called PNOS, but they're even smaller than the SD).
The following isn't altogether true either:
While the SVP could maybe be regarded as more free-market oriented than the FDP, it's still nowhere from libertarian. Their xenophobic, anti-immigration stance is just the most obvious. Apart from that, they also are the most hysterical supporters of agricultural subsidies (the party was founded as the "Farmers, Artisans, and Citizens' Party"). And they've launched a citizen's initiative to ban Muslims from building Minarets. The party also officially opposed civil unions between homosexuals when that was put to a vote a few years ago. Plus, they're pretty rigidly anti-drugs.
Apart from these points, though, the SVP is probably less dangerous than France's Le Pen or Austria's Jörg Haider, regardless of what is being written in the New York Times and other newspapers about Switzerland soon becoming a fascist nation or whatever. And even if the SVP actually were openly fascist and still got their 29% of the votes, they still couldn't reign arbitrarily over the Swiss population due to the unique political system in Switzerland.
Still, it is a very sad fact that the SVP got most of its votes due to their populistic and xenophobic appearance. They've constantly been gaining more power since the 1990s -- since Switzerland experienced a quite large influx of refugees from the Yugoslav Wars. But this wasn't a unique experience. For example, Switzerland experienced a big influx of Italian guest workers in the 1970s and, of course, that didn't mean the end to civilization in Switzerland. So the recent immigration issues in Switzerland are in my view hugely blown out of proportion by the power hungry SVP populists and their supporters.
---------------------------------
Three minor corrections on the situation in Switzerland:
Also distressing, the free-market Free Democratic Party lost voters to the SVP, shedding five seats from the 2003 election.
Like most European parties that call themselves "liberal", the Swiss Free Democratic Party is definitely more libertarian than what is considered "liberal" in the US, but it is nonetheless not particularly libertarian. They're pretty much middle ground on most issues. As a Swiss libertarian, I had no reason to vote for the FDP.
(From left, the major parties listed: Swiss People's Party (SVP), Social Democrats (SD), Free Democratic Party (FDP), Christian Democrats (CVP), Greens (GPS)):
The Swiss abbreviation for the Swiss Social Democrats is "SP". In the Swiss political context, "SD" stands for the Schweizer Demokraten (Swiss Democrats), a minor nationalist and state socialist party (though not explicitly Neonazi -- there is a Neonazi party in Switzerland called PNOS, but they're even smaller than the SD).
The following isn't altogether true either:
The SVP is generally free-market, unlike most other xenophobic parties in Europe.
While the SVP could maybe be regarded as more free-market oriented than the FDP, it's still nowhere from libertarian. Their xenophobic, anti-immigration stance is just the most obvious. Apart from that, they also are the most hysterical supporters of agricultural subsidies (the party was founded as the "Farmers, Artisans, and Citizens' Party"). And they've launched a citizen's initiative to ban Muslims from building Minarets. The party also officially opposed civil unions between homosexuals when that was put to a vote a few years ago. Plus, they're pretty rigidly anti-drugs.
Apart from these points, though, the SVP is probably less dangerous than France's Le Pen or Austria's Jörg Haider, regardless of what is being written in the New York Times and other newspapers about Switzerland soon becoming a fascist nation or whatever. And even if the SVP actually were openly fascist and still got their 29% of the votes, they still couldn't reign arbitrarily over the Swiss population due to the unique political system in Switzerland.
Still, it is a very sad fact that the SVP got most of its votes due to their populistic and xenophobic appearance. They've constantly been gaining more power since the 1990s -- since Switzerland experienced a quite large influx of refugees from the Yugoslav Wars. But this wasn't a unique experience. For example, Switzerland experienced a big influx of Italian guest workers in the 1970s and, of course, that didn't mean the end to civilization in Switzerland. So the recent immigration issues in Switzerland are in my view hugely blown out of proportion by the power hungry SVP populists and their supporters.
Chomsky, Foucault, the Left, and Libertarianism
1 Comments Published by Matt Jenny on Friday, September 14, 2007 at 9:16 AM.
It shouldn't surprise most left-libertarians but reading The Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Human Nature (about which I've blogged before) once again reinforced my conviction that there should be much more intellectual exchanges between libertarians and leftists. Libertarians have some of the economics and some of the politics right, alright, but good leftists are better than the average libertarian on so many other issues.
I don't feel myself educated enough in the field of philosophy of language -- yet at least: I'll be taking a class on language and reality starting next monday --, so I can't really comment on Chomsky's linguistics. I must say, though, that I find them pretty interesting and I like how he tries to link his linguistic concept of creativity to the general human need to be creative -- and the political and cultural preconditions for this to take place. I have a hunch that such a take on morality might be compatible with an Aristotelian natural rights approach to libertarianism like the ones developed by Roderick Long, Ayn Rand, Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl.
More generally, and as I've already said in that other post on Chomsky, I find his anarcho-syndicalism (and anarcho-synicalism in general for that matter) and libertarianism should make for pretty good bunk buddies. I do think though that for a reunion of libertarianism and leftism to take place, it isn't enough for libertarians and leftists to become aware of the fact that many of their differences can be traced back to different uses of such words as "capitalism" and "socialism" and for libertarians to develop a dialectical sensitivity. It is also essential to educate the left on economics. Rothbard apparently wasn't patient enough when he tried to do that during his short alliance with the New Left and ultimately he gave up, but I think we modern, post-Rothbardian (now there's a phrase for you to ponder about!) left-libertarians should give it another shot -- especially now that we have such ingenious tools of analysis available as Kevin Carson's concept of "vulgar libertarianism" and all its variations.
Speaking of dialectics, and as to what we can gain from the writings on the left, I'd like to turn to Foucault. While I don't agree with his general methodological approach and am still pretty confused by his kind of amoral politics (I guess I'm supposed to be confused!), I believe that his writings about the nature and mechanisms of power could prove to be very handy for a dialectical analysis of statism. But unfortunately, I can't go into much detail here, since I've read even less about and by Foucault than about and by Chomsky.
Anyway, the point I wanted to make here is one that has been made many times before in the blogosphere of the libertarian-left in one form or another: After you've read all the essential material on libertarianism, go and read some of the gems on the left.
I don't feel myself educated enough in the field of philosophy of language -- yet at least: I'll be taking a class on language and reality starting next monday --, so I can't really comment on Chomsky's linguistics. I must say, though, that I find them pretty interesting and I like how he tries to link his linguistic concept of creativity to the general human need to be creative -- and the political and cultural preconditions for this to take place. I have a hunch that such a take on morality might be compatible with an Aristotelian natural rights approach to libertarianism like the ones developed by Roderick Long, Ayn Rand, Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl.
More generally, and as I've already said in that other post on Chomsky, I find his anarcho-syndicalism (and anarcho-synicalism in general for that matter) and libertarianism should make for pretty good bunk buddies. I do think though that for a reunion of libertarianism and leftism to take place, it isn't enough for libertarians and leftists to become aware of the fact that many of their differences can be traced back to different uses of such words as "capitalism" and "socialism" and for libertarians to develop a dialectical sensitivity. It is also essential to educate the left on economics. Rothbard apparently wasn't patient enough when he tried to do that during his short alliance with the New Left and ultimately he gave up, but I think we modern, post-Rothbardian (now there's a phrase for you to ponder about!) left-libertarians should give it another shot -- especially now that we have such ingenious tools of analysis available as Kevin Carson's concept of "vulgar libertarianism" and all its variations.
Speaking of dialectics, and as to what we can gain from the writings on the left, I'd like to turn to Foucault. While I don't agree with his general methodological approach and am still pretty confused by his kind of amoral politics (I guess I'm supposed to be confused!), I believe that his writings about the nature and mechanisms of power could prove to be very handy for a dialectical analysis of statism. But unfortunately, I can't go into much detail here, since I've read even less about and by Foucault than about and by Chomsky.
Anyway, the point I wanted to make here is one that has been made many times before in the blogosphere of the libertarian-left in one form or another: After you've read all the essential material on libertarianism, go and read some of the gems on the left.
Vancouver, as seen from Stanley Park
So I did some traveling in the Pacific Northwest and B.C. in the past few weeks and got the chance to read (and buy) some books. I read, or started reading, the follwing:
Robert S. Boynton: The New New Journalism
Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault: The Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Human Nature
Tyler Cowen: Discover Your Inner Economist
Ursula K. Le Guin: The Telling
Ludwig von Mises: Human Action
George Orwell: The Road to Wigan Pier
Chris Matthew Sciabarra: Marx, Hayek, and Utopia
Chris Matthew Sciabarra: Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical
The Best American Magazine Writing 2006, compiled by the American Society of Magazine Editors
I plan on commenting on some of these books in the next few days.
Seattle, as seen from the Space Needle
(Blogosphere) Meet the Freed Market
1 Comments Published by Matt Jenny on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 at 8:26 AM.
As probably every libertarian, especially every left-libertarian knows, a careful choice of words is crucial when communicating our political and philosophical ideals. This especially concerns such catchwords as "capitalism", "socialism", "freedom", "democracy", "liberty", "law", "anarchy", "government", "State", etc. For example, if you debate market anarchism with a so-called "democratic socialist" there's a good chance that you're only going to met with a managable deal of hostility if you open your description of libertarianism by mentioning that one of its intellectual forefathers was Benjamin Tucker, who sometimes called himself, well, a democrat (an unterrified Jeffersonian one that would be, but you don't need to mention that) and a socialist. On the other hand, if you start by calling your ideal "anarcho-capitalism", chances are that your counterpart isn't going to take you very seriously.
Another cathword you need to use carefully is "the free market". I actually think it is a relatively neutral but still adequate word to describe what you stand for. But since most people think that "Western democracies" are "free markets" and that "free market principles" define and lie at the base of the curent state of globalization, the first thing you have to make sure when you use the word is clarify its implications and to point out that a free market doesn't exist anywhere in the world on any mentionable scale.
Now, if you want to avoid this trouble, William Gillis, who like myself likes to use the expression "anarcho-'capitalism'", has an suggestion for you: simply use the phrase "the freed market". Here's what he has to say about it:
Brilliant! I'll start using that phrase right away!
Now I only wish I hadn't already registered the domain derfreiemarkt.ch ("the free market.ch") for my personal German blog. I would totally dig derbefreitemarkt.ch ("the freed market.ch").
Tags: the freed market, Newspeak
Another cathword you need to use carefully is "the free market". I actually think it is a relatively neutral but still adequate word to describe what you stand for. But since most people think that "Western democracies" are "free markets" and that "free market principles" define and lie at the base of the curent state of globalization, the first thing you have to make sure when you use the word is clarify its implications and to point out that a free market doesn't exist anywhere in the world on any mentionable scale.
Now, if you want to avoid this trouble, William Gillis, who like myself likes to use the expression "anarcho-'capitalism'", has an suggestion for you: simply use the phrase "the freed market". Here's what he has to say about it:
You'd be surprised how much of a difference a change of tense can make. "Free market" makes it sound like such a thing already exists and thus passively perpetuates the Red myth that Corporatism and wanton accumulation of Kapital are the natural consequences of free association and competition between individuals. (It is not.)
But "freed" has an element of distance and, whatsmore, a degree of action to it. It becomes so much easier to state things like: Freed markets don't have corporations. A freed market naturally equalizes wealth. Social hierarchy is by definition inefficient and this is particularly evident in freed markets.
It moves us out of the present tense and into the theoretical realm of "after the revolution," where like the Reds we can still use present day examples to back theory, but we're not tied into implicitly defending every horror in today's market. It's easier to pick out separate mechanics in the market and make distinctions. Also. Have I mentioned that it makes an implicit call to action?
Brilliant! I'll start using that phrase right away!
Now I only wish I hadn't already registered the domain derfreiemarkt.ch ("the free market.ch") for my personal German blog. I would totally dig derbefreitemarkt.ch ("the freed market.ch").
Tags: the freed market, Newspeak
(Philosophy) Some Thoughts on Sciabarra's "Total Freedom"
1 Comments Published by Matt Jenny on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 at 3:40 PM.
I finally found the time to read Chris Sciabarra's book Total Freedom. Here are some excerpts from an e-mail I just sent him:
In short: Go buy the book!
Tags: sciabarra, dialectics, libertarianism, dialectical libertarianism
In short, I thoroughly enjoyed every single page of the book! It ranks definitely among the most thought-provoking non-fiction I’ve read and I can already tell that it’s made a great impact on my thinking. On the one hand, each chapter, each train of thought radically challenged some of my deepest convictions but on the other hand also left me with the impression that a lot of its content puts into words what I’ve long thought to be the truth. Other works that were of a similar experience to me are Rothbard’s Power & Market and For a New Liberty, Roderick Long’s and Charles Johnson’s “Libertarian Feminism” and Kevin Carson’s Studies in Mutualist Political Economy. So if, today, I would have to name those works that have been the most influential to my – admittedly very short – intellectual development, your book would definitely rank among the top five, and I think that it will stay there for a long time. :)
I must point out, though, that I don’t think I’ve understood everything. In fact, I’m not even sure I’ve understood even the basic points. I will definitely have give the whole book at least a second read in order to be able to comment in a more detailed manner on it, and I think it will only be then that I will be able to judge whether I can really identify with the dialectical project that you call for. In the meantime, however, I would already like to address one reservation I have with your argument. On page 177, you claim that dialectics “does not succumb to . . . the ‘self-referential’ problem of relativism.” While I would love this to be true since I certainly have a gut feeling that dialectics is the right methodological orientation, I’m not sure I’ve really understood why the above is the case. I think you are right to dismiss strict atomism, dualism, monism and strict organicism as problematic ontological stances, and it seems correct to conclude from this and from your other arguments that a successful inquiry always needs to take into account the context, among other things. But, I say “it seems correct”, because I’m not sure if always trying to point out the contextuality of everything doesn’t make the introduction of the dialectical method as a general principle impossible. Doesn’t this lead to a contradiction? Doesn’t follow from this the self-stultifying conclusion that dialectics needs to subject itself to a kind of meta-dialectics which allows us to define those contexts where the dialectical method is appropriate and where it isn’t.
I hope my above thoughts make sense and I particularly hope that my reservations don’t stem from an unfair reading of your book. I would be very happy if you found the time to point out to me where I’m wrong.
But as I said, I will only be able to earnestly comment on the book once I’ve read it a second time. For example, I will definitely have to put more thought into your reservations about the possible inescapable constructivistic and dualistic character of anarchism, to which I still adhere. So far I think that Geoffrey Allan Plauche is right when he remarks on his blog that anarchism isn’t inherently dualistic but that Rothbard definitely needs some fine tuning on some of his essential points. I’m not sure when that will be though, since, just today, I ordered the other two books of your “Dialectics and Liberty Trilogy” and I will also try to get my hands on some of the works by Rasmussen and Den Uyl (since I can no longer adhere to the Habermasian-Hoppean discourse ethics after reading footnote 10 on page 368 in your book ;) ), the hermeneutical Austrians and Ollman, plus I just started reading Human Action, plus I actually have to get some work done which will give me some actual credit points, not “just” mental stimulation. ;)
But anyway, do you have any particular suggestions which books by the hermeneutical Austrians and Ollman would serve as a good introduction to their philosophies? I find a hermeneutical approach to economics very interesting but I don’t know if I will end up finding Mises’ praxeology more convincing. While I see grave problems with, say, Cartesian rationalism, I’m not sure that a dialectical critique of rationalism fully applies to praxeology as well. And after reading the passages about the hermeneutical Austrians in your book, I tend to think that hermeneutics could be somehow integrated into praxeology. But that’s just my first hunch.
Oh by the way, reading these passages about the hermeneutic Austrians made me recall an interesting discussion I had with a friend of mine about hermeneutics and economics a while ago. Back then he was a great admirer of Gadamer’s works (right now he’s more into Derrida…) and since I didn’t know anything about Gadamer he tried to explain to me some of the main points of his hermeneutics. Later, the discussion shifted to economics and I tried to explain to him the Austrian critique of neoclassical economics. I talked about the futility of treating economics in the same way as the natural sciences are treated. After I lined out the main Austrian arguments, my friend remarked: “Gadamer would absolutely agree with those Austrians.” Back then, I found this comment funny, in both meanings of the word, but now I know that there seemingly is something to that. :)
In short: Go buy the book!
Tags: sciabarra, dialectics, libertarianism, dialectical libertarianism
