Praxeology
In philosophy, praxeology or praxiology (/ˌpræksiˈɒlədʒi/; from Ancient Greek πρᾶξις (praxis) 'deed, action' and -λογία (-logia) 'study of') is the theory of human action, based on the notion that humans engage in purposeful behavior, contrary to reflexive behavior and other unintentional behavior.
French social philosopher Alfred Espinas gave the term its modern meaning, and praxeology was developed independently by two principal groups: the Austrian school, led by Ludwig von Mises, and the Polish school, led by Tadeusz Kotarbiński.[1]
Origin and etymology
[edit] | This section contains close paraphrasing of a non-free copyrighted source, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100063026 (Copyvios report). (December 2023) |
Coinage of the word praxeology (praxéologie) is often credited to Louis Bourdeau, the French author of a classification of the sciences, which he published in his Théorie des sciences: Plan de Science intégrale in 1882:[2]
On account of their dual natures of specialty and generality, these functions should be the subject of a separate science. Some of its parts have been studied for a long time, because this kind of research, in which man could be the main subject, has always presented the greatest interest. Physiology, hygiene, medicine, psychology, animal history, human history, political economy, morality, etc. represent fragments of a science that we would like to establish, but as fragments scattered and uncoordinated have remained until now only parts of particular sciences. They should be joined together and made whole in order to highlight the order of the whole and its unity. Now you have a science, so far unnamed, which we propose to call Praxeology (from πραξις, action), or by referring to the influence of the environment, Mesology (from μεσος, environment).[3]
However, the term was used at least once previously (with a slight spelling difference), in 1608, by Clemens Timpler in his Philosophiae practicae systema methodicum:
There was Aretology: Following that Praxiology: which is the second part of the Ethics, in general, commenting on the actions of the moral virtues.[4]
It was later mentioned by Robert Flint in 1904 in a review of Bourdeau's Théorie des sciences.[2][5]
The modern definition of the word was first given by Alfred V. Espinas (1844–1922),[6] the French philosopher and sociologist; he was the forerunner of the Polish school of the science of efficient action.[2] The Austrian school of economics was based on a philosophical science of the same kind.[2]
With a different spelling, the word was used by the English psychologist Charles Arthur Mercier (in 1911), and proposed by Knight Dunlap to John B. Watson as a better name for his behaviorism, but Watson rejected it.[2] The Chinese physiologist of behavior Zing-Yang Kuo (b. 1898) adopted the term around 1935.[2][7] It was also used by William McDougall (in 1928 and later).[2][8]
Previously the word praxiology, with the meaning Espinas gave to it, was used by Tadeusz Kotarbiński (in 1923).[2] The Ukrainian economist Eugene Slutsky (1926) used it in his attempt to base economics on a theory of action.[2] It was also used by Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (1933), Russian Marxist Nikolai Bukharin (1888–1938) during the Second International Congress of History of Science and Technology in London (in 1931), and Polish scholar Oscar Lange (1904–1965) in 1959, and later.[2]
The Sicilian philosopher Carmelo Ottaviano was using the Italianised version, prassiologia, in his treatises starting from 1935, but in his own way, as a theory of politics.[2] After the Second World War the use of the term praxeology spread widely.[2] After the emigration of Mises to the US his pupil Murray Rothbard defended the praxeological approach.[2] A revival of Espinas's approach in France was revealed in the works of Pierre Massé (1946), the cybernetician, Georges Théodule Guilbaud (1953), the Belgian logician, Leo Apostel (1957), the cybernetician, Anatol Rapoport (1962), Henry Pierron, psychologist and lexicographer (1957), François Perroux, economist (1957), the social psychologist, Robert Daval (1963), the well-known sociologist, Raymond Aron (1963) and the methodologists, Abraham Antoine Moles and Roland Caude (1965).[2]
Under the influence of Tadeusz Kotarbiński, praxeology flourished in Poland.[2] A special "Centre of Praxeology" (Zaklad Prakseologiczny) was created under the organizational guidance of the Polish Academy of Sciences, with its own periodical (from 1962), called at first Materiały Prakseologiczne (Praxeological Papers), and then abbreviated to Prakseologia.[2] It published hundreds of papers by different authors, and the materials for a special vocabulary edited by Professor Tadeusz Pszczolowski, the leading praxeologist of the younger generation.[2] A sweeping survey of the praxeological approach is to be found in the paper by the French statistician Micheline Petruszewycz, "A propos de la praxéologie".[2][9]
Ludwig von Mises was influenced by several theories in forming his work on praxeology, including Immanuel Kant's works, Max Weber's work on methodological individualism, and Carl Menger's development of the subjective theory of value.[10]
Philosopher of science Mario Bunge published works of systematic philosophy that included contributions to praxeology.[11]: 407
Austrian economics
[edit]| Part of a series on the |
| Austrian school |
|---|
 |
 Business and economics portal |
Austrian economics in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises relies heavily on praxeology in the development of its economic theories.[12] Mises considered economics to be a sub-discipline of praxeology.[13] Austrian School economists, following Mises, use praxeology and deduction, rather than empirical studies, to determine economic principles. According to these theorists, with the action axiom as the starting point, it is possible to draw conclusions about human behavior that are both objective and universal. For example, the notion that humans engage in acts of choice implies that they have preferences, and this must be true for anyone who exhibits intentional behavior.[citation needed]
Advocates of praxeology also say that it provides insights for the field of ethics.[14]
Subdivisions
[edit]In 1951, Murray Rothbard divided the subfields of praxeology as follows:
- A. The Theory of the Isolated Individual (Crusoe Economics)
- B. The Theory of Voluntary Interpersonal Exchange (Catallactics, or the Economics of the Market)
- 1. Barter
- 2. With Medium of Exchange
- a. On the Unhampered Market
- b. Effects of Violent Intervention with the Market
- c. Effects of Violent Abolition of the Market (Socialism)
- C. The Theory of War – Hostile Action
- D. The Theory of Games (Game Theory) (e.g., von Neumann and Morgenstern)
- E. Unknown
At the time, topics C, D, and E were regarded by Rothbard as open research problems.[15]
Criticisms
[edit]Thomas Mayer has argued that, because praxeology rejects positivism and empiricism in the development of theories, it constitutes nothing less than a rejection of the scientific method. For Mayer, this invalidates the methodologies of the Austrian school of economics.[16][17] Austrians argue that empirical data itself is insufficient to describe economics; that consequently empirical data cannot falsify economic theory; that logical positivism cannot predict or explain human action; and that the methodological requirements of logical positivism are impossible to obtain for economic questions.[18][12] Ludwig von Mises in particular argued against empiricist approaches to the social sciences in general, because human events are unique and non-repeatable, whereas experiments in the physical sciences are necessarily reproducible.[18]
However, economist Antony Davies argues that because statistical tests are predicated on the independent development of theory, some form of praxeology is essential for model selection; conversely, praxeology can illustrate surprising philosophical consequences of economic models.[19]
Argentine-Canadian philosopher Mario Bunge dismissed von Mises's version of praxeology as "nothing but the principle of maximization of subjective utility—a fancy version of egoism".[11]: 394 Bunge, who was also a fierce critic of pseudoscience, warned that when "conceived in extremely general terms and detached from both ethics and science, praxiology has hardly any practical value".[11]: 394
See also
[edit]
References
[edit]- ^ Ryan, Leo V.; Nahser, F. Byron; Gasparski, Wojciech, eds. (2002). Praxiology and pragmatism. Praxiology: the international annual of practical philosophy and methodology. Vol. 10. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. pp. 7–9. ISBN 978-0765801678. OCLC 49617735.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Ostrowski, Jan J. (October 1968). "Book review: Praxiology—An Introduction to the Science of Efficient Action. By Tadeusz Kotarbinski. Translated from the Polish by Olgierd Wojtasiewicz. (Oxford, Pergamon Press; Warsaw, Polish Scientific Publishers, 1965. Pp. ii+219. Price 50s.)". Philosophy. 43 (166): 402–404. doi:10.1017/S0031819100063026. JSTOR 3750267. S2CID 170701970.
- ^ Bourdeau, Louis (1882). "Théorie des sciences: Plan de Science intégrale". Lilliad – Université de Lille – Sciences et Technologies. Tome Second: 463. Retrieved 4 February 2017.
À raison de leur double caractère de spécialité et de généralité, les fonctions doivent constituer l'objet d'une science distincte. Quelques—unes de ses parties ont été étudiées de bonne heure, car ce genre de recherches, dont l'homme pouvait se faire le sujet principal, a présenté de tout temps le plus vif intérêt. La physiologie, l'hygiène, la médecine, la psychologie, l'histoire des animaux, l'histoire humaine, l'économie politique, la morale, etc., représentent des fragments de la science que nous voudrions établir; mais fragments, épars et sans coordination, sont restés a l'état de sciences particulières. Il faudrait les rapprocher et en faire un tout afin de mettre en lumière l'ordre de l'ensemble et son unité. On aurait alors une… science, innommée jusqu'ici et que nous proposons d'appeler Praxéologie (de πραξις, action), ou, en se référant a l'influence des milieu, Mésologie (de μεơος, milieu).
- ^ Timpler, Clemens (1608). Philosophiae practicae systema methodicum. Vol. libris IV pertractatam. Hanoviae: Apud Gulielmum Antonio. p. 388. Retrieved 4 February 2017.
Fuit Aretologia: Sequitur Praxiologia: quæ est altera pars Ethicæ, tractans generaliter de actionibus moralibus.
- ^ Flint, Robert (1904). Philosophy as Scientia Scientiarum. Edinburgh. pp. 254–255.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ Ostrowski, Jean J. (July–September 1967). "Notes biographiques et bibliographiques sur Alfred Espinas". Review Philosophique de la France et de l'Étranger (3): 385–391.
- ^ Kuo, Zing Yang (January 1937). "Prolegomena to praxiology". The Journal of Psychology. 4 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1080/00223980.1937.9917522.
- ^ Watson, John B.; McDougall, William (1928). "Fundamentals of psychology—behaviorism examined". The Battle of Behaviorism: An Exposition and an Exposure. Psyche Miniatures. General Series. Vol. 19. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. p. 35. OCLC 6439698.
- ^ In Mathématiques et Sciences Humaines, Paris, Centre de mathématique sociale et de statistique-École Pratique des Hautes Études, No. 11. Ete, 1965, pp. 11–18, and a rejoinder 'Réponse a un appel' by J. Ostrowski, ibid, No. 19, Ete, 1967, pp. 21–26
- ^ Selgin, George A. (1987). "Praxeology and Understanding: An Analysis of the Controversy in Austrian Economics". Review of Austrian Economics. 2: 22. Retrieved 4 February 2017.
- ^ a b c Bunge, Mario (2016). Between Two Worlds: Memoirs of a Philosopher-Scientist. Springer Biographies. Berlin; New York: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29251-9. ISBN 978-3319292502. OCLC 950889848.
- ^ a b Rothbard, Murray N. (1976). "Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian Economics". The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics. pp. 19–39.
- ^ Mises, Ludwig von (1957). "Psychology and Thymology". Theory and History. pp. 272.
- ^ Rothbard, Murray N. "Praxeology, value judgments, and public policy." The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics (1976): 89–114.
- ^ Murray N. Rothbard. "Praxeology: Reply to Mr. Schuller", American Economic Review, December 1951, pp. 943–946.
- ^ Mayer, Thomas (Winter 1998). "Boettke's Austrian critique of mainstream economics: An empiricist's response" (PDF). Critical Review. 12 (1–2): 151–171. doi:10.1080/08913819808443491.(subscription required)
- ^ "Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Newton 1999, pp. 794–796, from Book 3, The System of the World.
- ^ a b Mises, Ludwig von (2003). Epistemological Problems of Economics. Translated by Reisman, George (3rd ed.). Ludwig von Mises Institute. ISBN 0945466366. Retrieved 31 January 2022.
- ^ Davies, Antony (12 September 2012). "Complementary Approaches". Cato Unbound. Retrieved 27 December 2016.
Further reading
[edit]Austrian school
[edit]- Selgin, George A. (December 1988). "Praxeology and understanding: an analysis of the controversy in Austrian Economics". The Review of Austrian Economics. 2 (1): 19–58. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.378.1506. doi:10.1007/BF01539297. S2CID 15604266.
- Smith, George H. (2008). "Praxeology". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; Cato Institute. pp. 387–388. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n239. ISBN 978-1412965804. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.
Polish school
[edit]- Gasparski, Wojciech W. (1992–). Praxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. OCLC 611063114
- Kotarbiński, Tadeusz (1965) [1955]. Praxiology: An Introduction to the Sciences of Efficient Action. Oxford; New York: Pergamon Press. ISBN 978-0080101101. OCLC 825097.