Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!

From: Ron Allen (rallen2_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 09/30/04 

Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:11:09 -0400

Ron Allen wrote:
> A machine, like muscle, increases production.
> We do not say that a person's muscle produces;
> rather, we say that a person produces. So also,
> we do not say that a machine produces; rather,
> we say that the person, using the machine,
> produces.

Courageous wrote:
> I should imagine that you'll be rather bent out
> of shape when it's the machine entirely, doing
> the producing.

Albert wrote:
> Not until they are able to design, produce and
> maintain themselves.

Ron Allen wrote:
> Even if and when machines do all the producing,
> it will still be an anthropomorphism to say that
> the machines are producing.

jmh wrote:
> Does it stop being an anthropomorphism if they
> start producing for themselves rather than
> people?

Ron Allen wrote:
> You're entering the realm of science fiction.

jmh wrote:
> If not then you are clearly defining productive
> as if it were only a human trait, i.e., an
> anthopomorphic claim, . . .

Ron Allen wrote:
> Yes, I believe I have made it very clear that I
> believe production is a distinguishing human
> attribute. To claim that a uniquely human
> attribute is a unique human trait is not an
> anthropomorphism.

jmh wrote:
> It becomes that when the concept is not uniquely
> or even inherently a human phenomenon. You just
> take the effort one step farther and inorder to
> then turn around and say calling anything but
> humans productive is anthropomorphic.

Ron Allen wrote:
> To say that only human beings produce is not an
> anthropomorphism.

jmh wrote:
> You are the one attempting to imbue the term
> productive with human forma and cahracteristic
> when it's not unique to humans.

Ron Allen answers:
I am saying that human beings are very uniquely
productive, and that is not an anthropomorphism.
When we say that the common honeybee (Apis
mellifera) produces honey and beeswax, this
attribution of productivity to honeybees is an
anthropomorphism. This is not a criticism of the
usage; but it is a critique of the usage. To
produce is not only a physical effort; it is also
a mental effort, and therefore, a uniquely human
effort. The word "produce" is very much like the
word "create". Human beings are creative, and
human beings are productive. When we say that a
machine produces wealth, or that a machine creates
wealth, we are employing an anthropomorphism.

jmh wrote:
> That no different than poets making
> anthropomorphic verse about a doe's eyes or a
> comfortable old chair. The deer's eyes do not
> show any human emotion and the furnature doesn't
> actually give any huuman warmth or compassion;
> likewise productive does not produce value but
> merely things that humans then value.

Ron Allen answers:
To produce things that human beings value is to
produce value, to produce goods. And, only human
beings produce value. Only human beings produce
goods.

Ron Allen wrote:
> Production does produce what human beings value.
> This is very true.

jmh wrote:
> That was not what I siad. Production most
> definitely produces what people value, it does
> not produce value.

Ron Allen answers:
When human beings produce what people value, then
we can also say that human beings produce value.

Ron Allen wrote:
> And if you claim that machines can produce for
> themselves, produce with a purpose and objective
> in "mind", then you are obviously making an
> anthropomorphic claim about machines.

jmh wrote:
> Don't be rediculous. I was claiming that the
> machines became self-aware and started to
> practice independant thought, developed machine
> interestes and wants then set about fulfilling
> those wants and interests. Nothing human about
> their actions or their thoughts. They would
> likely be quite alient to the human mind and to
> assume they would be like a human's would be to
> anthopomorphize the machine.

Ron Allen wrote:
> Human beings are productive beings; and to claim
> that machines are productive, like human beings
> are productive, is an anthropomorphic
> ascription, attributing a uniquely human quality
> to machines.

jmh wrote:
> Not at all. Machines are likewise productive,
> just a nature is productive. The merely fact
> that a person cannot move a certain weight
> without the aide of a machine indicates that the
> machine is productive as only through it's use
> can weights greater than X be moved. The human
> alone cannot move. The requirement that is be
> joint production between man and machine does
> not imply both are unproductive.

Ron Allen answers:
We disagree on this. In my opinion, only human
beings can be said to produce; and to say that a
machine produces is to attribute a special human
quality to a machine. We anthropomorphize very
often in our language. It's OK. But, when we
are engaged in philosophical debate, when the
anthropic conceptions of nature, of life, of
reality, of existence, and of work are being
discussed, then we do need to use language in a
more critical mode or mold in order to avoid as
much confusion as possible. Production is itself
a singularly and distinctively anthropogenic
process.

This is what I think. This is how I use the words
"produce" and "productive". It may be that you do
not agree with my usage, or my definition, but at
least you know my opinion.

jmh wrote:
> Like I said you are attempting to imbue the
> concept "productive" and "produce" with some
> human characteristic by attempting to make them
> uniquely human. It's a very subtle form of
> anthropomorphizing but it's that's what it is
> nontheless.

Ron Allen answers:
To attribute some property to humans is not what
anthropomorphism means, even if one is attributing
some non-human endowment, or some sub-human
ability to human beings. Anthropomorphism is the
attribution of human properties and qualities to
a non-human being; it is not the attribution of
non-human properties or qualities to human beings.

jmh wrote:
> . . . and if you agree then you are defining
> productive as "self will" or "independant
> action", which is not what productive has ever
> meant.

Ron Allen wrote:
> To produce is to have a purpose, an objective.
> To produce with an intention, with a design,
> with a plan, is to possess a volition and an
> intellect. I do not attribute such human
> qualities as volition, intention, intellect,
> etc. to machines.

jmh wrote:
> So you claim that an apple tree has the
> objective of producing the apple?

Ron Allen wrote:
> No. When we say that apple trees produce
> apples, we are employing an anthropomorphism.
> There is nothing wrong with anthropomorphisms,
> until we get into a more precise language in
> order to get to a more concise knowledge.

jmh wrote:
> No, we're not claiming the apple tree has human
> characteristic. Saying an apple tree is
> productive is describing a characteristic to the
> apple tree: it's ability to bear fruit.

Ron Allen answers:
In my opinion, to say that an apple tree produces
apples is to employ an anthropomorphism in order
to describe the fruit-bearing property of an apple
tree. It is also, in my opinion, a descriptive
anthropomorphism to talk about an apple tree as
if it were "able" to produce apples. I know what
you mean when you say such a thing; but it's not a
very empirical, scientific, or disciplined used of
language.

jmh wrote:
> Or do you claim that the tree does not produce,
> or is not productive in producing, the apple?

Ron Allen wrote:
> An apple tree can be said to produce apples; but
> always with an awareness that to say such a
> thing is to use metaphorical language. To
> produce is to intend to produce. An apple tree
> tends to generate apples, but does not intend to
> produce apples.

jmh wrote:
> And no where is intent a requirement for the
> verb to produce. You continue to make this
> erronious linkage between the ability to produce
> and the ability to increase production with the
> intent or purpose.

> No one dispute that people are purposeful but
> that is not a necessay condition, and certainly
> not a sufficient one, for a person or thing to
> be productive. Productive is a technical
> concept: does the inclusion of something have an
> effect on the output? If yes then that something
> is productive in producing whatever the output
> is.

Ron Allen answers:
I agree with you that a machine is productive, but
only in an metaphorical sense of produce, only in
an anthropomorphic sense of the verb "produce".
I disagree with you, that a machine is productive,
when you say that machines literally produce, when
you take a metaphorical sense as if it were a more
meticulous sense.

<><><><><><><><><><>

"Seldom indeed does human virtue rise
  From trunk to branch."
-- Dante Alighieri

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dont Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!
    ... > A machine, like muscle, increases production. ... > Does it stop being an anthropomorphism if they ... Bees make honey, that is clear from ... we're not claiming the apple tree has human ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Dont Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!
    ... >> A machine, like muscle, increases production. ... > jmh wrote: ... >> Does it stop being an anthropomorphism if they ... we're not claiming the apple tree has human ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Dont Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!
    ... > can something be a factor of production and not ... > activities Labor itself is unproductive by Ron ... productive agent to be a kind of anthropomorphism, ... Institutions are created by human beings, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Dont Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!
    ... > jmh wrote: ... But it apparently is for you, who believe the distinction between ... I say the distinction between factors of production ... labor working alone. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Dont Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!
    ... > jmh wrote: ... you reject the idea that there are three factors of production: ... > Land, Labor and Capital. ... > without Labor is useless. ...
    (sci.econ)