[Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:31:31 PM EST] Danny Sanchez : hi dr. gordon [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:32:06 PM EST] Danny Sanchez : yes [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:32:40 PM EST] Danny Sanchez : how about a Hegel joke? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:33:11 PM EST] Rothbardiantician : Hello, Dr. Gordon. Hello, Sanchez. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:34:34 PM EST] Danny Sanchez : oh ok. it happens. :) [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:35:18 PM EST] Danny Sanchez : stephan had bumped off bob the week before, so you avenged bob [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:44:40 PM EST] floylilley : Good evening, David. Xavier has just moved into your old apartment beside me - #4. We look forward to you joining us for ASC! [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:44:58 PM EST] floylilley : mid march! [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:46:00 PM EST] Andreas : You have any papers for the ASC mr. gordon? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:46:13 PM EST] floylilley : Xav will be with us until August 4th. Guido has him nose to the grindstone of derivitives. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:48:31 PM EST] tyler : hello [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:49:38 PM EST] tyler : im fine thank you [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:50:59 PM EST] Mike Stoddard : Dr Gordon, have you read Tibor Machan's "Objectivity" ? If so how do you rate it? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:51:31 PM EST] Mike Stoddard : Just bought it will let you know ;-)' [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:52:16 PM EST] Mike Stoddard : I must be dumb, but I had no idea syllogisms were so hard ;-) [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:53:09 PM EST] Matt Morrison : Good evening [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:53:11 PM EST] hakeem : In a syllogism, is it both or any one of the premises that MUST be extended? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:58:06 PM EST] Ned : logic joke? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:58:16 PM EST] Justin N : NO! [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:58:16 PM EST] Erick Nieves : Hello Professor Gordon [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:58:23 PM EST] Erick Nieves : Good [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:58:37 PM EST] Michael Ronall : Greetings. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:58:40 PM EST] Erick Nieves : Looking forward to your next class [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:58:47 PM EST] Sandra Martinez : Happy Thursday. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:58:51 PM EST] Michael Ronall : Seconded [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:58:58 PM EST] Jeremy M : Thirded [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:59:15 PM EST] Erick Nieves : Did anybody else have trouble signing up for the epistemology class? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:59:23 PM EST] Mike Stoddard : Logic joke [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:59:29 PM EST] Mike Stoddard : Jean-Paul Sartre is sitting at a French cafe, revising his draft of 'Being and Nothingness'.He says to the waitress, "I'd like a cup of coffee, please, with no cream."The waitress replies, "I'm sorry, monsieur, but we're out of cream. How about with no milk?" [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:59:44 PM EST] Michael Ronall : I recommended a book in the Questions forum; do you know it? Barbara Celarent. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:59:55 PM EST] Michael Ronall : yes. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 06:59:57 PM EST] Ivan Castro : Good evening everyone [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:00:26 PM EST] Justin N : @Erick - yes but it's working now with paypal [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:00:59 PM EST] Andy : haha [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:01:20 PM EST] Andreas : no [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:01:23 PM EST] Danny Sanchez : Geist told him what would be in the bill [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:01:45 PM EST] Erick Nieves : Thanks Justin [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:06:56 PM EST] Erick Nieves : Theres no way to verify [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:07:02 PM EST] floylilley : hypothetical? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:07:04 PM EST] Michael Ronall : tautology? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:07:17 PM EST] Andreas : Why sould this claim be permenet? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:07:20 PM EST] Fernando Chiocca : “Columbus complex”? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:08:18 PM EST] Jeremy : there may be other grounds for objection [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:08:52 PM EST] MattBeckett : Can't get the audio or video today. Going to have do the session later. Bye bye. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:15:47 PM EST] Michael Ronall : Interesting that they don't contradict themselves that way! [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:18:41 PM EST] Michael Ronall : So it's not a very strong claim. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:18:44 PM EST] BillG : Is this a matter of real vs. conceptual order? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:18:45 PM EST] Jeremy : so then if you begin with an A premise does that always have to be a self-evident truth? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:18:46 PM EST] Joe : counting heads is knowing future knowledge [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:19:09 PM EST] Gerry : YES [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:19:12 PM EST] Erick Nieves : Obviously impossible [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:19:18 PM EST] Andreas : It seems we could be good resoning in some casses [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:19:19 PM EST] Erick Nieves : Too many people to count [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:19:33 PM EST] Aneesh Mulye : It would depend on whether or not the first premise was arrived at by enumeration or deductively. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:19:40 PM EST] BillG : Again, perhaps it is a case of real vs. conceptual order. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:20:15 PM EST] Jeremy : @Gerry: was that "yes" for my question? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:20:37 PM EST] Erick Nieves : We could never know the satndard syllogism this way. No way to know mortality of every man unless we ourselves didn't die, but we'd wait for eternity to prove it [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:20:46 PM EST] BillG : It seem sot me the empiricist position is saying that deduction is really just induction. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:20:53 PM EST] Alan E. : unless you asked them anonymously [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:21:02 PM EST] Michael Ronall : A form of affirming the consequent? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:22:50 PM EST] Joe : there's no inference to this method [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:22:55 PM EST] Matt Morrison : is Dictum de Omni et Nullo contrary to the fallacy of composition? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:26:36 PM EST] Ned : No thought given to supply. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:27:59 PM EST] Weldy : I suppose an ocean of water would be more valuable than a microscopic diamond. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:32:05 PM EST] Aneesh Mulye : The fallacy of division is applicable to the real order, or the conceptual? Or both? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:35:40 PM EST] Jeremy : but what if my happiness is punching Krugman in the face? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:36:29 PM EST] Erick Nieves : What about the natural laws? Has anyone objected to them on this basis? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:36:36 PM EST] Joe : some people just don't like to see others happy [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:37:45 PM EST] Erick Nieves : lol [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:38:16 PM EST] Michael Ronall : Aggragated assault. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:38:19 PM EST] Andy : @Jeremy, It would depend on whether you or Krugman were more valuable to society [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:38:25 PM EST] Gerry : But Mill's this argument sounds intuitive [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:38:32 PM EST] BillG : I have never understood how the utilitarians can jump from the individual's happiness to the abstract "aggregate hapiness". [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:39:17 PM EST] Alan E. : Mill's argument ignores the likelihood that the bases of individual happiness will be mutually exclusive [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:39:25 PM EST] Michael Ronall : False coonsciousness... [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:40:05 PM EST] Aneesh Mulye : The last conclusion simply doesn't follow? The premises are plausibility claims; there's no actual argument in there. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:40:10 PM EST] Joe : his premisses are false [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:41:44 PM EST] David C : Universally desired [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:42:21 PM EST] Aneesh Mulye : Even if he meant 'desirable' in the sense of 'capable of being an object of desire', the objection of this being a non-argument still applies. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:43:34 PM EST] David C : Intent doesn't imply success? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:47:33 PM EST] Israel : what is meant by mood? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:48:53 PM EST] Erick Nieves : Mood: The possible combinations of propositions and conclusion. Valid moods are ones that can actually give a conclusion [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:49:37 PM EST] Andy : so, "No men are mortals" would reduce to "All men are non-mortals"? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:49:50 PM EST] Israel : thanks [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:53:07 PM EST] yoshi : why not some mortal are not men? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:56:08 PM EST] Erick Nieves : A propositions are converted by interchanging S and P and dropping it to an i Proposition. E and I propositions are converted by interchanging S and P [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:58:48 PM EST] Michael Ronall : All even numbers are divisible by 2. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 07:58:59 PM EST] BillG : real vs. conceptual order? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:00:24 PM EST] Michael Ronall : Wouldn't Mill have to examine every assertion to find none are analytic? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:03:22 PM EST] Mike Stoddard : "Imposed" or agreed upon [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:03:24 PM EST] Aneesh Mulye : That's not the dichotomy that free-marketers refer to and criticise, though, is it? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:03:44 PM EST] Ned : the law merchant! [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:04:15 PM EST] Danny Sanchez : What bearing does the "problem of universals" have on logic? Is scholastic logic compatible with nominalism? Does it presuppose a kind of conceptualism or realism? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:04:37 PM EST] Andreas : I think you wrong about what you said on slide 6. It seems to me we could get new information from 'All students in this class are intrested in logic'. What if you said you asked all the people in this class if they intresed in logic. Then you told us that 'All students in this class are intrested in logic' then I meet somone who's taking this class, couldent I then conclude that this person is intresed in logic? I think the mistake is the assumption that you can only know this is true if you counted each person. I dont see why this is true. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:04:39 PM EST] Erick Nieves : I'm wrestling with the same thing [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:08:02 PM EST] Aneesh Mulye : Two questions on 'aggregate utility': 1) Given that Mises is a utilitarian, how does 'aggregate utility' relate to the ideas of the incommensurability of subjective utility and methodological individualism? And 2) Does Mises treat 'aggregate utility' distributively, as opposed to the collective use implicit in etatist justifications of 'utility-enhancing' interventions? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:09:05 PM EST] Erick Nieves : About nominalism and realism, I think that definition saves the day in connecting logic to the real order. We define things by their nature from the real order, then that definition becomes the logical concept.Yet, if our definition is amendable,our concepts are amendable. What do you think? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:09:25 PM EST] Erick Nieves : This is what i think Popper is getting at [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:09:48 PM EST] Andy : can't you know that all students who are taking the class are interested in logic without having to ask each one beforehand, by assuming that if they weren't interested in logic, then they wouldn't take the class? Or does that still fail to resolve the problem? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:10:09 PM EST] Jonathan Nebel : I think Mises had a much more nuanced view of his utilitarianism. I would certainly be shocked if he completely neglected to address the problem of inter-subjective utility. He is more focused on general ideas that we all like peace, prosperity, and the like, and, if you like those things, liberty is best. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:11:56 PM EST] Erick Nieves : Isn't an essence a definition [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:12:42 PM EST] Michael Ronall : Enrolled in error... [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:13:05 PM EST] Erick Nieves : Popper may not believe in ethereal essences, but isn't an essence, for the purpose of logic, a definition? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:13:18 PM EST] Sandra Martinez : the jokes are definite plus [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:13:35 PM EST] Jonathan Nebel : What was the guy's name again who wrote the book about Mises' utilitarianism? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:13:45 PM EST] Danny Sanchez : Hazlitt's Foundations of Morality is an excellent exposition of sophisticated utilitarianism [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:14:24 PM EST] Brian Gladish : Leland Yeager [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:14:28 PM EST] BillG : Even Hazlitt seemed to make the leap from the individual to the mystical aggregate hapiness. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:15:26 PM EST] Danny Sanchez : I'm surprised that when they say "utilitarianism" most Misesians always seem to refer to Bentham's and Mill's utilitarianism, and not Mises' and Hazlitt's. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:15:27 PM EST] David Gordon : Leland Yeager [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:15:46 PM EST] Michael Ronall : frozen sound and image [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:15:50 PM EST] Michael Ronall : ah back [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:16:00 PM EST] floylilley : Leland is still alive. Lives here in Auburn. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:16:38 PM EST] Justin N : What do you think of Mill's concept of collective opinion in On Liberty? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:17:05 PM EST] Danny Sanchez : but you could say the same about "inflation" and mainstream economists [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:18:20 PM EST] Danny Sanchez : (regarding "utilitarianism" and mainstream philosophers) [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:19:18 PM EST] Jonathan Nebel : Personally, I'm excited for that course! [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:19:18 PM EST] Andreas : Good plug! [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:19:45 PM EST] joelpettit : Have you ever read Geach's essay on nominalism? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:19:52 PM EST] Danny Sanchez : I just think Mises' utilitarianism makes more sense then Rothbard's natural rights position. And Rothbard seems to be winning by default, because the utilitarianism everyone is rejecting is something of a strawman [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:20:32 PM EST] Jonathan Nebel : I find myself leaning more and more your way, Danny. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:20:33 PM EST] BillG : I think nat. rights=utilitarianism b/c natural rights=what is good for man. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:20:52 PM EST] Rothbardiantician : Mises' utilitarianism is nuanced. He talks about how self-interest explains why men peacefully exist with others. And that every action is acted upon based on self-interest to maximize utility. But then he talks about self-interest “properly understood” such that one man's self-interest, and want to maximize utility, doesn't go against the interest of society at large. He seems to admit there can be a conflict between individual’s “selfishness” and “society”. E.g., if a man hates his children, we might say that he maximizes his utility to do bad things to them, but it would be bad for society as a whole. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:20:53 PM EST] joelpettit : that's interesting [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:21:44 PM EST] Brian Gladish : Danny, I second you on that. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:21:56 PM EST] Ned : How important to our understanding of logic is knowledge of the 19 moods? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:21:59 PM EST] joelpettit : I'm Catholic, so Rothbard's approach just feels natural to me... [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:22:06 PM EST] Andy : I don't know, I think I lean toward Rothbard [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:23:00 PM EST] Aneesh Mulye : I'm taking the time out to read the text cover to cover, thoroughly. Is there anything I should be careful about in this regard? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:23:09 PM EST] Andreas : YA! Mooriens! [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:23:12 PM EST] Erick Nieves : Don't Utilitarian and Natural law theories both derive commands from descriptions? Isn't this a fallacy per David Hume? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:23:27 PM EST] Andreas : Any other intuitionist here? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:24:01 PM EST] Danny Sanchez : Erick, no not Mises' utilitarianism. I discuss that in the second page of my Why Capitalism topic in the mises forums: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/22196.aspx [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:24:14 PM EST] joelpettit : I will say, I'm not sure why Rothbard provides the critique of Mises he does in Ethics of Liberty...it doesn't really seem to fit [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:24:27 PM EST] Aneesh Mulye : With reference to the material in the text, I mean. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:24:29 PM EST] Erick Nieves : Thanks Danny. I'll check it out. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:24:32 PM EST] BillG : Ought=what would lead to fulfillment, since there is no other reasonable reason for acting. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:25:34 PM EST] Andreas : You said your somthing of an intuitionist, whats your take on Pichard? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:25:46 PM EST] Erick Nieves : Danny, Is Rothbard guilty of this fallacy? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:26:21 PM EST] Danny Sanchez : I tend to think so. I also discuss that in the thread I linked to above. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:26:45 PM EST] Erick Nieves : Thank you much. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:27:13 PM EST] Erick Nieves : lol [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:28:02 PM EST] Max : Ah! So that's what happened! [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:28:03 PM EST] Andreas : lol [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:28:21 PM EST] yoshi : since austrians believe value is subjective, do any think the same thing about morality? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:28:23 PM EST] Michael Ronall : Excluded middle. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:28:29 PM EST] Andreas : Ha [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:28:39 PM EST] Max : He did the same thing to Bob Murphy, so probably had it coming. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:28:43 PM EST] Ned : You have the POWER to rule. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:28:51 PM EST] Erick Nieves : Is the State preventing the mises institute from accredidation? Seems like they'd have an interest in doing so. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:28:52 PM EST] Andreas : May I ask how you got into austro-libertarianism? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:29:18 PM EST] Brian Gladish : Yoshi, all economists believe values are subjective. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:30:01 PM EST] Brian Gladish : The question is whether values are relative. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:30:17 PM EST] Justin N : Who do you think was nuttier; Mill or Rand? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:30:22 PM EST] Max : @Erick, that's been on my mind too. It would be great to hear of any future plans for Mises Academy. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:30:22 PM EST] Danny Sanchez : Didn't Keynes send students to other lectures to harangue rival professors? Good thing he didn't have dimdim [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:30:39 PM EST] Andy : thanks Dr. Gordon [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:30:44 PM EST] Justin N : Thanks for the lecture [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:30:52 PM EST] Erick Nieves : Any recommendations for someone contemplating a career in economics or any of the ancillary disciplines in defense of Austrian Libertarianism? Do we have to get brainwashed to get a degree? [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:31:02 PM EST] Kevin : thanks [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:31:03 PM EST] Ned : Thanks, looking forward to next weeks joke. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:31:18 PM EST] Andreas : thanks! see you next week! [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:31:20 PM EST] Matthew : great lecture thanks a lot! [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:31:29 PM EST] Jonathan Nebel : Thanks! [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:31:29 PM EST] Peggy : I'm enjoying this course! [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:31:29 PM EST] Erick Nieves : Gnite! [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:31:30 PM EST] Max : Thank you [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:31:30 PM EST] joelpettit : thanks prof gordon! [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:31:34 PM EST] Danny Sanchez : thank you! [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:31:35 PM EST] Savannah : thank you! [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:31:35 PM EST] floylilley : night [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:31:36 PM EST] Adam : Thank you! [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:31:36 PM EST] Aneesh Mulye : Thanks, Prof. Gordon! [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:31:37 PM EST] Michael Ronall : Salut! [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:31:38 PM EST] Rothbardiantician : Thank you once again, Dr. Gordon. See you next time. [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:31:42 PM EST] Brian Gladish : Thanks [Thu 10 Feb 2011 08:31:44 PM EST] Matt Morrison : thanks