Comment by andsoitis
4 days ago
One helpful way to think about is to what extent your principles are rooted in emotions or rigidity, or whether your principles are rooted more in realism and practicality.
Put differently: are you making decisions based on principles that are crafted with the goal of CHANGING the world? Or are you making decisions based on principles that are crafted to NAVIGATE a dynamic, fuzzy, ever-changing world?
> Put differently: are you making decisions based on principles that are crafted with the goal of CHANGING the world? Or are you making decisions based on principles that are crafted to NAVIGATE a dynamic, fuzzy, ever-changing world?
Why would the latter be better than the former ?
In your mind, why are the second kinds of things here not "criteria" or "heuristics"?
(Also you can enclose things in * to emphasize on this site btw. There is a little grey 'help' next to the comment box.)
> why are the second kinds of things here not "criteria" or "heuristics"?
I think you're asking why I call the heuristics for navigating the world "principles"?
Principles come in 3 distinct flavors:
a) Rule of conduct. The standard you hold yourself to regardless of circumstance or convenience. Examples can be honesty, fairness, loyalty, or non-violence.
b) Organizing idea in a field. General concept that explains or governs range of specific cases. They're not moral rules, they're explanatory or decision-making frameworks.
c) Foundational truth or law. Basic proposition that underlies a system of thought. E.g. conservation of energy is principle that isn't proven within the system but a foundation the rest of the system is built on. Axioms play the same role in logic or mathematics.
In this thread, I'm using principles in the (b) sense, whereas I think the author of the article and some of the sentiment in the discussion anchor on the (a) sense.
In practice, one has to find a balance you can live with between (a) and (b), since they can be in tension.
Hm OK, thanks for the lesson here. To be clear, it kinda seems like in your original comment you are using both the (a) and (b) senses, but just making a prescriptive point about (b), right?
I think in this schema, I am still saying a good (b) principle for anyone is probably something like "have knowledge of the (a)s of things and people you depend on, so you can know if any of your other (b)s might cause some conflict down the line".