Just at that moment where you started mentioning
the interpretation of that reality that makes the person
arises the issue of hermeneutics precisely.
In which authors and what is the basic idea?
The first one that began to delve into this line was Ludwig Lachmann,
when Lachmann begins to remember that there is a strong influence of Max Weber in Mises
by the issue of understanding of social phenomena
and it is one of the starting points of contemporary hermeneutics,
i.e., hermeneutics pass if you want by authors like William Dilthey and Max Weber
and Max Weber is giving its rotation "ontological turn" as the philosophers say,
in authors like Heidegger and then there are authors who attempt to return to a hermeneutics
that does not have the deep problems of Heidegger such as Gadamer or Ricoeur.
Lachmann starts remembering all this issue,
and Lachmann in '80 at NYU influences a lot in Don Lavoie
and Lavoie in turn influences a lot in certain authors such as, at its time were
Richard Ebeling, Roger Garrison and Don Lavoie was in turn important austrian professors today,
who are around 50 years old like Peter Boettke and [David] Prychitko, [Steven] Horwitz,
and they are trying to follow the Don Lavoie path.
Don Lavoie tried to incorporate the hermeneutical continental theme, especially Gadamer and Heidegger,
into the Austrian School.
But that's where the main references of the Austrian School at the time, put their alarm,
mainly, for various reasons, Rothbard and Kirzner,
Kirzner because believed that Lachmann practically became skeptical
towards the possibilities of coordination in the market
and Rothbard because thought that all this hermeneutics line was inevitably linked to a kind of historical relativism.
My theory is that maybe there wasn't enough time to deepen
a hermeneutics that could clear the problem of historical relativism
which would have brought back the famous problem of historicism, the classic enemy,
as I like to say, the archenemy of the Austrians in the "Austrian Gotham City".
Then one of the main archenemies is historicism
and if historicism returns, they would have to fight back against the Joker and could not be that.
Then everyone a little scared but why?
Because there was no time perhaps, Don Lavoie died young at 51, finished doing that project.
And now somehow the only ones which, according to my vague references keep trying,
say my vague references not for them but for me, are Peter Boettke and his group of core friends,
which they are Prychitko, Horwitz.
There may be more and if I forget important one is very unfair,
of course there are previous generations.
Not to mention Alfred Schütz
and I forget an author who is very important that I owe to you,
that studied the relationship between Husserl and the Austrian School very well, I think it's Barry Smith.
But as for the new ones is this line. But this line continues to work at this point.
What is the point to be secure?
An anchored hermeneutic in the Husserl's phenomenology. What does this mean?
I give an example:
Suppose the Mises definition of money.
He says: The money is a general exchange medium, a medium of exchange is generally a good,
we know, no demand for direct consumption, but to exchange for other goods
and so we will use for direct consumption.
What Mises is doing in this case?
He is taking what from Husserl's phenomenology would call a phenomenological description
of essence or nature of the coin.
And that can be done only in social sciences in principle,
where we can know what the ends of the actions being crosslinked are, or
what is the purpose of this inter-subjetive relationship that we call monetary exchange.
The end is precisely that which is placed in the definition, none other.
And this doesn't imply relativism. But go to the nature of the inter-relationship.
In turn What is the relationship of this with the historical?
The historical is that this inter-subjetive relationship we call currency
always really occurs in historical worlds of life.
What does it mean? That is not the currency in a cloud
but is the Roman currency, the currency in New York, the currency of the late nineteenth century, etc.
However none of these historical perspectives is contradictory to what the currency is in itself,
which means that what a hermeneutic phenomenology sets up
is that the very nature of the instersubjetives relationships,
that in the case of the economy we call interest rate, currency, price, etc.,
always historically is given without contradicting the general essence.
What makes the economy as a universal science
Is try to describe what these inter-relationships in themselves are
and then that can be easily applied to the specific economic circumstances.
Where they are given.
Where these "exist".
And that's the reason why von Mises could interact so well, he, as a theoretical economist and cojunture economist.
Because the historical circumstances is not refuting their phenomenological descriptions
but it allowed him to apply them to different circumstances.
I think this is what we need to finish making
to place the Austrian School on, one side, in the Husserl's phenomenology,
and this is related to Aristotle and the Scholastics
which they are also philosophies that have to do with that intentional human action.
And ultimately it would have relationship with a perspective that integrates the nervous system
to the the 'spiritual world' as would the neo-Kantians say,
because we are not talking about a human being who has an intentional human action
detached from his corporeal action.
This Husserl had already said at the time ...
but I say all this to connect it with the famous Hayek's book 'The Sensory Order.'
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét