Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Essentialism in the Austrian School

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Was Ludwig von Mises a Conventionalist?

  • 336 Accesses

Abstract

Rothbard, Long, and Hoppe provide alternative defenses of praxeology. Rothbard champions an essentialist position. Therefore, the view held by representatives as well as by critics of the Austrian School and according to which the two most influential praxeologists, Mises and Rothbard, at the end of the day share similar epistemological positions is rejected. What is more, a conventionalist defense of praxeology passes Rothbard’s criteria for a fundamental axiom, whereas his own essentialist arguments fail to do so. Nominalism, a subjective value theory, and methodological individualism are incoherent with essentialism. Menger’s and Mises’ nominalist conceptual analysis is contrasted with Wieser’s twofold essentialist position.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For instance, Stolyarov (2007) identifies the epistemological positions of Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe.

  2. 2.

    Confer Miller (1994) for an analysis of the influence of the epistemological status of a theory on its relation to applying the theory to practical problems.

  3. 3.

    Regarding the hypothesis of a correlation between epistemological and political positions, Spann and Wieser might offer an occasion for an interesting case study: Tracing the path of Wieser’s parallel radicalization in philosophy of science and in politics might be a worthwhile task.

References

  • Friedman, David. 1988. “The Trouble with Hoppe”. Liberty 2(2): 44.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1995. Economic Science and the Austrian Method. Auburn, Ala: Ludwig Von Mises Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klausinger, H. 2015. “Hans Mayer, Last Knight of the Austrian School, Vienna Branch”. History of Political Economy 47(2): 271–305. doi: 10.1215/00182702-2884333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008. “Wittgenstein, Praxeology, and Frege’s Three Realms. Wirth Conference on What Is Austrian”. In Austrian Economics, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action – Praxeological Investigations. Auburn, AL: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1989. Zu den Lösungsversuchen des Induktionsproblems und des Abgrenzungsproblems bei Carl Menger. Sitzungsberichte/Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 541. Wien: Verl. d. Österreich. Akad. d. Wiss.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1992a. “Nationalism, Volksgeist, and the Methods of Economics: A Note on Ranke, Roscher, and Menger”. History of European Ideas 15: 163–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008. “Inductivism and Anti-Essentialism in Menger’s Work”. In Carl Menger: Neu Erörtert Unter Einbeziehung Nachgelassener Texte, edited by Gilles Campagnolo and Stephan Haltmayer, 59–86. Wiener Arbeiten zur Philosophie Reihe B, Beiträge zur philosophischen Forschung 17, Lang: Frankfurt am Main.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. “A Note on Menger’s Problem Situation and Non-Essentialist Approach to Economics.” In Hagemann, Nishizawa, and Ikeda 2010, 154–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. “Zur Entwicklung der Volkswirtschaftslehre an der Universität Wien von 1763 bis 1976”. In Reflexive Innensichten aus der Universität: Disziplinengeschichten zwischen Wissenschaft, Gesellschaft und Politik, edited by Karl Fröschl, Gerd B. Müller, Thomas Olechowski, and Brigitta Schmidt-Lauber, 341–354 650 Jahre Universität Wien – Aufbruch ins neue Jahrhundert; Bd. 4. Göttingen: V&R unipress.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Milford, Karl, and Peter Rosner. 1997. “Die Abkoppelung der Ökonomie an der Universität Wien nach 1920”. In Zur deutschsprachigen wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Emigration nach 1933, edited by Harald Hagemann, 479–502. Marbug: Metropolis-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, David W. 1994. Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defence. Chicago: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. (1933) 2003. Epistemological Problems of Economics. 3rd edn. Auburn, AL: Ludwig Von Mises Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. (1940, 1978) 2009. Memoirs. Auburn, AL: Ludwig Von Mises Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. (1934) 2012. “Maxims for the Discussion of Methodological Problems in the Social Sciences: Paper Delivered at the Private Seminar”. In Monetary and Economic Policy Problems Before, During, and After the Great War, edited by Richard M. Ebeling, 325–332. Selected writings of Ludwig von Mises /ed. and with an introd. by Richard M. Ebeling; Vol. 1. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, Robert P., and Gene Callahan. 2006. “Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethic: A Critique”. Journal of Libertarian Studies 20(2): 54–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1975. Die offene Gesellschaft und ihre Feinde 1: Der Zauber Platons. München: Francke.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1980. Die offene Gesellschaft und ihre Feinde 2: Falsche Propheten. 6. Aufl. Uni-Taschenbücher 473. München: Francke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radnitzky, G. 1995. “Reply to Hoppe – On Apriorism in Austrian Economics”. In Values and Society: Values and the Social Order Volume 1, edited by G. Radnitzky and H. Bouillon. Repr, 189–194. Aldershot: Avebury.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1968. The Rise of Scientific Philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1997. The Logic of Action One. Method, Money and the Austrian School. 2 vols. Economists of the twentieth century/Murray N. Rothbard; 1. Cheltenham: Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, Paul A. 1964. “Theory and Realism: A Reply”. The American Economic Review 54(5): 736–739.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1981. “Bertil Ohlin (1899–1979)”. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 83(3): 355–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmelzer, Ilja. 2016. “Against Absolute Certainty.” http://ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/againstCertainty.pdf.

  • ———. 2000b. “Two Competing Paradigms in Austrian Economic Theory”. Notizie di Politeia 59: 44–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1990. “The Question of Apriorism”. Austrian Economics Newsletter (Fall), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1998. “Aristotelianism, Apriorism, Essentialism.” In Boettke 1998, 33–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stolyarov II., Gennady. 2007. “The Compatibility of Hoppe’s and Rothbard’s Views of the Action Axiom”. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 10(2): 45–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Vienna, Wien, Austria

    Alexander Linsbichler

Authors
  1. Alexander Linsbichler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Linsbichler, A. (2017). Essentialism in the Austrian School. In: Was Ludwig von Mises a Conventionalist?. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46170-0_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46170-0_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-46169-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-46170-0

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation