Friday, October 27, 2006

Fidelity of Thought

prin·ci·ple, 'prin(t)-s(&-)p&l, -s&-b&l, noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French principe, principle, from Old French, from Latin principium beginning, from princip-, princeps initiator -- more at PRINCE
1 a : a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption b (1) : a rule or code of conduct (2) : habitual devotion to right principles c : the laws or facts of nature underlying the working of an artificial device
2 : a primary source : ORIGIN
3 a : an underlying faculty or endowment b : an ingredient (as a chemical) that exhibits or imparts a characteristic quality
4 capitalized, Christian Science : a divine principle : GOD
- in principle : with respect to fundamentals

prin·ci·pal, 'prin(t)-s(&-)p&l, -s&-b&l, adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin principalis, from princip-, princeps

1 : most important, consequential, or influential : CHIEF

2 : of, relating to, or constituting principal or a principal


Where the weary traveler beds is not decided by where he finds his feet at night; rather, it is the path chosen by the traveler's deliberation (or not) that makes all the difference. Thus, the traveler's choice -- not the path itself -- is determinative. Moreover, the reasons precursing that choice are the true causes behind the traveler's newfound milieu. If the traveler's reasoning was proper, he will find himself where he sought to go; if the traveler's reasoning was improper, he may find himself lost in the undergrowth.

We cannot justify our choices by their results, as a fortuitous result may be just that -- fortuitous. Our misaligned reasoning may nonetheless lead us to the shining city; correct reasoning, however, should never fail.1.

Our reasons for choices can be based on many things. For some, intuition instructs; for others, logic leads.2. I do not here judge either (in fact I believe in both). But both intuition and logic are principalistic, whether that principle be a belief that one's "gut" ought be obeyed or that Reason is righteous. To act with integrity, however, we must faithful to our principals. That is, our principles must be principal; maxim-wise, we will get nowhere by putting the cart before the horse.

Choices made by acting on Cassandra's predictions must therefore have faulty foundations.3. Thus, only choices with principles at their center are structurally secure. Politicians and pundits are but too happy -- and far too predisposed -- to advocate or object to policies based on their self-prophesized outcomes. We must not fall into this trap! Such thinking is consequentalistic at its base -- an ethically-corrupt philosophy wholly lacking in morals and principles, desperately nihilistic and hedonistic.

We should demand more of them. The Declaration of Independence did not justify secession by a repetition of grievances; it grieved that the King's and Parliament's actions violated principles. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not base its proclamations on the state of the world; it recognizes the "inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family." And President Kennedy did not legitimize the Cold War on keeping Americans alive; he articulated freedom as the preeminent value.

We should demand more, and act better ourselves. Legitimate choices are not justified by their ends; legitimate choices justify themselves.4.



1. All too often, though, our reasoning is justified and yet we find ourselves wandering circles in a dark forest. There are two causes: either our reasoning was faulty, or our execution was inexact.
Reasoning can be faulty for dirth of knowledge, myopic foresight, or any other number of reasons. Thus we find the simple, unfortunate, fact: we cannot know everything. To find every fact and contemplate every consideration is overly burdensome, if not impossible. We must therefore resign ourselves to forever striving valiantly with some shortcoming along the way: such is the curse of humanity. However, because our investigative efforts are elemental to rational reasoning, and rational reasoning is fundamental to finding the proper path, we might never find home without due diligence.
Likewise, mortality inflicts upon us an inability to will our wills. Like a traveler's broken bridge, accidents of fate, connivery of enemies, and human carelessness will always hamper and detour our designs. Again, we can only do our best to ensure the proper execution of our choices.
Thus, simply because we find ourselves coming up short again and again does not mean our reasons and reasoning was improper. Nonetheless, as way leads on to way, fortune of fate is furthered by attempting initial excellence.

2. My apologies for the excess alliteration.

3. Avoiding the question of fate.

4. This is the biggest problem with my formula (infra): it advocates permitting end results to justify means employed. It attempts to sidestep this by cautioning against acting in such a way that is morally outrageous -- but any accurate model must be fully integrated: one should not need to add external guidelines to control a legitimate theory.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home