Show item record

dc.contributor.authorLagueux, Maurice
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-28T19:21:15Z
dc.date.availableNO_RESTRICTIONfr
dc.date.available2019-05-28T19:21:15Z
dc.date.issued2010-04
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1866/22078
dc.publisherCambridge University Pressfr
dc.titleIndividualisme, subjectivisme et mécanismes économiquesfr
dc.typeArticlefr
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversité de Montréal. Faculté des arts et des sciences. Département de philosophiefr
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/S0012217300004947
dcterms.abstractThe economists of the Austrian School count among the most consistent supporters of methodological individualism, but they were for the most part strongly opposed to clearly anti-holist trends such as constructivism, reductionism, and positivism. This article discusses why the sort of methodological individualism defended by the Austrians could not, for interconnected reasons, be rendered compatible with any one of these philosophical trends. The manner in which the Austrians managed to reconcile their analysis of economic mechanisms with a strictly subjectivist approach is especially considered. The discussion also underscores some ambiguous dimensions of the debate between holism and individualism.fr
dcterms.isPartOfurn:ISSN:0012-2173fr
dcterms.isPartOfurn:ISSN:1759-0949fr
dcterms.languagefrafr
UdeM.ReferenceFournieParDeposant«Individualisme, subjectivisme et mécanismes économiques», Dialogue, 40, 4 (2001), 691-722.fr
UdeM.VersionRioxxVersion acceptée / Accepted Manuscriptfr
oaire.citationTitleDialogue : Canadian Philosophy Review = Dialogue : Revue canadienne de philosophie
oaire.citationVolume40
oaire.citationIssue4
oaire.citationStartPage691
oaire.citationEndPage722


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show item record

This document disseminated on Papyrus is the exclusive property of the copyright holders and is protected by the Copyright Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42). It may be used for fair dealing and non-commercial purposes, for private study or research, criticism and review as provided by law. For any other use, written authorization from the copyright holders is required.