April 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
Blog powered by Typepad

« The Social Philosophy of Ludwig von Mises is Not the Same as Either Murray Rothbard's or Ayn Rand's | Main | Mises, Hazlitt, and Rule Consequentialism »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Hooray. No more trying to read the crazy letters and reproducing them. Sometimes one cannot tell whether a stray mark is intended or not.

I think there is an issue you may be neglecting, Brian, one I have grelappd with in the past. I must admit, however, that my attempts to address the issue have dealt with Schutz, not Weber, so there is an issue of whether Schutz missed anything in Weber. In Schutz , sociology is about meant meanings. But spontaneous order analysis is about the unintended consequences of human action. Precisely because they are unintended, such consequences of action cannot have meant meanings. There is no difference in meaning in the different grammatical rules of English and Hungarian. The division of labor has no meaning to be interpretted, nor do the statistical pattern in financial markets such as fat tails in the distribution of price changes.In your step (3) of identifying the patterns of interaction we may wish to or have to use methods other than interpretation of meaning. I am pretty confident in saying Schutz didn't really see that. He missed the possibility that some consequences of human action were not products of action in his sense because they are not typified by the actors themselves. Thus, there is no first-order construct to construe for your theory.It is my impression that Weber also failed to explicitly recognize this non-interpretive dimension to sociology. I have discussed this issue a few times, including the 2nd chapter of my 2002 book on Big Players. @gabrielrossman:Weber and Mises were personally very friendly and Mises was greatly influenced by Weber. Weber may have come out of the older historical school, but he was fully on-board with marginalism. Also, Menger dedicated his 1871 book to two of the leading lights of the older historical school. The methodenstreit was real, but the cross-currents can get a little tricky. Pretty much, IMHO, Mises was a Weberian.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books