What do you think?
Rate this book
Methodological Individualism
8 pages, ebook
Published January 1, 1908
37 people want to read
About the author
Joseph A. Schumpeter
161 books308 followersPeople know Moravian-born Joseph Alois Schumpeter, an American, for his theories of socioeconomic evolution and the development of capitalism.
This political scientist briefly served as finance minister of Austria in 1919. Of the 20th century, the most influential Schumpeter popularized the term "creative destruction."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_...
This political scientist briefly served as finance minister of Austria in 1919. Of the 20th century, the most influential Schumpeter popularized the term "creative destruction."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
October 23, 2020
In the volume of selected essays by famed individualist Ralph Waldo Emerson, Larzer Ziff writes in the introduction: "In May 1839, Emerson returned from attending church to vent in his journal his displeasure with the minister he had heard: “Cease, O thou unauthorized talker, to prate of consolation, and resignation, and spiritual joys, in neat and balanced sentences. For I know these men who sit below, and on the hearing of these words look up. Hush, quickly: for care and calamity are things to them. There is Mr. Tolman, the shoemaker, whose daughter is gone mad, and he is looking up through his spectacles to hear what you can offer for his case. Here is my friend, whose scholars are all leaving him, and he knows not what to turn his hand to next. Here is my wife, who has come to church in hope of being soothed and strengthened after being wounded by the sharp tongue of a slut in her house. Here is the stage-driver who has the jaundice, and cannot get well. Here is B. who failed last week, and he is looking up. O speak things, then, or hold thy tongue.” These comments are an example of Emerson’s seeing one plus one plus one plus one when he saw a group. For him it was not a trick of perception, it was a moral necessity." And although Emerson provided much of the base for moral individualism, and even idealistic individualism especially as can be seen in both his Nature and Self-Reliance (which both can be found here in the same volume with Ziff's introduction Nature and Selected Essays), he has neglected to some degree some hints or notes for future scientific endeavour to incorporate these ideas into analysis.
Schumpeter here, in this essay, tries to explore that idea by which the classical economist have hinted at, some even before Emerson's writings. That idea, which he coined its name, is methodological individualism, which is by some degree a rejection of what Max Stirner calls spooks; i.e., Hegelian metaphysical agents that is emergent to groups, much in the same way as statistical magnetism is emergent of the quantum nature of valence electrons in atoms, en-masse. Where Emerson rejects talking to crowds as if one has signalled a median through which speech directed to him would produce the effects that would ultimately result in the desired outcomes had they been diverted to each person individually, or even if one would go far as to take an average disposition (or a weighted one), Schumpeter highlights the error (that by which Aristotle has clarified also, namely, the compositional fallacy).
A categorical error is a logical and ontological error that occurs when we give a property that would apply to one category to that of another to which it does not apply. For an example, the apple is red tells us that the apple exemplifies the property of redness. But redness, that property, cannot by itself be red. Properties, simply, aren't the kinds of things that can have colours. And by the same token, there are statistical fallacies which one should be wary of. Another example is this, most famously outlined by the English logician and philosopher, Bertrand Russel. A ginger is a person whose hair is red. Although this is an outdated term, (and perhaps offensive to some, I shall use this just to create the perfect amount of ambiguity to forward the argument) let us tackle it here. The group of gingers is not a ginger. The group of gingers is not even a person. It is silly to say that the colour of the hair of the group of gingers is red, that is a categorical error. The same goes with crowds or even representatives. A crowd cannot lynch any person. The crowd is only a term by which we say that persons have lynched another, it is a shorthand. But often, we mistake the short-hand for the real thing, without adjusting so as not to fall for this compositional fallacy.
Averages, and aggregates, tell us things in numbers, but in no way do they tell us everything that we can know. And that issue is especially problematic in the political or sociological sciences to which we often hear of issues by which people simply mistake things like these; inequality would be the first thing to consider. And it is often very sad that even economists, some very well known, fall for these problems, too.
Iraq has invaded Kuwait in the year 1990 AD. This is a fact. But it is a fact only insofar that we understand it accurately, and not mistake the short-hand for the real thing. Iraq is not one of the things that can invade other things. Iraq simply means here that a person named Saddam Hussein who has certain authority on several of his constituents, has ordered his generals, and so did his generals ordered their hierarchical inferiors to invade Kuwait. And Kuwait here is not one of the things that can be invaded, but it is also a short-hand for people's lives, homes, etc... And even the word invade has to be given due respect here, as it is a vague word by which we mean the many practices that people do to others in times of offensive wars. Even the term war should only be understood, when applying the term methodical individualism, here: As war is a collection of practices just the same as the word invade.
Methodological individualism is simply an idea that says any human action should be ultimately attributed to humans. A volcano's erruption cannot be applicable to the wrath of Gods in the language of natural-scientific reasoning, and so, the actions of humans should not be attributed to spooks of any kind, but to human beings.
The economic sciences, as Mises defines it is a branch of the study of how humans act. In fact, it is the science of civilization itself. Schumpeter here tells us that the science of economics has one important task; that is, to explain prices—which simply means, what people are willing to forgo their own produced goods and services for: What other goods and services do we want, given what goods and services we can provide. And perhasp the Law of Comparative Advantage (or what is called the Ricardian Law of Association) tells us, that how are we willing to cooperate most effectively in creating our civilization.
I loved this very short, but extremely informative essay. I wish that you would read it as well.
Schumpeter here, in this essay, tries to explore that idea by which the classical economist have hinted at, some even before Emerson's writings. That idea, which he coined its name, is methodological individualism, which is by some degree a rejection of what Max Stirner calls spooks; i.e., Hegelian metaphysical agents that is emergent to groups, much in the same way as statistical magnetism is emergent of the quantum nature of valence electrons in atoms, en-masse. Where Emerson rejects talking to crowds as if one has signalled a median through which speech directed to him would produce the effects that would ultimately result in the desired outcomes had they been diverted to each person individually, or even if one would go far as to take an average disposition (or a weighted one), Schumpeter highlights the error (that by which Aristotle has clarified also, namely, the compositional fallacy).
A categorical error is a logical and ontological error that occurs when we give a property that would apply to one category to that of another to which it does not apply. For an example, the apple is red tells us that the apple exemplifies the property of redness. But redness, that property, cannot by itself be red. Properties, simply, aren't the kinds of things that can have colours. And by the same token, there are statistical fallacies which one should be wary of. Another example is this, most famously outlined by the English logician and philosopher, Bertrand Russel. A ginger is a person whose hair is red. Although this is an outdated term, (and perhaps offensive to some, I shall use this just to create the perfect amount of ambiguity to forward the argument) let us tackle it here. The group of gingers is not a ginger. The group of gingers is not even a person. It is silly to say that the colour of the hair of the group of gingers is red, that is a categorical error. The same goes with crowds or even representatives. A crowd cannot lynch any person. The crowd is only a term by which we say that persons have lynched another, it is a shorthand. But often, we mistake the short-hand for the real thing, without adjusting so as not to fall for this compositional fallacy.
Averages, and aggregates, tell us things in numbers, but in no way do they tell us everything that we can know. And that issue is especially problematic in the political or sociological sciences to which we often hear of issues by which people simply mistake things like these; inequality would be the first thing to consider. And it is often very sad that even economists, some very well known, fall for these problems, too.
Iraq has invaded Kuwait in the year 1990 AD. This is a fact. But it is a fact only insofar that we understand it accurately, and not mistake the short-hand for the real thing. Iraq is not one of the things that can invade other things. Iraq simply means here that a person named Saddam Hussein who has certain authority on several of his constituents, has ordered his generals, and so did his generals ordered their hierarchical inferiors to invade Kuwait. And Kuwait here is not one of the things that can be invaded, but it is also a short-hand for people's lives, homes, etc... And even the word invade has to be given due respect here, as it is a vague word by which we mean the many practices that people do to others in times of offensive wars. Even the term war should only be understood, when applying the term methodical individualism, here: As war is a collection of practices just the same as the word invade.
Methodological individualism is simply an idea that says any human action should be ultimately attributed to humans. A volcano's erruption cannot be applicable to the wrath of Gods in the language of natural-scientific reasoning, and so, the actions of humans should not be attributed to spooks of any kind, but to human beings.
The economic sciences, as Mises defines it is a branch of the study of how humans act. In fact, it is the science of civilization itself. Schumpeter here tells us that the science of economics has one important task; that is, to explain prices—which simply means, what people are willing to forgo their own produced goods and services for: What other goods and services do we want, given what goods and services we can provide. And perhasp the Law of Comparative Advantage (or what is called the Ricardian Law of Association) tells us, that how are we willing to cooperate most effectively in creating our civilization.
I loved this very short, but extremely informative essay. I wish that you would read it as well.
November 28, 2018
A short essay in which Schumpeter laid the groundwork for analyzing economic processes using individualistic terms as opposed to collectivist terms such as national income or social capital. He differentiates political individualism from methodological individualism. His concept of M.I. seeks to explain social phenomena as being meaningful from the point of view of acting humans. Those familiar with the Austrian School will recognize this as having to do with praxeology.
I enjoyed seeing Friedrich A. Hayek write the preface in 1980 and explaining how it wasn’t translated for ninety years because Schumpeter changed his views over time and never bothered and moved on to other works.
I enjoyed seeing Friedrich A. Hayek write the preface in 1980 and explaining how it wasn’t translated for ninety years because Schumpeter changed his views over time and never bothered and moved on to other works.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews