Axiomatize and define before critical discussion

Any rational system of thought forms itself by its logical operations that relate things and the things themselves about which it reasons. Thus, a whole number system by reason establishes relationships of part and whole and ordered differences among the elements of thought, numbers. Geometrical reasoning takes different elements of thoughts and organizes a logical system among geometric elements.

Since these mental operations and elements of thought display themselves in a person's reasoning, we can attempt to reveal the nature of the person's system of thought. When mathematicians or physicists attempt to formally axiomitize a system, the are attempting to define the elements and rational transformations that allows thought to move around the system by establishing relationships among the elements such that the operational logic can be shown to work rationally, that is, that the system is non-contradictory by their demonstration.

A system of reasoning about morality or an aspect of political economy or any other system of reasoning remains susceptible to an effort to uncover its axiomatic basis. We can investigate the elements and reasoning the system appears to be using and determine whether these are rational and non-contradictory.

Of course, there are many systems of reasoning so that a simple system can be shown to be contradictory by the use of a more powerful system. None-the-less, an essential tool of investigation is to begin with an attempt to describe the elements and operational logic that composes a system. This deconstruction or dissembling of a system makes clear without distortion exactly how the system works, that is, it is an axiomatization of the system such as to reveal its composition and structure.

For example, here is de Jasay at work attempting to analyze the idea of the state in political economy.

Anthony de Jasay: "Absent a state, why would I ever keep an agreement I had made with you to do something for you in the future, in return for your present payment? A familiar argument from game theory shows that in many circumstances, defection pays. Only an external agency of coercion, the state, can enable a system of social cooperation to get off the ground."

He is pointing out a particular meaning of "agreements" refers to self-interest such that there is nothing in agreements to compel cooperation except personal gains.

"Against this popular view, Mr. de Jasay deploys an ingenious argument. If we cannot trust rational individuals to keep their agreements, why should we trust the state to exercise its job of enforcement as rational actors intend? The agents of the state are themselves self-interested actors, no more altruistic than anyone else."

"It is crucial to the understanding of the putative resolution of the dilemma of contract [by an external agent]." Mr. de Jasay writes, "that while an enforcing agent can, under certain conditions, enable the parties to pass from n-person non-cooperative to (conflictually) cooperative games by entering into binding commitments, the interaction between the agent and either party remains a two-person non-cooperative game. Nothing proves the possibility of a binding contract between the parties and enforcing agent; there is no meta-agent that could, and would, enforce this contract" (pp. 18-19).

Our challenge is to axiomitize de Jasay by identifying the concepts and their definitions he is using and then uncovering his reasoning, that its, the relationships he establishes among concepts. We would want to unpackaghe his notion of cooperation or agreements since he sees no compelling reason for their conservation except personal altruism or gain.

The only point I am making at this point i to uggest that until we have the tools to analyze a form of thought, we cannot investigate its development or compare it to other forms. If we leap to a premature analysis then we end up using our form of thought to impute and distort the thinking of others that we are analyzing. Another way to put this is to insist on an objective description of a system of though before proceeding to critical discussions. And that investigation and axiomatizing requires the use of precise analytic tools any which tghe difficult investigation can be successfully conducted. Otherwise, we cannot reach agreements, and we sind up throwing assertions at each other.