Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:00:57.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Neo-Kantian Critique of Von Mises's Epistemology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Pierluigi Barrotta
Pierluigi Barrotta
Affiliation:
University of Pisa, Italy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

More than many other Austrians, Mises tried to found aprioristic methodology on a well defined and developed epistemology. Although references to Kant are scattered rather unsystematically throughout his works, he nevertheless used an unequivocal Kantian terminology. He explicitly defended the existence of ‘a priori knowledge’, ‘synthetic a priori propositions’, ‘the category of action’, and so forth.

Type
Essays
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , April 1996 , pp. 51 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barone, Francesco. 1964. Logica formale e logica trascendentale. 2nd edn.Edizioni di FilosofiaGoogle Scholar
Barrotta, Pierluigi. 1993. ‘A special case? An epistemological analysis of Hahn's critique of Sraffian economics’. History of Economic Ideas, 1:141–70Google Scholar
Caldwell, Bruce. 1982. Beyond Positivism. Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Century. Allen & UnwinGoogle Scholar
Cowen, Tyler and Fink, Richard. 1985. ‘Inconsistent equilibrium constructs: the evenly rotating economy of Mises and Rothbard’. American Economic Review, 75:866–9Google Scholar
Hollis, Martin and Nell, Edward. 1975. Rational Economic Man. Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, Terence W. 1981. The Politics and Philosophy of Economics. Marxians, Keynesians and Austrians. Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1950 [1783]. Prolegómena to Any Future Metaphysics. Trans. Beck, L. W.. The Bobbs-Merril Company, Inc.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1958 [1787]. Critique of Pure Reason. 2nd edn. Trans. Smith, N. Kemp. MacmillanGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1952 [1790]. Critique of Judgement. Trans. Meredith, James Creed. Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, Felix. 1937. ‘Do synthetic propositions a priori exist in economics?’ Economica, 4:337–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lackmann, Ludwig. 1982. ‘Ludwig von Mises and the extension of subjectivism’. In Method, Process, and Austrian Economics. Essays in Honor of Ludwig von Mises. Kirzner, I. (ed.). Lexington BooksGoogle Scholar
Lyons, William. 1986. The Disappearance of Introspection. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Mises, Ludwig von. 1949. Human Action. Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
Mises, Ludwig von. 1978. The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science. 2nd edn.Sheed Andrews and McMeelGoogle Scholar
Mises, Ludwig von 1981. Epistemological Problems of Economics. Trans. Reisman, G.. New York University PressGoogle Scholar
Mongin, Philippe. 1984. ‘Modèle rationnel ou modèle économique de la rationalité?’ Revue Economique, 35:9–64Google Scholar
Nozick, Robert. 1977. ‘On Austrian methodology’. Synthese, 36:353–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, S. 1990. ‘The philosophical roots of modern Austrian economics: past problems and future prospects’. History of Political Economy, 22:295–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge and Kegal PaulGoogle Scholar
Ricardo, David. 1821. On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Reprinted in The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. I. Sraffa, P. (ed.). Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Robbins, Lionel. 1938. ‘Live and dead issues in the methodology of economics’. Economica, 5:342–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothbard, Murray N. 1957. ‘In defence of “Extreme Apriorism”’. Southern Economic Journal. Reprinted in Austrian Economics, Vol. I. Littlechild, S. (ed.). Edward Elgar PublishingGoogle Scholar
Smith, Barry. 1990. ‘Aristotle, Menger, Mises: an essay in the metaphysics of economiCs’. In Carl Menger and his Legacy in Economics. Caldwell, B. (ed.). Duke University PressGoogle Scholar
White, Lawrence H. 1984. ‘The methodology of the Austrian School economists’. The Ludwig von Mises Institute of Aubun University. Reprinted in Austrian Economics, Vol. I. Littlechild, S. (ed.). Edward Elgar PublishingGoogle Scholar