I've been getting into epistemology, mostly as it relates to AE but also in general. What are the common ways of arguing for it and what are their pros and cons? I'm somewhat familiar with Mises' argument that the action axiom is undeniable because one must commit action to refute it. Iirc, he admits the rest of the "axioms" are "broadly empirical." I've read [this paper](http://ift.tt/1i7OPlv) by Rothbard. He uses a different argument than Mises, saying we can empirically validate the axiom of action by considering "internal experience." Why does he do this? Is it because Mises' argument is *transcendental*? (Is it transcendental? I'm not entirelysure I understand what that means.) I'm guessing internal experience isn't a popular idea in modern philosophy. Is there a better basis for HA that doesn't rely on Mises' argument or Rothbard's internal experience?
I'm more of a fan of Psychological Egoism as a foundation, than to call it an Action Axiom. Axioms get a bad rep in the philosophical community, so it's easier to just say "here's a framework that isn't necessarily right, but it's unfalsifiable, and you're kind of dumb if you don't believe in it."
- jon31494
link: http://ift.tt/1i7OPlx