Thank you. Will check these out. I'm very interested to ensure that my political and economic views are in alignment with, and flow from, my ultimate metaphysical and epistemological convictions--i.e., Christian Theism. I've heard that Hoppe was greatly influenced by Jurgen Moltmann (a Critical theorist), so I've been somewhat hesitant to jump in, but I'm wiling to hear him out. From what little I've heard, it sounds like his 'argumentation ethics' may even have some overlap with what -- in other circles -- we call _presuppositional apologetics_. But I could be way off on that.
Discussion
interesting to put that before everything else in the order of flow. does it worry you that it might limit your process of discovery and learning? It's a super strong bias to start with.
I think metaphysics not only should but _must_ precede epistemology and ethics (and I'd put politics and economics in the larger category of ethics--i.e., "how should we treat one another?").
Denying God, you must agree, is an equally strong bias to start with?
I don't "deny" god. the idea (god) just doesn't even enter my mind or life. do you "deny" the legal jurisdiction of Cambodia, or does it merely not effect you - almost not even exist - in your life?
I meant no offense. From my perspective, his existence (and, thus, his presence) is as ubiquitous as the very air we breath. So, hearing someone express disbelief in God sounds to my ear very similar to someone expressing disbelief in air (while making use of that very air to do so). Again: I meant no offense.
To answer your question, are we assuming that I _do_ live in Cambodia, or that I _do not_ live in Cambodia? (And isn't that rather the point?)
🤙🏻
No offense taken whatsoever 🤝
Assume you do not live in Cambodia.
I knew that's what you meant...I was making the somewhat facetious point that the initial assumption of where I live determines whether their jurisdiction "exists in my life."
It's that presupposition thing again. None of us are neutral.
I think you're missing the original point about "active denial" vs "irrelevance".
You don't actively deny every jurisdiction that doesn't apply to you, not to mention the infinite number of nonexistent jurisdictions that you could _imagine_ and don't even purport reign anywhere. They are more like "irrelevant" or "N/A". Supporting a distant (or imaginary) jurisdiction is an active choice, simply not thinking about them is as close to neutral state of nature as you can get.
Did you think about an elephant while reading that paragraph? If not, were you "denying the elephant"?
Bro...if the elephant were _actually there_, then yes--I would have been ignoring and "denying" the elephant if I wasn't thinking of it. And certainly, if there was an elephant, it would be extremely relevant--don't you think? (And if there was an elephant, wouldn't you think me a little odd for having ignored something so obvious?)
Again: presuppositions. I gotta run. ✌️
I think compartmentalising can be useful.
Mises' methodological dualism is about using different methodologies in natural sciences and social sciences.
I'd say that the spritual realm and metaphysics can be approached differently from how we approach politics and economics as well.
Sure, in a pluralistic/classical liberal society, we don't have to agree _why_ we shouldn't lie, cheat, or kill--so long as we all agree that we shouldn't, then we can live peacably.
But when the question does turn to why--say, over a fine meal--we have to get 'back of' those assumptions. "Why do you believe that? How can you say that consistently? Etc." Many people can count very well, but they cannot _account_ for counting. Many can reason well (like Mises) but they cannot _account_ for the capacity to reason--where did it come from? What does it reveal? Etc. But when the plumber comes over, we don't discuss metaphsyics. He knows how to plumb and, for those purposes, that is enough.
Yep, I think that's beyond the scope of what Mises has written. He made a similar admission in the first part of Human Action, if I'm not wrong.
Imo, both rationalism and empiricism have their limits, meaning they are useful and fully valid in explaining the external world. When it comes to the world within ourselves, their limits become clear.