Re: Hermeneutics Redux

Re Hermeneutics Redux and Boettke v. Salerno v. White v. ....., in addition to the linked pieces on hermeneutics by Gordon and Rothbard, see also the devastating critique of hermeneutics (and McCloskey and Lavoie) by Hoppe in his In Defense of Extreme Rationalism: Thoughts on Donald McCloskey's The Rhetoric of Economics and also in his Comment on Don Lavoie (Mont Pelerin Society, General Meeting, 1994). Tom Palmer, as I noted here, have gotten "upset at Hoppe for for allegedly implying that "my old friend Don Lavoie" was on drugs. Palmer must be referring Hoppe's comments at the 1994 Mont Pelerin Society; see footnote 5 to Comment on Don Lavoie. It seems kind of funny to me, but then, I'm from Louisiana (no offense, Don Boudreaux). It is not clear to me from this text that Hoppe is implying that Lavoie was an LSD user. Does Palmer know more about this than the casual reader, that allows him to read between the lines? I don't know whether Lavoie did drugs or not. If he did, then an insinuation that he did (which I don't admit that Hoppe's comment was) should not be perceived as such an insult. If he did not, I wonder why Palmer didn't just deny that Lavoie was a drug user?" See also on this the comments of Plauche and Carpio. Plauche: "I have seen the Don Lavoie comment in a footnote but it isn't clear whether Hoppe is accusing Lavoie of doing drugs or is simply equating the holding of ideas like Lavoie's to being on LSD. In any case, isn't this like the pot calling the kettle black?" Carpio: "I read the Hoppe critique on Don Lavoie (R.I.P.). It certainly wasn't one gifted with diplomacy or even intellectual courtesy for Mr. Lavoie. But as rude as it could appear to a lot of people (undestandably, since standards are different for everybody), and personally I think it is different to be a maverick than to be rude and you don't need to be the latter in order to be a successful maverick, it was not an ad hominen attack based on drug use. It was simply a far fetched way to make a point. Most of us woulnd't do it in that way, but there is a clear misreading of Hoppe's." -->