Definition of Principle

[Hazmatac]

That would be the *evaluation* of freedom. There isn't just *one* principle of freedom because there are *many* courses of action that are necessary in order to achieve freedom, just like there isn't just *one* principle of business administration. I'm not even sure that anyone would *use* that terminology unless they were a mind/body dichotomist attempting to draw some sort of distinction between the "principle" of freedom and its actual practice.

What someone *might* say is "I am for freedom on principle", which means that they are an absolutist regarding freedom *and the actions necessary to bring it about*. Beware of people who say things like "I am for freedom *in* principle", however, because this is the same as saying "I'm for freedom in theory, but not in practice".

A principle of freedom would be something along the lines of "Freedom requires a government that is restricted to protecting individual rights." It's a general statement that prescribes a certain course of action: restricting a government to protecting individual rights.

Simple.

So I could say, a principle of justice is to allow nothing to get in the way of facts. I understand that.

The thing is people use principle in another way. Instead of saying one of the MANY principles of a certain idea, they say it is THE principle of such and such. For example, Peikoff told (in an imaginary argument) that "you must choose between the principle of protectionism, or the principle of free-trade"

Some additional info: I read on Ayn Rand's online lexicon that principle is interchangable with abstract idea. (from her book Philosophy, Who Needs it page 5, cited here http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/principles.html )

Thank you all for your help.

Rob

[softwareNerd]

I read on Ayn Rand's online lexicon that principle is interchangable with abstract idea.

A good dictionary would be the place to start; Objectivism does not use the term in any special way. Google's first definition comes from Princeton "wordnet"...

principle.... a basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct; "their principles of composition ...

[West]

I'll second sNerd's post and add some etymological history:

Principle: c.1380, "fundamental truth or proposition," from Anglo-Norm. Principle, from O.Fr. principe, from L. principium (pl. principia) "a beginning, first part," from princeps (see prince). Meaning "origin, source" is attested from 1413. Sense of "general rule of conduct" is from c.1532. Used absolutely for (good or moral) principle from 1653.

[Hazmatac]

Is that a joke?

I think she's reffering to the idea of gravity which is a theory, and not gravity itself

[JMeganSnow]

I think she's reffering to the idea of gravity which is a theory, and not gravity itself

Exactly. The action of physical bodies that results in what we call "gravity" is not up for debate and is an observable fact. The explanation for how this works is a theory.

Even proven scientific explanations are called theories, like the theory of relativity.

[Hazmatac]

so i guess i could say, the principle of socialism (abstract idea) or i could say one of the principles of socialism (fundamental laws)

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you all for your help.

Rob

[Hazmatac]

I am reopening this thread for my own clarity. There were various answers on what the word "principle" means. It is an important part of the ethics (at least it seems) and Peikoff uses it a lot, so I would like to be clear on the exact meaning. So....

According to the Ayn Rand Lexicon, a principle "is “a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend.” Thus a principle is an abstraction which subsumes a great number of concretes. It is only by means of principles that one can set one’s long-range goals and evaluate the concrete alternatives of any given moment. It is only principles that enable a man to plan his future and to achieve it."

a principle is "a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend"

What does that mean? Can you give an example on a "fundamental, primary, or general truth" on which others depend? Or can you give an example of its corollary statement, Thus a principle is an abstraction which subsumes a great number of concretes.

That might be all I need, so we'll go from there. Thanks.

Edit: I realize in my last post I said I understood it, but I actually don't. Sorry. Thanks for your help.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Hazmatac

[softwareNerd]

a principle is "a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend"What does that mean? Can you give an example on a "fundamental, primary, or general truth" on which others depend? Or can you give an example of its corollary statement, Thus a principle is an abstraction which subsumes a great number of concretes.

West gave two examples in post #11, above. Here's one:

Two nights in a row, I get only 4 hours of sleep. While at work, I'm exhausted and complete only two of the four tasks I was assigned. The next two nights, I get a solid 8 hours of sleep each night. The next day, I complete all of the tasks I was assigned. A generalization: I have more energy when I've gotten enough sleep. The principle to be drawn: adequate sleep increases productivity.

For the purpose of this thread, let's assume that "two nights" simply means "enough observations without counter-factuals, etc.... enough for induction". Now, if the principle is true, then other -- more "concrete" -- truths can "depend" on it. For instance, "I didn't sleep enough Sunday or Monday, so if I don't get enough sleep today, I'll be a zombie tomorrow".

The "subsume a ...number of concretes" aspect is the various observations of concretes that the person made, in order to derive the principle, and the future concretes that will hold true because this holds true in principle.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

We have the principle of individual rights, which covers everything a man can do in a society without the initiation of force and would forbid actions and laws that initiate force against someone. There are many particulars subsumed under individual rights, and many particulars that are anti-subsumed under that principle. In other words, living your life rationally and pursuing values by trade would be covered, but using the government to confiscate values form some to give to others would be a violation as would stealing values. This principle would be the basis of an objective government.

[Grames]

An entire lecture "Art of Thinking" by Dr. Leonard Peikoff is devoted to principles. My notes on principles are the 7th post in the thread here.

example

Thales - knowledge begins with observation

Aristotle - you must not contradict yourself

Rand - form concepts in proper hierarchical relationship

Three concrete statements integrated by inducing the principle "Knowledge requires a method"

Explain/validate - man's consciousness is volitional, mistakes are possible, fight mistakes with method.

[Howard Roark]

Can you give an example on a "fundamental, primary, or general truth" on which others depend? Or can you give an example of its corollary statement, Thus a principle is an abstraction which subsumes a great number of concretes.

An example would be reason as a principle of human survival and as an absolute. Principled action is the only effective kind of action for a rational being.

[dadmonson]

I have read this whole thread but I'm not too bright and I'm not immensely intellectual. Can someone please explain what a principle is, like you would explain it to your average 10 year old? As far as I can tell a principle is a rule that has an explanation of why it is true based on facts of reality. I know this isn't true however because I know some principles aren't true and I can't tell much of a difference between the following statements:

"Don't enslave other men" is a rule? But "all men should be free" is a principle? Are they both principles?

The first one is a command that must be followed no matter the context and the 2nd one is not commanding us to do something it's just telling us what should be the case based on an observation of some fact of reality? I know there is some essential difference that I'm failing to identify.

Edited May 21, 2014 by dadmonson

[frank harley]

How about saying that a principle is a mental construct that guides action and behavior?

 

We tend assume that the Latin 'principia' indicates qualitative priority rather than simple time, but this is incorrect. Rather it means, first, to think, then to act...

[Reidy]

Just when I thought Eva had learned not to flash her knowledge of languages she doesn't know...

 

The dictionary entry is "principium", not "principia", which is its plural. 

 

She still overuses "rather", and her whitebread Anglo pseudonyms are still a giveaway.  On the other hand, her spelling has improved.

[frank harley]

The issue of reasoning from 'first principle' was first raised by Descartes. 

 

As we know that Bimini lies due  east of Miami, we can reasonably derive a compass orientaion in the appropriate direction. As second principle reasoning will be the tweaks needed due to wine and currant, it's obvious that principles are necessary, yet insufficient....

 

Just when I thought Eva had learned not to flash her knowledge of languages she doesn't know...

 

The dictionary entry is "principium", not "principia", which is its plural. 

 

She still overuses "rather", and her whitebread Anglo pseudonyms are still a giveaway.  On the other hand, her spelling has improved.

 

sufficient.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Can someone please explain what a principle is, like you would explain it to your average 10 year old?

An explicitly generalized integration.

Albert Einstein once said "a good theory is one that a child of six could understand".  That is a principle which has two different components, "good theories" and "the mental capacity of six-year-old children", which are generalized (not 'some six-year-old children' but 'any six-year-old child') within a certain integration; all A's are B.

 

"Man is a rational animal" qualifies as a principle, just as "E is MC²" does.

 

Moral principles, such as "I should be rational", boil down to statements of intention:  "I cannot survive without reason" and "I wish to survive," therefore "I want to be rational".

 

The exception is any statement of a causeless duty, such as "I must have faith in God, because I must".  They are derived from actual principles, but the "duties" themselves are invented specifically to hide such reasoning.

[frank harley]

An explicitly generalized integration.

Albert Einstein once said "a good theory is one that a child of six could understand".  That is a principle which has two different components, "good theories" and "the mental capacity of six-year-old children", which are generalized (not 'some six-year-old children' but 'any six-year-old child') within a certain integration; all A's are B.

 

"Man is a rational animal" qualifies as a principle, just as "E is MC²" does.

 

Moral principles, such as "I should be rational", boil down to statements of intention:  "I cannot survive without reason" and "I wish to survive," therefore "I want to be rational".

 

The exception is any statement of a causeless duty, such as "I must have faith in God, because I must".  They are derived from actual principles, but the "duties" themselves are invented specifically to hide such reasoning.

I'm really not sure of the context in which Einstein spoke of a six-year old understanding time-space manifolds, ricci curvatures and Lorentz contractions. Kindly elaborate.

 

I'd also like to distinguish 'principle'--a means of reasoning--from 'law' which is established with proof.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

I'm really not sure of the context in which Einstein spoke of a six-year old understanding time-space manifolds, ricci curvatures and Lorentz contractions. Kindly elaborate.

"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”  -Albert Einstein

 

I'd also like to distinguish 'principle'--a means of reasoning--from 'law' which is established with proof.

I do not recognize that distinction as valid.  The laws we prove today become tomorrow's principles.

However, by all means; you may distinguish away.  You do not need my permission.

[frank harley]

"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”  -Albert Einstein

 

I do not recognize that distinction as valid.  The laws we prove today become tomorrow's principles.

However, by all means; you may distinguish away.  You do not need my permission.

The distinction, as it wwere, is not mine. Scientists refer to 'laws' as a matter of discourse

.OTH, philosophers use 'principe', although in a somewhat ambiguous sense.

[dream_weaver]

I have read this whole thread but I'm not too bright and I'm not immensely intellectual. Can someone please explain what a principle is, like you would explain it to your average 10 year old? As far as I can tell a principle is a rule that has an explanation of why it is true based on facts of reality. I know this isn't true however because I know some principles aren't true and I can't tell much of a difference between the following statements:

"Don't enslave other men" is a rule? But "all men should be free" is a principle? Are they both principles?

The first one is a command that must be followed no matter the context and the 2nd one is not commanding us to do something it's just telling us what should be the case based on an observation of some fact of reality? I know there is some essential difference that I'm failing to identify.

Here is an excerpt from OPAR, Chapter 7 regarding principle:

" A "principle" is a general truth on which other truths depend. Every science and every field of thought involves the discovery and application of principles. Leaving aside certain special cases, a principle may be described as a fundamental reached by induction. Such knowledge is necessary to a conceptual consciousness for the same reason that induction and the grasp of fundamentals are necessary.

 

From this standpoint, a statement which is not true would not qualify as a principle. In logic, principles could serve as one (or both) of the premises to aide in drawing a conclusion.

 

P: All men are mortal.

p; Socrates is a man.

C: Socrates is mortal.

 

I don't know that this would explain it to your average 10 year old. Your average 10 year old could probably identify what he doesn't understand of the explanation, and ask further questions.

Edited June 16, 2014 by dream_weaver