Aprioristic reasoning is purely conceptual and deductive. It cannot produce anything else but tautologies and analytic judgments. All its implications are logically derived from the premises and were already contained in them. Hence, according to a popular objection, it cannot add anything to our knowledge.
All geometrical theorems are already implied in the axioms. The concept of a rectangular triangle already implies the theorem of Pythagoras. This theorem is a tautology, its deduction results in an analytic judgment. Nonetheless, nobody would contend that geometry in general and the theorem of Pythagoras in particular do not enlarge our knowledge.
Cognition from pureIy deductive reasoning is also creative and opens for our mind access to previously barred spheres. The significant task of aprioristic reasoning is on the one hand to bring into relief all that is implied in the categories, concepts, and premises and, on the other hand, to show what they do not imply. It is its vocation to render manifest and obvious what was hidden and unknown before.” —
Ludwig von Mises, Human Action pg 37
In regards to Conza and all those who reblogged that HHH quote nodding in ignorant agreement - proof Mises admits and acknowledges the epistemological status of his theory as analytic a priori. Therefore that little piece I wrote on Godel’s incompleteness theorem applying holds true. Hans Herman-Hoppe has no idea what he’s talking about.
Human Action first written in 1940. Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science written in 1962. As per Roderik Long:
- “What is the source of praxeological necessity? Is it something discovered in the world, or is it imposed upon the world by our own linguistic conventions? Mises himself changed his mind over time as to whether the conceptual truths of praxeology are analytic or synthetic (contrast, e.g., Mises 1940:8 with Mises 1962:4–5), and present-day Austrians are likewise divided (Hayekians favoring analytic, Rothbardians [and Hoppeans] favoring synthetic).”
Given it seems your only in-depth exposure to the ideas of Mises is Human Action… I’d suggest you’ve still got a lot of learning/catching up to do. Hoppe works with the most updated, latest and advanced position of Mises… therefore that little piece you wrote on Godel’s incompleteness theorem applying does not hold true. Mises lays waste to the proposition here, as well as continuing on to make highly disparaging remarks on Popper. To put it succinctly:
- “There is nothing wrong with Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem.
- There is nothing wrong with Mises’ Action Theorem.
- There is nothing wrong with Praxeology (The Action Theorem applied)
There is a reason the Action Theorem is not analytical a priori, but synthetic a priori.
Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe would all agree that the validity of the Action Theorem does not rest on pure formal logic. Once validated, however, it becomes possible to deduce praxeological laws logically.”