concept and principle

[rkamasam]

Is there a clear cut distinction between a "concept" and a "principle?" Are they two distinct forms of cognition,

and if so how is concept formation different from the formation of a principle?

[JMeganSnow]

They are both types of abstractions; a concept is a kind of mental storage-folder for organizing units, while a principle names and explains a conclusion (I can't think of a better way to explain it): "dog" is a concept, "only rational entities have rights" is a principle.

[DavidOdden]

A concept is one of more units subsumed under a single symbol (a word, for the lay audience). A principle is a proposition, which combines concepts in a particular hierarchical manner (also there's some stuff about quantification, which might not be of interest).

[rkamasam]

I remember Ayn Rand explaining in ITOE how one arrives at the concept of "justice." What she was emphasising there was the process of concept formation. Elsewhere in "objectivist" literature I remember "justice" being referred to as a "principle." I want to understand for myself whether one arrives at "justice" through the process of concept formation or through the process of induction. In otherwords is "induction" an aspect of concept formation? (personally I don't think so).

Ayn Rand explained in ITOE that every word of language is a concept barring the "proper nouns," which I took to mean that every cognition is arrived at on the basis of concept formation.

Can someone point to me where in the objectivist literature I can find an anatomy of "principle."

[FreeLogic]

If a man murders another man and the system of justice (the principle) requires that he be executed for his crime, wouldn't the act of execution (the act of applying justice) to the man be a concept instead of a principle? If a concept is a mental storage center for objects, events, and ideas wouldn't the application of the principle of "justice" be in-itself a concept?

[softwareNerd]

Can someone point to me where in the objectivist literature I can find an anatomy of "principle."

I don't think you will find a definition or derivation, since Objectivism uses the word in the normal sense of "basic rule" as in "principles of finance", "agreeing in principle" and so on.

In other words is "induction" an aspect of concept formation?

According to Objectivism, concept formation is induction. [Ref.ITOE, Ch-3 "Abstractions..."] Edited August 16, 2006 by softwareNerd

[DavidOdden]

If a man murders another man and the system of justice (the principle) requires that he be executed for his crime, wouldn't the act of execution (the act of applying justice) to the man be a concept instead of a principle?

You might want to look into the Objectivist theory of concepts, starting here but fully presented in ITOE.

[Onar Åm]

A concept is one of more units subsumed under a single symbol (a word, for the lay audience). A principle is a proposition, which combines concepts in a particular hierarchical manner (also there's some stuff about quantification, which might not be of interest).

But any definition of a concept is a proposition. "Man is the rational animal." In general declarative propositions of this sort are not principles. (A is B ) Thus, something else is required to distinguish principles from concepts in general. Also, not all propositons are concepts. ("Blue makes me feel happy") As far as I can tell a principle is a complex concept, i.e. one that cannot easily be reduced to a declaration.

Edited August 17, 2006 by Onar Åm

[DavidOdden]

But any definition of a concept is a proposition.

I disagree, since an ostensive definition isn't a proposition. I also think it's irrelevant, since a concept is a distinct thing from its definition. Thus "Man is a rational animal" is not the same as "man".

In general declarative propositions of this sort are not principles.

Sure they are -- it's a general statement applying to all members of some defined domain. Why do you think that such statement's aren't principles?

As far as I can tell a principle is a complex concept, i.e. one that cannot easily be reduced to a declaration.

If so, you must be using the word "concept" to refer to something other than what it means in Objectivism -- for example, as "idea".

[softwareNerd]

If so, you must be using the word "concept" to refer to something other than what it means in Objectivism -- for example, as "idea".

I'm guessing Onar might be thinking of phrases like "the principle of justice". One might say, for instance, "I follow the principle of honesty".

In such cases, this way of speaking is a shorthand. Strictly speaking, "justice" and "honesty" are concepts, not principles. The full-form of the moral principles would be "Justice is good", "Honesty is good" or "It is good to be honest" and so on.

So, one might say "I follow the principle that honesty is the best policy", or simply contract it to "I follow the principle of honesty". However, the contraction does not make honesty a principle.

[Onar Åm]

Sure they are -- it's a general statement applying to all members of some defined domain. Why do you think that such statement's aren't principles?If so, you must be using the word "concept" to refer to something other than what it means in Objectivism -- for example, as "idea".

If this were the case then there would be no essential difference between a rule and a principle. Why then have two words ("rule" and "principle") if they are the same? My reasoning is as follows. Rules and principles are similar in some respect, but whereas rules are more concrete principles are more general and abstract. Furthermore, both rules and principles pertain to actions in the broadest sense of the word, i.e. what things can or cannot do. In the human domain, principles are usually normative (such as the principle of justice). The principle of non-contradiction is not normative, but is still a formulation about what things can and cannot do. (two things cannot occupy the same place at the same time) A rule is usually a simple command like statement. Examples of rules: "a sentence must be preceded by a punctuation," "thou shalt not steal," "Bishops can only move diagonally", "Allah commands you to pray towards Mecca five times a day." All of these are commands, recipees or procedures of some sort, and all pertain to a concrete domain. In all cases the rules are statements that apply to all members of some defined domain. The rule for bishop movement in chess applies for ALL bishops in ALL games. Yet, I would call all of these rules, not principles.

A principle has to have something more to it than being a simple rule. What then is the essential difference between a rule and a principle? As far as I can tell a rule can be observed without explanation of "why," whereas a principle is explanatory. So for instance, the principle of non-contradiction is not merely the statement "things cannot be and not be in the same place at the same time." If this were the case it would merely be a rule. What makes it a principle is that the rule is explained with its relationship to reality: things are what they are, they have identity, and identity excludes the possibility of a contradiction.

[softwareNerd]

I think the common genus between "principle" and "concept" is "mental integration".

A principle is a mental integration of observed causal relationships or common normative decisions. A concept is a mental integration of similar units.

[DavidOdden]

If this were the case then there would be no essential difference between a rule and a principle. Why then have two words ("rule" and "principle") if they are the same?

Well, "rule" derives from a word means "straight piece of wood" for example used to measure, whereas "principle" derives from a word meaning "prince". They originally referred to the same thing, but I doubt the validity of the distinction now.

Rules and principles are similar in some respect, but whereas rules are more concrete principles are more general and abstract.

Okay, I think it may be true that the word "principle" tends to be used to convey a broader domain of applicability. Abstractness may or may not be required to do so. Do you think that Conservation of Charge is a rule or a principle?

A rule is usually a simple command like statement. Examples of rules: "a sentence must be preceded by a punctuation," "thou shalt not steal," "Bishops can only move diagonally", "Allah commands you to pray towards Mecca five times a day." All of these are commands, recipees or procedures of some sort, and all pertain to a concrete domain. In all cases the rules are statements that apply to all members of some defined domain. The rule for bishop movement in chess applies for ALL bishops in ALL games. Yet, I would call all of these rules, not principles.

Interesting: I don't agree with your particular judgments. I would agree about the bishop-movement rule; the bowing to Mecca example isn't even a rule, it's just a description of a singular facts; the sentence rule is just wrong (did you mean "concluded" rather than "preceded"); I don't use "thou" or "shalt" in English, but the equivalent statement "It is immoral to steal" or "you may not steal" is in fact a principle, in my opinion.

From this, I extract the generalization that "rule" as distinct from "principle" is significantly meaningful only as a way of conveying the idea that a particular principle is an purely man-made dictum which are essentially defining statements, that is, "In order to be playing the game 'chess', bishops only move diagonally".

What then is the essential difference between a rule and a principle?

Apart from the "these are the rules that define this particular game" kind of rule, that's actually the point of a paper I'm working on in my particular area. A rule of a language is a universal statement about all outputs in the language, and a principle of language is a universal statement about all languages. But people do indeed speak of "the principles of language X", meaning that in actual usage, "rule" and "principle" are not strongly distinguished, hence my denial that there is a meaningful difference between the two.

As far as I can tell a rule can be observed without explanation of "why," whereas a principle is explanatory. So for instance, the principle of non-contradiction is not merely the statement "things cannot be and not be in the same place at the same time." If this were the case it would merely be a rule.

I think I understand your use of "rule" and "principle" better. Are you suggesting that a rule is a statement observed to be always true, but a principle additionally implies knowledge of how the statement is true because of the nature of reality?

[rkamasam]

In ITOE, Ayn Rand actually makes a distinction between concept formation, and induction. She says that concept formation is "essentially" a process of induction. She does not say that they are the same. If a principle is arrived at by the process of induction, then it follows that a concept and principle are different.

Going through the threads, I realise there are many aspects to the issue of the difference between "concept formation" and "principle formation."

[Onar Åm]

I think I understand your use of "rule" and "principle" better. Are you suggesting that a rule is a statement observed to be always true, but a principle additionally implies knowledge of how the statement is true because of the nature of reality?

No, a rule does not always have to be true, and there is certainly such a thing as a false principle (e.g. altruism). But apart from that, your assessment is correct. A principle distinguishes itself from a rule in that it implies knowledge of how the statement is applied. This results in two distinct situations where rules and principles differ.

1) the rule fails, where the additional knowledge of the principle allows one to make the correct action. Example: "you should always be truthful" is a rule, whereas the corresponding principle of integrity allows you to understand that integrity means to preserve your identity, i.e. your life, which in some cases demands that you lie. E.g. you do not volunteer information to a thief of the whereabouts of your valuables.

2) the rule simply does not give sufficient information on the course of action in a given situation because it is too concrete, where the principle allows you to deduce from the situation the proper course of action. Example: "you should not drink and drive" is a rule. But what about if you have the flu? Or if you are using drugs or medications? The rule does not address these situations, although the rule is informed by an underlying principle that informs all of these situations: driving is a mentally demanding task and requires full awareness in order to avoid the possibility of dangerous accidents.

In other words, the rule is just a procedure, a command, a norm to be followed, whereas the principle is also an explanation from which rules can be formulated.