The Principle

You really have to stay flexible.
Context is everything.

It’s actually those wildly different, unpredictable situations that teach us through sheer experience that you can't just take one single principle and apply it to everything like a rigid ruler.

Holding onto your principles can be a massive handicap because it’s incredibly expensive and carries a heavy burden. At the same time, it serves as a litmus test for character—only a truly strong man can actually afford to stick to his guns.

It doesn't require any kind of grandstanding.

One simply needs to be in a position where they can actually afford to be stubborn—to hold onto their so-called "principles." To truly act on a principle, you have to possess the leverage required to stick to it when things get difficult.

Unless, of course, you define mere fairness or just picking a side as having a principle; I certainly don't.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Aha, so this is what you categorize as principles.🙂
Fine... perhaps. But I would be more inclined to call those temporary preferences rather than true principles. Principles tend to be more permanent things—like the working principle of a transformer, or in principle (as a rule), and so on.

However, if that is what you meant, then I agree that there is logic to it—it is pure political activism, 😉even though it functions as a form of non-action: not consuming, not buying, not participating... something almost Gandhian. It is essentially passive-aggression.😬

From what I gather, there are two kinds: steady principles and shaky ones.
For example, someone might refuse to buy products from Mexico because of their principles, even though they’re actually just reacting to those unfortunate events back in the 90s.
A shaky principle might just depend on your current mood or whatever circumstances are hitting you at the moment, which leads to applying an unstable principle:
Like, if you haven't gotten anything done all day, then out of principle, I don't want to grab a coffee with you...
So, really, a principle can also be used as a way to teach someone a lesson.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Aha, so this is what you categorize as principles.🙂
Fine... perhaps. But I would be more inclined to call those temporary preferences rather than true principles. Principles tend to be more permanent things—like the working principle of a transformer, or in principle (as a rule), and so on.

However, if that is what you meant, then I agree that there is logic to it—it is pure political activism, 😉even though it functions as a form of non-action: not consuming, not buying, not participating... something almost Gandhian. It is essentially passive-aggression.😬

Yeah... passive aggression... That makes sense. Action and reaction.

steelridge58 said:That opening line feels like one of those old folk wisdom sayings that really hits home because it's born from actual life experience, teaching us all about consistency, trust, and reliability—about making promises where nothing binds you formally except for the weight of your own word.

I think you can definitely link this to ethical principles.

As for a free interpretation of a principle—well, I think you’ve already started touching on that with your follow-up questions, suggesting that interpreting or understanding something comes down to our own personal values. These are the yardsticks derived from our character or our natural disposition which serve as our foundation for judgment; it's "free" because it's deeply personal, unique to the individual, and maybe even quite intimate since any interpretation rests entirely on the subject.

Building on that, I’d also consider the principle of contradiction, which might be tucked away deep within the core of our being, allowing for shifts or changes in our state under the influence of causality, where change happens because of a specific cause. This might explain why someone seems inconsistent compared to how they used to be, when in reality, there was a seed of that contradiction already there, waiting to trigger a future change.

Actually, now that I've set the stage for this topic, I'd say a principle is essentially the price we pay for being who we are.
And, let's face it, everything has a price.
The principle is that cost.

Everything carries a cost if we are true to ourselves, even those moments that look like inconsistency but are actually just the result of causal forces driving a change in our state.

There is a price to pay for staying true to our principles, provided they are structurally integrated into our very personality—which is the only time we can truly say a 'principle is the price of our being.' But there is also a cost to the inconsistencies that spring from that same source, acting according to our internal values. In both scenarios, we are talking about being consistent with ourselves or our persona—whoever we are or whoever we might become—but it isn't all simple, because then you have to factor in ethical principles, their inherent "shoulds," and the heavy price of trying to live up to them.

Spot on.
I’ve noticed a massive reliance on "principles" among people who just struggle through life by constantly folding. They always seem to end up in a defensive crouch.
A principle is basically the poor man's capital.
The wealthy don't need principles. They have money.
Anyway, that's just my little theory on how things tend to play out in certain parts of the world.
Principles can be a form of self-delusion or just a way to inflate one's own importance when there isn't much substance there.
Honestly, I haven't heard anyone particularly brilliant using "principles" as a shield. They’d rather fight with actual arguments. To me, clinging to principles feels a bit small-minded—though, mind you, that’s just my contrarian take, and I'm probably not being very logical here!

steelridge58 said:That opening line feels like one of those old folk wisdom sayings that really hits home because it's born from actual life experience, teaching us all about consistency, trust, and reliability—about making promises where nothing binds you formally except for the weight of your own word.

I think you can definitely link this to ethical principles.

As for a free interpretation of a principle—well, I think you’ve already started touching on that with your follow-up questions, suggesting that interpreting or understanding something comes down to our own personal values. These are the yardsticks derived from our character or our natural disposition which serve as our foundation for judgment; it's "free" because it's deeply personal, unique to the individual, and maybe even quite intimate since any interpretation rests entirely on the subject.

Building on that, I’d also consider the principle of contradiction, which might be tucked away deep within the core of our being, allowing for shifts or changes in our state under the influence of causality, where change happens because of a specific cause. This might explain why someone seems inconsistent compared to how they used to be, when in reality, there was a seed of that contradiction already there, waiting to trigger a future change.

Actually, now that I've set the stage for this topic, I'd say a principle is essentially the price we pay for being who we are.
And, let's face it, everything has a price.
The principle is that cost.

Everything carries a cost if we are true to ourselves, even those moments that look like inconsistency but are actually just the result of causal forces driving a change in our state.

There is a price to pay for staying true to our principles, provided they are structurally integrated into our very personality—which is the only time we can truly say a 'principle is the price of our being.' But there is also a cost to the inconsistencies that spring from that same source, acting according to our internal values. In both scenarios, we are talking about being consistent with ourselves or our persona—whoever we are or whoever we might become—but it isn't all simple, because then you have to factor in ethical principles, their inherent "shoulds," and the heavy price of trying to live up to them.

A principle is really an extension of character. It’s almost like an accessory you wear. You hear people say, "That guy has principles..."
But doesn't everyone?
Clearly, they don't.
A principle is more like a pet you decide to keep.

steelridge58 said:That opening line feels like one of those old folk wisdom sayings that really hits home because it's born from actual life experience, teaching us all about consistency, trust, and reliability—about making promises where nothing binds you formally except for the weight of your own word.

I think you can definitely link this to ethical principles.

As for a free interpretation of a principle—well, I think you’ve already started touching on that with your follow-up questions, suggesting that interpreting or understanding something comes down to our own personal values. These are the yardsticks derived from our character or our natural disposition which serve as our foundation for judgment; it's "free" because it's deeply personal, unique to the individual, and maybe even quite intimate since any interpretation rests entirely on the subject.

Building on that, I’d also consider the principle of contradiction, which might be tucked away deep within the core of our being, allowing for shifts or changes in our state under the influence of causality, where change happens because of a specific cause. This might explain why someone seems inconsistent compared to how they used to be, when in reality, there was a seed of that contradiction already there, waiting to trigger a future change.

Actually, now that I've set the stage for this topic, I'd say a principle is essentially the price we pay for being who we are.
And, let's face it, everything has a price.
The principle is that cost.

Everything carries a cost if we are true to ourselves, even those moments that look like inconsistency but are actually just the result of causal forces driving a change in our state.

There is a price to pay for staying true to our principles, provided they are structurally integrated into our very personality—which is the only time we can truly say a 'principle is the price of our being.' But there is also a cost to the inconsistencies that spring from that same source, acting according to our internal values. In both scenarios, we are talking about being consistent with ourselves or our persona—whoever we are or whoever we might become—but it isn't all simple, because then you have to factor in ethical principles, their inherent "shoulds," and the heavy price of trying to live up to them.

People get so tangled up in their principles that when they eventually change their lifestyle or outlook, those old rules start to feel like a burden because they clash with their current happiness.
It makes me wonder: can a truly self-aware person ever really be strictly principled?
The real question is, what’s the point of chasing some intense impulse if all it does is wreck your peace of mind?
I mean, honestly, why even bother holding onto a principle if it doesn't actually yield any real results?
You hear people say it all the time—that clinging to your ideals is just a recipe for disaster when you're out there trying to survive the grind of everyday life.

Harold Doyle3 said:It reminds me of those trials in Nuremberg, where people tried to justify their actions by claiming they were just following orders.
They were incredibly principled when it came to discipline and duty... but principles ought to be scrutinized—unless they're guided by reason and conscience.

Circumstances shift. Taking a hardline principled stance today might become a heavy burden tomorrow. That principle, even if it started out noble, can eventually turn into something caricatured, if not outright destructive.
Stalin was "principled" when he refused to trade for his captured son... he viewed him as a coward, just like all the other soldiers in the Red Army.

I'm with you on this one. That's a very fair way to put it.
In a way, having a principle is just a fancy form of stubbornness. It's defiance.
A principle is often just a byproduct of grit, anger, or old grudges. It acts as a sort of buffer.
Think of a principle as a tool; you should use it when the situation calls for it, rather than letting it own you.

ruggeddriver21 said:There’s an old saying:

A bik is tied by its horns, but a man is bound by his words.

Doesn't that strike you as being deeply connected to the idea of having a principle?
What does "free interpretation" of a principle even mean, anyway?
Is it our core values? Our internal yardstick for character? Something like that...

I’ve noticed that people who actually live by a principle tend to be quite focused individuals—the kind of folks who really guard their integrity. It’s not exactly a widespread trait among the general public, though. Sometimes, having a strong sense of principle can be a loud part of your personality, and people might even call you selfish for sticking to it, but I think there’s something genuinely beautiful and valuable about it.
It essentially maps out how we relate to the world around us.
It grants us a sense of dignity, while simultaneously sending a message to society that staying true to oneself comes with a cost.

Actually, now that I’ve set the stage, I’d say a principle is simply the price we pay to remain ourselves.
And well, everything in this life has a price tag, doesn't it?
A principle is just that price.

What do you all think? Am I on the right track here?

At its most basic level, having principles is just about ideological consistency.
When you claim that "people with principles are intense," what you're really talking about is the friction between those "specialized personal principles" and whatever social norms happen to be trending at the moment.
So, what’s *your* principle as this supposedly "intense person"? What are you actually doing for the good of your community if that's even part of the equation... if there even is a difference...

Jacob Cooper5 said:At its most basic level, having principles is just about ideological consistency.
When you claim that "people with principles are intense," what you're really talking about is the friction between those "specialized personal principles" and whatever social norms happen to be trending at the moment.
So, what’s *your* principle as this supposedly "intense person"? What are you actually doing for the good of your community if that's even part of the equation... if there even is a difference...

The thing is, principles can be totally manufactured by ideology.
Honestly, I see a principle as just another tool in the human toolkit.
It’s often just window dressing for people who don't know how to build a real argument.
Or, it's used by those who are just really good at twisting their rules to fit their needs.

Do I personally hold any principles?
I don't think so.
I don't really lean on them. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what the point would be.
I prefer to try and diagnose my own stance and explain it clearly without hiding behind the phrase "it's the principle of the thing."

I only started this thread because I wanted to dig into what a principle actually is...

ruggeddriver21 said:The thing is, principles can be totally manufactured by ideology.
Honestly, I see a principle as just another tool in the human toolkit.
It’s often just window dressing for people who don't know how to build a real argument.
Or, it's used by those who are just really good at twisting their rules to fit their needs.

Do I personally hold any principles?
I don't think so.
I don't really lean on them. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what the point would be.
I prefer to try and diagnose my own stance and explain it clearly without hiding behind the phrase "it's the principle of the thing."

I only started this thread because I wanted to dig into what a principle actually is...

It’s hard to believe you don't have any principles at all. But maybe this lack of them is just another way of saying you don't follow any set rules—that moment when you decide to do exactly what the crowd isn't expecting.

Jacob Cooper5 said:It’s hard to believe you don't have any principles at all. But maybe this lack of them is just another way of saying you don't follow any set rules—that moment when you decide to do exactly what the crowd isn't expecting.

Rules are nothing more than generalizations.
They serve a purpose when you're dealing with broad, universal concepts that apply to everyone, but why try to force them onto individual circumstances?
What's the point of imposing rigid rules on ourselves—or anyone else—for life situations that are inherently unique?
It's because of these arbitrary "principles" that people felt the need to come up with that tired old cliché about how "the exception proves the rule."

Jacob Cooper5 said:It’s hard to believe you don't have any principles at all. But maybe this lack of them is just another way of saying you don't follow any set rules—that moment when you decide to do exactly what the crowd isn't expecting.

Look, I’ll be blunt here—and honestly, I shouldn't be, given that I haven't even bothered to look up the actual dictionary definition of a "principle."
I guess I'm just motivated by how the everyday folks I run into in my business dealings use the word; I won't claim I act out of some grand moral code.

I didn't take the whole concept too seriously. To me, it seems like people who are just making noise without actually understanding anything tend to cling to "principles" as a defense mechanism—it feels more like wounded egos than anything else.
They throw the word around like they're some sort of lost souls who can't even define their own values, using it as a convenient little punctuation mark to describe everyone else while making themselves look better. It's all just chaos, really.

Do I have principles?
Hmm.

Let me try to sum this up...
I don't know.
Is a principle a stance?
I definitely have stances.
Is a principle a rule?
I've got my own set of rules.

So, what exactly is a principle?
Who is Gabriel?

There's no such thing.
Most of the time, it's just cosmetic fluff used by someone feeling insulted, which tends to evaporate the second they get a sincere apology.

So, I’ve been sitting here mulling over a few different ways this could play out...
It could be a case of stubbornness backed by solid logic.
Or, it might just be pure, unadulterated spite without any reasoning at all.
Then there's just plain old defiance.
Honestly, it’s basically the core principle of the whole thing.

Yeah, for sure.

Maybe things would click for you if you used the American term for "principle"—you know, a core set of values. Everything you do should be guided by some sort of underlying principle, unless, of course, you're just a complete lunatic acting entirely at random without any rhyme or reason.
Without a foundational principle, you don't even have a starting point from which to actually think or build an argument.
So, when you claim that only fools stick to principles, you’ve actually got it backward. Fools have weak principles—that's precisely why they're fools.

Take what you wrote earlier, about how an ox is judged by its horns while a man is judged by his word. Just think about that for a second. What kind of man can you actually hold to his word? Can you really hold a fool to his word?
It's a stretch...

At the end of the day, someone with solid principles is usually quite careful about making promises. Meanwhile, a fool will promise the moon to anyone who asks, and I think that's exactly the point of the old saying.

jadeheron5 said:Maybe things would click for you if you used the American term for "principle"—you know, a core set of values. Everything you do should be guided by some sort of underlying principle, unless, of course, you're just a complete lunatic acting entirely at random without any rhyme or reason.
Without a foundational principle, you don't even have a starting point from which to actually think or build an argument.
So, when you claim that only fools stick to principles, you’ve actually got it backward. Fools have weak principles—that's precisely why they're fools.

Take what you wrote earlier, about how an ox is judged by its horns while a man is judged by his word. Just think about that for a second. What kind of man can you actually hold to his word? Can you really hold a fool to his word?
It's a stretch...

At the end of the day, someone with solid principles is usually quite careful about making promises. Meanwhile, a fool will promise the moon to anyone who asks, and I think that's exactly the point of the old saying.

There’s no such thing as that kind of lunatic. Nobody just wanders through life acting totally at random—well, maybe when they're picking numbers for a Powerball ticket, but that's about it.

I don't know. I really don't know. Sometimes you just sit there, staring at the screen, wondering if anyone is actually listening or if we're all just shouting into a void. It’s exhausting, honestly. My coffee went cold ten minutes ago while I was trying to wrap my head around this latest mess. Probably should have grabbed a refill. Anyway, where was I? Right. It’s all just noise. kaže:
Maybe you'd actually wrap your head around this if you used the right American term for a principle or a fundamental rule. It’s about clarity. Simple as that. Look, there’s a logic to everything you do. There’s a pattern, a method to the madness. Unless, of course, you're just a complete lunatic acting on pure impulse without a single coherent thought connecting one move to the next.
Without some core principles, you don't even have a starting point. You can't think, you certainly can't argue, and frankly, you're just spinning your wheels in the dirt. No foundation, no nothing.
So, when you claim that only fools cling to their principles, you’ve actually got it backward. It’s quite the opposite, really. Fools don't have principles at all—they have weak, flimsy ones. That’s exactly why they’re fools in the first place. Simple as that.

Look, take your own advice for a second. You used that old saying about how you tie an ox by its horns and a man by his word. It’s a nice sentiment, really. But honestly? Think about the logic there. What kind of person can you actually hold to their word? If you're dealing with a complete idiot, his word isn't worth the paper it's written on. You can't hold a fool to anything.
Rough.

At the end of the day, someone with actual principles finds it hard to make empty promises. A fool, on the other hand, will swear anything to anyone just to get ahead. That’s really the whole point of the saying.

You can really step in it if you use the word "principle" too loosely. If you start a sentence with "in principle," people might misinterpret what you're actually getting at. Honestly, using "basically" or just sticking to "fundamentally" carries much less risk of being misunderstood. It’s one of those little linguistic landmines that trips you up when you aren't looking. I've certainly been there.

Ideals.

Then you hear people talk about having "character."
Integrity.
Being uncompromising.
Realness.

ruggedraven36 said:There’s no such thing as that kind of lunatic. Nobody just wanders through life acting totally at random—well, maybe when they're picking numbers for a Powerball ticket, but that's about it.

Well, there isn't one, really. I was being more symbolic with my phrasing, you see? Just trying to point out that everyone operates under some kind of set of principles, though whether those principles are good or bad is the real question.
When people say someone lacks principle, or doesn't have any values, what they're actually implying is that the person's principles are rotten—like, fundamentally corrupt.

Anyway, the whole point of the old saying is that a man stands by his word, while a fool... well, a fool just gets dragged along.

jadeheron5 said:Maybe things would click for you if you used the American term for "principle"—you know, a core set of values. Everything you do should be guided by some sort of underlying principle, unless, of course, you're just a complete lunatic acting entirely at random without any rhyme or reason.
Without a foundational principle, you don't even have a starting point from which to actually think or build an argument.
So, when you claim that only fools stick to principles, you’ve actually got it backward. Fools have weak principles—that's precisely why they're fools.

Take what you wrote earlier, about how an ox is judged by its horns while a man is judged by his word. Just think about that for a second. What kind of man can you actually hold to his word? Can you really hold a fool to his word?
It's a stretch...

At the end of the day, someone with solid principles is usually quite careful about making promises. Meanwhile, a fool will promise the moon to anyone who asks, and I think that's exactly the point of the old saying.

The phrase "leading the charge" feels a bit distorted to me, if I can get away with a little dark humor.
Principles are essentially a personal declaration.

Principles act more like tools for people who haven't quite had the guts to shape their own reality, so they lean on them to maintain a sense of fiction.

ruggeddriver21 said:Look, I’ll be blunt here—and honestly, I shouldn't be, given that I haven't even bothered to look up the actual dictionary definition of a "principle."
I guess I'm just motivated by how the everyday folks I run into in my business dealings use the word; I won't claim I act out of some grand moral code.

I didn't take the whole concept too seriously. To me, it seems like people who are just making noise without actually understanding anything tend to cling to "principles" as a defense mechanism—it feels more like wounded egos than anything else.
They throw the word around like they're some sort of lost souls who can't even define their own values, using it as a convenient little punctuation mark to describe everyone else while making themselves look better. It's all just chaos, really.

Do I have principles?
Hmm.

Let me try to sum this up...
I don't know.
Is a principle a stance?
I definitely have stances.
Is a principle a rule?
I've got my own set of rules.

So, what exactly is a principle?
Who is Gabriel?

There's no such thing.
Most of the time, it's just cosmetic fluff used by someone feeling insulted, which tends to evaporate the second they get a sincere apology.

So, what you're describing is using a principle as an alibi, a convenient excuse or a way to justify oneself, which essentially hides
Or, it’s just taking the path of least resistance.

It's really just the cosmetic veneer of an offended person that completely vanishes the moment you actually offer them an apology.

In reality, when things like this happen, we're talking about a very conditional type of being "uncompromising."

I was mulling over a few different ways this could go..
Maybe it's stubbornness backed by logic.
Or maybe it's just stubbornness without any logic at all.
Pure defiance.
It's basically the fetus stage of a principle.

That was actually a really well-put, original way to frame it.

Principles are nothing more than personal declarations.

🙂