Praxeology - Episode 4 - The Prerequisites of Action

[dubified89]

I guess the only criticism I have is that maybe you could say person instead of man just to be clear.

[ohedd]

So this is PaulGirl? Much better than ObamaGirl..

[dantean]

Does not the first premise--that action aims at addressing an uneasiness--require I believe that Warren Buffett made his 56 billionth dollar because he was uneasy with merely having 55? One certainly can say this must be the case, though only by very, very loosely interpreting the word "unease."

[jeffiek]

@dantean Yes, the interpretation of "unease" is very loose. I prefer "aware that choices are available, and that one must be made" a more precise albeit long and awkward phrase.

For example: Upon hearing "Do you want cream cheese on your bagel?", the customer is now in a state of unease ( as I understand praxeological terms ). Not exactly your everyday use of the word, but I can deal with it.

[dantean]

@jeffiek I'm not 2 moved by the notion that being "aware that choices are available and aware that one must be made" suffices to explain acting. We often don't act despite being aware of choices, while action often is undertaken despite not being required (Warren Buffett's 56th billion dollar). I love Ludwig Von Mises' "Human Action" aesthetically tho I find it surprisingly easy 2 dismantle as a work of air-tight logic. It seems to make conservatives happy tho...the way Marx does 4 many lefties.

[jeffiek]

@dantean "We often don't act despite being aware of choices,"

Have it your way if you must, but first re-read what I wrote.

NOT acting (when action is possible), IS a choice.

[dantean]

@jeffiek I think we're back to my original problem with there is not being such a thing as NOT choosing. Because if NOT choosing = choosing, there needs to be a reason why we've made everything choosing. Why not make everything NOT choosing? They're the same, right?! Deciding to make everything one and not the other appears arbitrary to me, not mathematical, apodeictically (did I spell that correctly?) necessary, or inescapable. Choosing cannot equal NOT choosing--it's madness.

[jeffiek]

@dantean That tears it. Are you daft or a troll?

Do you understand the difference between ACTING and CHOOSING?

Yes - choosing = not choosing -- IS madness. And YOU are the only person I have ever seen write such gibberish.

[dantean]

@jeffiek Look up the meaning of "=" if you like, but I think you'll find that it means that two things are the same. Hence, if I say that NOT x (whether acting or choosing) is the same as or equal to x, then to label "a" an instance of acting (or choosing) is the same as calling it an instance of NOT acting (or chosing). I can't tell you how much I've enjoyed this (I really can't) and want to wish u luck in your job down at the bowling alley. I support you in all your future endeavors.

[jeffiek]

@dantean Ans: A daft troll

[kalimbamagic]

Just finished reading David Eagleman's book "Incognito - the secret lives of the brain" - an excellent read. One of his main points is that many (most?) convicted criminals have very poor impulse control. They, like I, recognize "It is wrong to kill John", but the part of their brain that prevents ME from acting on my impulse to kill John just doesn't work so well.

In other words, real brains in real people might not follow this purposeful action framework quite as clearly as Praxgirl would.

[kalimbamagic]

In other words, for many criminals "Killing John" is akin to "my leg just kicked because you hit my knee in the right place."

[JaceJohanson]

@kalimbamagic That does, in no way, invalidate the framework. The brain is a muscle. That a being would have an atrophied muscle does not invalidate how it functions as a muscle in general, but only how it functions as a muscle for himself. If you're looking for excuse rhetoric, you won't find it in this subject matter. Projection doesn't lend itself to logic. Pay attention to what is actually being presented. What you would attempt apply it to is your own matter.

[ac3raven]

Why is "the belief action will work" a prerequisite? I can imagine a variety of scenarios where I act either without first assessing my belief in the effectiveness of an action, or with the belief that the action will not work.

For instance, I boycott a company's product because I do not like it, but often I realize that I will have no effect, and I still do it.

[cbl2988]

@ac3raven It doesn't work in the sense that the boycott would be effective, it works in the sense that it would ease the state that you were in. The fact that you chose to boycott directly follows from your state of not liking a product, imagining what would help your uneasiness (boycotting the product), and acting on that on the basis of a belief that the action would help your uneasy state. The product doesn't go away, but your action helps cure the uneasiness you feel.

[stauguastine]

Rhetoric but eloquently stated. Whatever I will and then take an action to bring into full fruition is nothing more than an expression of what I truly value. Therefore, if an alcoholic chooses not to recover when there is a viable solution then he or she should be left to their own consequences paying dignity to their own individuality and choice. I will invest my efforts in those that choose recovery, for it is the wisest investment and use of my resources.

[stauguastine]

My point would be this, if one removes the consequences for the addict or alcoholic then the same will not be motivated to change the behavior. Many government funded programs do exactly that; therefore, perpetuating the very problem they profess to be helping.

[stauguastine]

Yes I am very familiar with the brain's chemistry and addiction; like the production of Tetrahydroisoquinoline in the brains of alcoholics and heroin addicts. However, this does not invalidate the original proposition, as some counselors might suggest. If there is no choice then I guess there are literally millions of folks in the 12 step programs that are not "really" addicts and alcoholics. Again, if there is no choice then why counsel an addict to make a better choice?

[LostRituals]

@stauguastine Ok, that makes sense. Both choice and addiction play their part and in some cases maybe just one of them?

[stauguastine]

@LostRituals Always both have a part to play. If the alcoholic refrains from taking the first drink then the spree is not set in motion. Granted, once the alcoholic begins then he or she will not stop until the spree is over. Nevertheless, at some point the opportunity will present itself to make a choice. If there is no choice then one cannot be held accountable for one's actions, which is the premise of steps 4 & 5 and 8 & 9.

[stauguastine]

@LostRituals If one has no choice then making an amends and restitution for harm done when drinking or drugging is not appropriate. It is only when someone has a choice in the matter that they can be held accountable. The evidence will yield that when addicts and alcoholics take ownership for their behavior they recover.

[LostRituals]

@stauguastine I found interesting quote regarding this:

I can do what I will: I can, if I will, give everything I have to the poor and thus become poor myself — if I will! But I cannot will this, because the opposing motives have much too much power over me for me to be able to. On the other hand, if I had a different character, even to the extent that I were a saint, then I would be able to will it. But then I could not keep from willing it, and hence I would have to do so.

-Schopenhauer

[Septeus7]

Real Men are unhappy i.e. uneasy! So the essence of humanity is to suffer. If that isn't Oligarchical principle then I don't know what would define one.

People can only be motivated out of pain. No "uneasiness" no work. or "beat the slaves" else they become happy and lazy.

You think this Austrain? haha this that old sadistic pedophile Jeremy Bentham and great lover of British Imperialism. The Austrain School is anti-American.

[robertetaylor]

@Septeus7 listen, you clearly sound like a smart guy. She's only using "uneasiness" in a formal sense. She simply means you value your current state less than the state you choose to attain in the future. She's pretty clear about it. Don't mock her.

[Septeus7]

Once again this absurd nonsense.

I do not have a imagine a "without uneasiness" in order to to act. I just have to imagine a state a possible change. "Uneasiness" has nothing to do with it. I may in fact want more "uneasiness" compared to doing a sicken easy task. Man may act to increase complexity for because he finds it more beautiful. Complexity in action cannot be "easiness" less you reduce it to a meaningless statement again.

[CleverDjembe]

With this video I was able to relieve my "state of uneasiness" with great pleasure!

[stauguastine]

What matter is this, I was uneasy about my time constraints and felt that speeding would remove the uneasiness. Now, in the long run my plan failed because I have now expended more time than I would have saved. It still does not matter why I was speeding; the only thing that matter is the analysis of whether my actions achieved my desired goal, and in this instance they did not.

[stauguastine]

Let us apply it in an example. The justice system would be better served, and people, if police, judges, and attorneys concerned themselves less with the "why" of someone breaking the law. When I am pulled over for speeding I have broken the law and it does not matter why - I still get a ticket. Save me the time and bother Officer and do not ask me why I was speeding - it really does not matter.

[stauguastine]

In response to Groove Patriot, how about this perspective; that one can imagine a more satisfactory state than is the current one. Therefore, the actor will act to bring about that "more satisfactory" state. By definition, the current state is a state of uneasiness. That is, if the state of one's affairs were completely satisfactory then one would not act.

[GroovePatriot]

Ever read Rothbard's correction of Mises on this?

[GroovePatriot]

To claim that the motivation of man's action is a state of uneasiness is metaphysical pessimism. It is evil to claim happiness is not possible without prior unhappiness or suffering.

Rather, man acts to sustain and generate his ultimate value: life. Life is not basically dissatisfying but remarkable. Example: great sex is not an escape from personal loneliness; it is an expression of achieving love and exalting life. Sex motivated by loneliness is sad. Sex motivate by love is happy. Disagree?

[stauguastine]

Thanks for these videos, they are truly helpful to me as I work on some of my own applications of praxeology in addressing alcohol abuse. The state of uneasiness that one feels is applicable to the dependent codependent relationship of alcoholism. That is, if the codependent removes the uneasiness, consequence, of the dependent drinker, then he or she will not act to change the behavior. However, there are many clinicians who need to learn this valuable lesson.

[praxgirl]

@stauguastine wow thanks for that :)

[LostRituals]

@stauguastine Or there is a substance dependence in the brain's chemistry....

[stauguastine]

@LostRituals Yes I am very familiar with the brain's chemistry and addiction; like the production of Tetrahydroisoquinoline in the brains of alcoholics and heroin addicts. However, this does not invalidate the original proposition, as some counselors might suggest. If there is no choice then I guess there are literally millions of folks in the 12 step programs that are not "really" addicts and alcoholics. Again, if there is no choice then why counsel an addict to make a better choice?

[prashnrao]

Though I like what you're doing with these videos, I find it distracting (extremely) when you keep getting zoomed in and out like that, after every sentence :-(. So much so that I can't focus on what you are saying at all. Can you (plural) please not do that?

[prashnrao]

@NNoPsych I'm not a doctor. If you have a problem with it, you'd be better find a doctor close by.

[prashnrao]

@NNoPsych Good. In that case, you'd be better off visiting a psychiatrist.

[NNoPsych]

@prashnrao I want to see your penis!

[abskebabs]

Thank you so much for doing this! You are my new favorite person in this world.

[betolimoun]

is "non-action" also to be considered as action? Many people also thrive in removing uneasiness by not acting...

[VeridisQuoTube]

@betolimoun that was already answered in the last episode. :D

[savvysymbiont]

and women...?

[gergenheimer]

@savvysymbiont The masculine nomenclature is understood to be the generic pronoun for any generic person - male or female. It's a holdover from a bygone era, but we have yet to come up with an equally concise way to refer to a generic human being.

[praxgirl]

@gergenheimer I sometimes consider using "actor" (but it doesn't ring nicely) because Praxeology applies even to hypothetical alien lifeforms that act purposefully :D

[Warrenisit]

I can't focus!

[tsummerlee]

This is great stuff!

[bodybuilder444444]

Always a pleasure to watch your videos! You SHOULD be a #1 on youtube.