SubhanAllah. Alhamdulillah. Allahuakbar. For the past few weeks, I had been slumped with so many things that made me feel so down. My exams. My interview for job application...
and... I've just got my results for my waiting phase...
after calming myself down ,waiting anxiously for almost 1 month... hehehe Later alhamdulillah,,
Praxeology is the study of those aspects of human action that can be grasped a priori; in other words, it is concerned with the conceptual analysis and logical implications of preference, choice, means-end schemes, and so forth.
The basic principles of praxeology were first discovered by the Greek philosophers, who used them as a foundation for a eudaimonistic ethics. This approach was further developed by the Scholastics, who extended praxeological analysis to the foundations of economics and social science as well.
In the late nineteenth century, the praxeological approach to economics and social science was rediscovered by Carl Menger, founder of the Austrian School. The term praxeology was first applied to this approach by the later Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (portrait at left). Along with his students (including Friedrich Hayek and Murray Rothbard), Mises employed praxeological principles to show that much existing economic and social theory was conceptually incoherent.
Independently of Mises, analytic philosophers in the ordinary language tradition – like Ludwig Wittgenstein, J. L. Austin, and Elizabeth Anscombe – were also making contributions to praxeological theory, though they did not use that term.
In its narrow sense, economic anthropology is the anthropological study of economics. In a more specific sense, economic anthropology challenges classical notions of economics by using a broader, ethnographically based, understanding of ‘economic forces’. This broader understanding includes an analysis of the nature of exchange, and of the individual or social motivations behind economic act.
Economic anthropology challenges the conception that the market is the only driving force for human relationships. Economic anthropology also challenges the idea that capitalism emerges from a natural need. Capitalist behaviour is rooted in historically specific types of cultural patterns. Capitalism is not a natural human development but a cultural institution, which has been imposed and adopted worldwide.
Economic anthropologists focus on: -Detailed (ethnographic) descriptions of economic activity, including those activities that classical economy would not consider ‘economics’.
-The beliefs underpinning ‘ways of life’ we may call or not economic, but which consider the nature of goods, their production, distribution and consumption.
-The way gender, religion, kinship, politics relate to the nature of ‘economic systems’.
The most important thing about studying economic anthropology is that it is a field that is placed at the crossroad of all social events. Economic anthropology also looks at the root of the things that matter most to people: access to labour, inequality, alienation, the nature of power, and the reproduction of social systems.
You will notice that thorough this course many terms such as ‘economics’ and ‘poverty’ are in italics. The reason for this is because in many societies these terms mean something totally different from ours. It is also the case with the idea of ‘economic rational’ behind exchange, barter, or debt, to cite a few, which differs very much from society to society.
One of the problems we will address is how to analyse economic life. From an anthropological point of view ‘economics’ is not a category of western ‘rational’ actions to do with money, demand and market, what Sahlins (1972) calls ‘a category of bourgeois science’? This ‘bourgeois science’ of economics is the direct heir of the Enlightenment, with their philosophy of ‘Homo ecomicus’. From an anthropological point of view, economic life is embedded in all aspects of society, from ritual and gender to religion and power. Economic anthropology broadens classic notions of both, the economy and economic behaviour. It assumes that all knowledge is culturally specific and it questions why and what people do in their own social context instead of looking for a ‘separate’ economic domain....“At the most basic,economic anthropology is the description and analysis of economic life, using an anthropological perspective”
I am certainly no expert on Mises' and the Austrians' use of praxeology in economic theory. Nor am I sure whether I agree with it. But I can at least try to explain what it was getting at.
The pertinent paragraph in this article is:
"In summary, it's not so much that the method of the natural sciences doesn't work when it comes to human action, but rather that their use would overlook such an incredibly better set of tools that all of us possess. Nobody really knows why stones fall, and so the best we can do is invent physical "laws" that describe the empirical observations as closely as possible."
Mises applied praxeology to economics out of a conviction that economics was different in a key way from science: in order to make economic predictions, you had to understand not just HOW people act, but WHY people act. This 'why' questions means that economics can't be a science in the way positivists want it to be. While we can observe and falsify predictions, we must also be able to interpret human action and motivation and this simply cannot be done with the hypothetico-deductive model under which science generally proceeds.
To further the divide between science and economics, it is quite difficult if not impossible to do controlled experiments in economics. One must simply accept imperfect 'natural experiments' that cannot adjust for variables that need adjusting for (in order to make sure the result truly corroborates or falsifies a theory).
Thus, economics begins with speculation about how and why humans act and these speculations are praxeology.
Now, myself, I generally see praxeology as a way to interpret observations. In other words, it does little to observe humans without doing so under some theory of human intention. As vague as Mises' praxeology, it provides a theory of human motivation under which to generate economic predictions and interpret results of 'natural experiments' (like the housing boom and bust). If one does not have some theory or presuppositions about how and why humans act, then generating predictions becomes sheer guesswork and interpreting observations becomes difficult (because one cannot interpret those actions in intentional terms).
A big reason that I am trepidatious about praxeology in economics is that it makes easy the tendency to remove economics wholly from the realm of empiricality. I think it is true that economics can never be but a very imperfect science (as controlled experiments are very hard to do), but this does not mean that predictions based on praxeological principles cannot be corroborated or at least somewhat falsified by observable evidence.
Another reason I find praxeology hard to swallow in full is because, like Popper, I am generally wary of systems built on vague principles when those principles can be used to interpret so many - and sometimes wildly different - actions. Like Marx's dialectical materialism, there is a danger that praxeological principles can be used to interpret just about any observed situation as fitting with, rather than contradicting, the praxeological theory.
Again, I am not an expert in praxeology and have not studied Austrian economics nearly as much as some other folks. But those are my thoughts.
Kiriman 3
Anda menulispada 02 Februari 2010 jam 10:00
okay thanks Mr Kevin .,
That Praxeology is how and why humans act to get their purpose . and assume is rational ...
whether this is relevant if it is used for economic anthropology??
&
What literature I could learn, in addition to the work of Mises 'Human action'??
My view is that praxeology is somewhat relevant to any economic theory because all of them, at their core, must have a basic model of human motivation. Of course, the problem is that if it is seen as "a priori" than this somewhat immunizes it from being testable. And, as behavioral economics has largely found, human action is certainly not always (or even mostly?) rational.
I am not sure what literature exists about praxeology except for Mises's book. I know people say that Rothbard did a nice summary of praxeology, but I am not sure where: probably in "Logic of Liberty."
For more info on where else one can learn about praxeology, go to the Mises institute's thread "On Human Action" (should be a few below this discussion on the board). There was mention of a study guide that is available and a Rothbard book.
Let me get it straight - you guys are guessing what praxeology might be based on reading nothing whatsoever about it? That's fun.
Praxeology is definitely not about *why* humans act. It does not have a concept of "rational". It is a science about logical implications of human actions, about means with relation to the ends. The ends, the motivations are given - they are outside the scope of praxeology. Others sciences deal with them - evolutionary psychology, neural science, behavioral genetics,
Praxeology is not built on vague principles. It's method is deductive logic - the least non-vague concept known to man, no speculation whatsoever. Praxeology is based on the single, most fundamental observation and single presumption.
The observation is that oneself acts - chooses. Everything else may be an illusion - sensual perceptions, memories, yet even in a sensory deprivation chamber a person can observe oneself choosing - if only the direction of one's thoughts. We can usually observe ourselves deliberately controlling our bodies. The presumption is that other people's minds work the same way.
Economics/Praxeology is not imperfect because it is not rooted in empiricism any more that mathematics is. Experiments are not "hard to do" - they are inapplicable in economics just as they are in mathematics.
It's a superstition to believe that scientific method is experimental. Scientific approach is to use methodology applicable to a given discipline - note the one popular due to success in some other sexy discipline.
The concepts that economics/praxeology/social sciences deal with are not observable through senses - there is no money, value, choice, cost, reward, punishment, government, virtue, novel, poem, etc. that one can objectively observe - all those are either concepts or relations that exist within human minds.
I would suggest Hayek's "Counter Revolution of Science" on the positivist fallacy and related matters - but it seems you are trying to acquire knowledge through other means than reading books. Is is clairvoyance? It doesn't seem to work, you should practice some more... :)
'The concepts that economics/praxeology/social sciences deal with are not observable through senses - there is no money, value, choice, cost, reward, punishment, government, virtue, novel, poem, etc. that one can objectively observe - all those are either concepts or relations that exist within human minds.'
Sure they are. That is the point of thymology. Human understanding and experience which is a necessity in applying praxeological theory. Praxeology is the theory and thymology is the application of theory on reality. Roderick Long explains it best when he says ( paraphrasing ) praxeology can tell you all these conceptual laws about money but praxeology can't tell you what money is or where it is used in a given society. That is the basis of thymology which also can be speculative in nature. You can speculate on future human behavior using the thymological method/process. It doesn't make it objectively correct or apoditically certain though.
You do realize that Hayek believed that praxeology was insufficient to hang the whole of economics on, and very much disagreed with Mises on this point? (You are also aware that just about the entire economic universe, including those who share many of Mises's conclusions) disagree with Mises on that point?)
[In some sense, I would say that praxeology in economics is like dianetics in psychology: a system with a few diehard devotees that swear by its revolutionary nature but that's it.]
Kevin,
I believe you are disagreeing with me solely on the terminology - whether the term "economics" to be used as a subset of Praxeology or as a practical endeavor that involves the use of numerous disciplines, tacit knowledge, experience and rules of thumb.
I do not see a contradiction here - language associates numerous meanings to most words and we can use context or explicit specification in each particular discussion. I used the term "economics" is this thread in the same sense that Mises used the term "catallactics" - a subset of praxeology dealing with exchange.
In practice a person calling himself an economist could profitably use psychology, geography, history, physics, chemistry, climate science and many others - even math - to generate economic predictions.
That does not make praxeology any less sound, let alone "vague".
In my opinion, many people who disagree with Mises on some points often do not have a slightest idea what Mises actually says on that point. How many think that Praxeology is a kind of psychology?
Mises has never said or implied that praxeology was sufficient for analysis of reality - quite the opposite. He explained how, when all theoretical and natural knowledge has been applied to the analysis of a situation involving human action, there still remains ample scope for *understanding*.
"I believe you are disagreeing with me solely on the terminology - whether the term "economics" to be used as a subset of Praxeology or as a practical endeavor that involves the use of numerous disciplines, tacit knowledge, experience and rules of thumb."
My impression of Mises's praxeology, and I could well be wrong, is that Mises saw ecomics as a wholly inductive endeavor based on praxeological principles, and eschewing any attempts to make it into an empirical science, where conjectures could be corroborated or refuted by empirical means.
If this be the case, I take my stand with Hayek. Yes, economics deals at root with motivations, psychology, etc - which cannot be submitted to empirical testing - but this does not preclude submitting economic predictions to corroboration or falsification (especially the latter). I am also iffy that IF my above depiction is accurate, economics essentially becomes a field that ields unfalsifiable predictions.
"In practice a person calling himself an economist could profitably use psychology, geography, history, physics, chemistry, climate science and many others - even math - to generate economic predictions.
That does not make praxeology any less sound, let alone "vague"."
It does if, in a Popperian sense, one can explain potentially falsifying observations away using non-empirical things like appeals to unconscious motives, etc. (This ability to appeal to unconscious motives was what made Freudian psychology so able to take falsifying instances and interpret them as verifying instances.)
"Mises has never said or implied that praxeology was sufficient for analysis of reality - quite the opposite. He explained how, when all theoretical and natural knowledge has been applied to the analysis of a situation involving human action, there still remains ample scope for *understanding*."
You likely know more on praxeology than I do, but I thought Mises wrote an entire book that's conclusion hinted that this "ample scope" for "understanding" rendered economics to be a non-empirical science. (That is where Hayek agreed in part - about the necessity of extra-empirical interpretation) and dissented in part - that this means economic predictions cannot be tested, in part, by empirical means.
- "My impression of Mises's praxeology, and I could well be wrong, is that Mises saw ecomics as a wholly inductive endeavor based on praxeological principles, and eschewing any attempts to make it into an empirical science, where conjectures could be corroborated or refuted by empirical means."
You are mistaken. He saw **development** of economic theory as a wholly DEductive (not inductive) endeavor.
That is distinct from applying economic theory to expain or predict empirical reality - which may also be called "economics".
- "It does if, in a Popperian sense, one can explain potentially falsifying observations away using non-empirical things like appeals to unconscious motives, etc."
People have free will. One does not have to appeal to anything to explain choices that people can make - at least not in Praxeological context. There are no observations of human behavior that can falsify praxeological theorems - if you think so, you may not have the correct idea what kind of statements praxeology makes. The issues are orthogonal. A human being can act on each of infinity of choices in a given situation and that is the premise of Praxeology, not a confounding factor. It's the logical implications of human action it deals with - not motives.
- "You likely know more on praxeology than I do, but I thought Mises wrote an entire book that's conclusion hinted that this "ample scope" for "understanding" rendered economics to be a non-empirical science. (That is where Hayek agreed in part - about the necessity of extra-empirical interpretation) and dissented in part - that this means economic predictions cannot be tested, in part, by empirical means."
There are two distinct non-empirical categories. Deductive logic is one thing, and "understanding" is quite another. The former is explicit and formal, the latter is tacit.
We can talk about the law of supply and demand ot diminishing returns - and we can talk about pride and jealousy. Both make sense to us without resorting to any empirical methods.
Theories are used in attempts to explain certain observed phenomena. A successful theory has a major practical result that enables us to predictin advance the consequences of various occurances.(teori digunakan untuk menerangkan fenomena tertentu yang diamati. Teori yang sukses adalah hasil dari pengamatan praktis dan mampu memprediksikan lebih lanjut akibat dari beragam kejadian).
Dalam buku the death of economic,Paul Ormerod mengungkapkan adanya ketidakcocokan antara teori ekonomi dan fakta yang terjadi dalam dunia nyata. Antara lain dia mencontohkan harga saham yang terjadi di berbagai bursa efek yang tidak berdasarkan kondisi keuangan perusahaan bersangkutan. Tetapi lebih ditentukan oleh kuatnya isu yang dilontarkan para pialang saham. Apabila pialang dominan melontarkan isu untuk membeli surat berharga ,para investor akan berlomba-lomba membelinya.
Apabila dalam hitungan menit ,jam,hari,detik sang pialang dominan melontarkan lagi isu sebaliknya ,yakni isu jual atas surat berharga yang sama,maka para investor akan berlomba-lomba menjualnya. Tujuannya tidak lain adalah memperoleh keuntungan dari selisih harga beli dan jual atas saham tersebut.
Lontaran isu tersebut sama sekali tidak mengacu pada kondisi keuangan perusahaan yang sebenarnya. Seharusnya,isu beli terjadi apabila kondisi keuangan perusahaan emiten cenderung baik,dan sebaliknya. Artinya ,dalam hal ini para pialang telah berbuat kebohongan terhadap publik dengan melontarkan isu beli,padahal pada saat yang sama kondisi keuangan perusahaan emiten cenderung jeblok. Memang tidak etis karena melontarkan suatu kebohongan . Kebohongan yang menyebabkan kekacauan teori yang tidak dapat dihindarkan.
Chanco yang baru terbangun dari tidur.. menggerakkan tubuhnya dengan susah payah.. dan...
hhuuaaa..laaaffaaarr.. maaaamaaaaaahhh.... akuuu laaaffaaaaarr... maaamaaaahh.. mana Si Kolonel??? mana Si Badut???
teriak seorang anak kecil berusia 9 tahun.. mengeluh sambil memperdengarkan bunyi perutnya yang mendecit-decit..
terduduk dia di lantai dapur..
mamah'..ucapnya dengan lesu.. aku lapar..
nak..mamah udah siapin sarapan tuh.. tapi hari ini g ada kolonel m si badut....
aaaaaarrrgggghhhhh.. aku mau kolonel mah.. aku mau badut hidung merah.. kenapa g disiapin makanan paprorit aku itu.. yang lain mah makanan g enak..g suka..g suka..
ah..g ad mamah lupa, udah sana di lemari masih ada pizza, kamu makan aj sana..
hmm..pizza huh*! oakay lah,boleh,enak juga..
berjalanlah dia menuju lemari itu, dilihatnya kotak pizza jumbo,kemudian diraihnya pizza tsbt,masing-masing tangannya memegang pizza itu,kemudian dimakannya bergantian..*greed is good*
sang ibu terlihat biasa-biasa saja.. dalam hati bergumam.. ''hhmm..aku tidak perlu repot bangun pagi untuk menyiapkan sarapan,tinggal telpon order delivery ,semuanya beres..*great mother*
chanco memang terbiasa mengisi perutnya dengan fast food.
pagi pizza huh.. siang dont eat donat.. sore si kolonel.. malam si badut..
bayangkan lemak yang dimakannya, kolesterol.. gula...
makanan yang seharusnya tidak menjadi pilihan konsumsi sehari-hari..malah dijadikan makanan pokok sehari-hari.
implikasinya...
chanco tumbuh tidak seperti anak normal seusianya,paling tidak timbunan lemak, kalori dan kolesterol menjadi jaket tebal tubuhnya,bukan hanya itu,kadar gula anak ini membludak sehingga insulin menjadi sangat banyak. Anak yang baru berusia 9 tahun sudah mengidap diabetes..
chanco
menjadikan chanco sebagai anak yang pasif..cepat letih..dan supersize body..dengan resiko terbesarnya adalah kematian,itupun sudah sangat dekat dengannya..
exploitation of children..
chanco menjadi maniak tatkala fantasi sebagai seorang anak di mainkan oleh iklan yang di buat dengan modal jutaan dolar. salah satu Penarik fantasi itu dapat berupa toy.
"lihatlah koleksiku... aku punya celengan badut,aku juga punya motor2an mini,wuuuuhh banyak pkonya ,semua dari makan-makanan petpood..
WUUUITTZZ..,
remembering chanco .. tersenyum riang.. kala menatap sampah.. yang kemudian dimakannya dan dijilatnya rasa enak yang bersisa di tangannya..
melompat girang saat diberi mainan badut hidung merah..
hhmmm..delicious!!! nikmat, kematian itu berjalan perlahan dari lidah yang terbuai oleh rasa..
hingga suatu saat di pagi hari..
teriakan itu hilang...
Chanco .. menjadi pesakitan di tempat tidurnya.. menikmati surga delivery time.. delivery time.. deliver you to death..
si badut dan si kolonel menghentikan detak jantung anak itu..
Sesuatu yang pada awalnya akan berbeda dengan akhirnya,tatkala harapan dan cita-cita tulus menjadi sia-sia karena pengeliminasian kehadiranku . Aku kembali lusuh dan berjalan terlunta-lunta,hari kelam kembali berulang. Orang-orang menindakku dengan beribu cercaan dan mereka tidak memperdulikan kehadiranku. Kesalahan itu memang karena aku,namun salahkah jika menyusun serpihan retak yang terpecah itu?
Aku mempertanyakannya padamu Tuhan !
Mionnet sadarkah kau? Semua telah berubah. Itu yang tidak engkau sadari. Tuhan aku telah membuka mata dan hatiku akan hal itu.
Namun kesadaran tersebut hadir karena kebutaanmu. Mionnet sadarilah keadaan tersebut!
Apapun yang aku lakukan hari iniadalah tidak padan dan berarti untuknya. Perubahan merubahnya dan tetap kesalahan itu milikku. Melihatnyapun tidak pernah lagi,dalam memori dirinya adalah pemandangan yang menakjubkan yang dulu selalu aku saksikan dari kejauhan hingga jarak yang begitu dekat. Suaranya yang ceria dan meneguhkan hati dalam setiap cerita dan apapun itu yang pernah diberikannya kini sirna,seolah lidahnya bisu bahkan tak dapat bersuara sedikitpun.
Maka bersabarlah Mionnet. Dia telah tertidur pulas dengan mimpi indahnya dan kehidupannya kini telah bahagia,hingga melupakan aku yang tertidur dalam mimpi buruk dan kehidupan yang kini terpuruk. Tidakkah dia mengetahui bahwa dirinya adalah Sabatini yang jelita. Sabatini yang mengetahui soal ketergantunganku padanya,Sabatini yang dulu hidup dan menjadi jantung kehidupanku,Sabatini yang selalu memekarkan bunga harapan kasih sayang melebihi batas apapun. Waktu telah berlalu dan yang telah aku dapatkan juga telah berlalu. Masa-masa yang masih aku ingat dan kenang juga telah berlalu. Semua telah berlalu..berlalu..berlalu.. Apa artinya semua ini,mungkin ketika aku ada dihadapnya aku akan dibiarkan begitu saja,karena aku adalah sesuatu yang telah berlalu. Sebuah kereta yang hendak aku tumpangi telah melaju meninggalkanku.
Sabatini yang telah bersama Napoleon Dia tak akan menoleh lagi, Kau hanya sampah Mionnet. Kau layak sangat mendapatkan perlakuan ini.
Berkacalah........!!
dan Ingatlah,
Cinta yang terlalu dalam , jika suatu saat kau berpisah,maka akan menyakitimu,
Cinta yang membuatmu memiliki ketergantungan yang demikian besar akan cinta itu suatu saat jika tak bersama,maka cinta itu maka akan sangat memelemahkanmu.
Cinta yang hanya mengharapkan kesetiaan dalam apa adanya dirimu,baik dan buruknya dirimu itu ada,namun bagimu ini pengecualian,Aku sedang mengujimu Mionnet.
Serpihan retak yang hendak aku susun kembali telah menjadi abu dan dihanyutkan dalam lautan yang luas. Telah pergi terbawa arus yang begitu tenang. Semuanya telah berlalu,,
Mionnet... Meskipun telah berlalu. Simpanlah keyakinan hatimu,jagalah niatmu tersebut. Mungkin saja Aku akan mengubah takdirmu. Apapun bisa Aku lakukan..
Memintalah dengan bersungguh-sungguh kau memintanya. Aku mengetahui betapa besar kasihmu itu.
Sinis melihat tingkat penguasa.. Demokrasi kolot khas bekicot..
Seperti bekicot, Lamban..selalu terbelakang.. Bahkan terkadang menjijikkan..
Bekicot ini udah lamban,pandai berbohong pula.. Mau tau ngga' "alat" kebohongan mereka,Demokrasi Visual... dan tak mengherankan tradisi survey bayaran turut digunakan yah,untuk mengontrol opini publik..
Meskipun begitu, Rakyat juga tidak bodoh.. Mereka mengetahui century gate.. Kasus Bibit-Chandra, Mobil mewah menteri...dst..dst..dst..
Pusing.. Sakit hati ma bekicot...
Bagusnya bekicot tuh di jadiin makanan bebek ajah... Biar bebeknya bertelor banyakk..
Nah pertanyaannya.. Sapa yang mau jadi bebek??? Bebek yang mesti...coup d'État................
Biarkan bekicot itu tersingkir....................
Ga' ada yang marah dengan itu, Yah paling yang mereka bayar ajah..
Sang langit mimpi kini telah redup, Membahanakan suara penolakan atas makna keyakinan.. Semakin menjauh terhanyut dengan kebahagiaannya kini.. Tak pernah lagi menoleh sedikitpun... Meninggalkan sosok yang membutuhkannya dalam gelap gulita, Meredupkan asa dalam senyuman apatis. Membuang dan tak memperdulikan lagi kasih sayang yang dijaga hanya untuknya. Penolakan.. atau sebuah kebohongan.. mungkin ini bisa juga sebuah pembalasan.. Jejak masa lalu, Indah maupun keburukan. Cinta maupun kebencian, hanya kemurnian hatilah yang dapat menilainya dan hanya kearifan yang mampu adil terhadapnya..
Kadang tak sadar kita melupakan dan tak sadar kita turut terlupakan Kadang logika tak diberi ruang untuk berpikir, akibat perasaan yang terkoyak. Kadang perasaan tidak diberi ruang untuk merasakan, akibat logika telah menggila.
Jika telah memahaminya dengan kemurnian Maka sungguh cinta akan mengalahkan segalanya.. termasuk logika dan perasaan itu..
