Living life by way of principle or actions?

[NoEgo]

What is wrong with living life by way of principle?

Personally I think that there are only good actions in life an bad actions. And that often means breaking a principle.

Language is a real problem in discussing this idea, so I welcome constructive views and opinions on this subject so I can get better clarity.

 

[fredfelt]

Your principles form your actions
Your actions are constrained by resources / reality
Principles therefore should be acted upon with a degree of flexibility

A hypercryte has a gap between their principles and actions
To avoid being hypercritical stop having principles

 

[Dillinger4]

Principles do not always translate to existence, whereas actions exist in the world.

 

[Jonti]

If the way we should act in every situation could be derived from some set of principles, things would be a lot simpler!

But life's not like that, it's messy and complicated.

 

[fela fan]

What is wrong with living life by way of principle?

Personally I think that there are only good actions in life an bad actions. And that often means breaking a principle.

Language is a real problem in discussing this idea, so I welcome constructive views and opinions on this subject so I can get better clarity.

I'm not sure living life can only come under one or other of principles and actions. There will always be things in life that don't belong to either, so i'm a bit confused about the way you've set the thread up.

However, principles are a funny thing. People living by them will presumably feel they're living a non-harmful life to others, and therefore are a worthy citizen and not a harm to society.

But whose principles are they really? Where did they come from? It seems to me that principles inevitably have been 'taught' to us from elsewhere. And if we stick to our principles, we can only act within their boundaries, and therefore are leading perhaps more dogmatic than flexible lives.

Living by principles means we can only respond to events in life in a fixed way, and they can therefore be a hindrance to us.

I prefer to operate under the guide of 'if you harm nature, you harm yourself'. Maybe a guide such as this helps me with all actions i take, and negates the need for any principles. If that's the case, then according to your thread, i'll ditch principles in favour of actions, so long as those actions are guided by an 'ethos'....

But that's another piece of pesky language!

 

[fela fan]

Rereading the OP, i would say for sure, principles must sometimes be broken. All rules and externally created ways of behaving must be open to rejection in favour of action in a specific context.

So to 'what is wrong with life by way of principle?', i'd have to say that it forces us to respond sometimes in unnatural ways to what we are experiencing.

Extending that, forget having any principles, just the guide i mentioned. Principles are man-made, and as such problematical. Be ruled by the need to not harm existence. That'll do.

 

[kyser_soze]

You need some new, improved context dependent principles.

For example, I have a principle tha I don't steal from shops; however, if I were starving I would happily lay that principle to one side and steal food.

Principles are all well and good, but like any rule, rigid adherence to them is usually neither achievable or in many cases desireable...

 

[Santino]

Rereading the OP, i would say for sure, principles must sometimes be broken. All rules and externally created ways of behaving must be open to rejection in favour of action in a specific context.

So to 'what is wrong with life by way of principle?', i'd have to say that it forces us to respond sometimes in unnatural ways to what we are experiencing.

Extending that, forget having any principles, just the guide i mentioned. Principles are man-made, and as such problematical. Be ruled by the need to not harm existence. That'll do.

What's the difference between a principle and a guide then?

 

[kyser_soze]

What's the difference between a principle and a guide then?

Guides aren't man-made apparently...

 

[Santino]

Guides aren't man-made apparently...

So who writes fucking Lonely Planet books then?

 

[kyser_soze]

So who writes fucking Lonely Planet books then?

Ayleeunz.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

I like the wikipedia guideline "ignore all rules". Wiki has numerous strict policies and procedures which are widely adhered to. However, if logic and circumstance dictate that a particular policy, whilst sensible, does not actually improve wikipedia in a particular instance, then any editor is free to ignore it.

To a degree, we can apply this to our own "principles". So, for example, I'm broadly speaking in favour of free-speech. But if allowing someone else to speak freely would impact in a negative way on society, then in some circumstances free speech should go out the freakin' window. Obvious example would be allowing a Nazi complete freedom of speech, but then not because what he is saying is "lets impact on the freedoms of others in such and such a way". I think in US free speech law this is known as the "clear and present danger" clause.

 

[NoEgo]

Well I think that the whole thing about "principles" is a load of bullshit then.

Goes back to my assertion that there are only good actions in life and bad actions.

Other problem it would seem is that there is an immediate assumption that a principle, any principle is automatically a good one.

 

[isitme]

I don't think that people should make up their mind about something until they know what it is

 

[fela fan]

What's the difference between a principle and a guide then?

It's a good question. In language terms probably nothing within this context.

But principles to me are like the example given by kyser. When faced with a certain situation, you take a particular action according to your principle (unless starving in his case) which creates the basis for your reaction and action to the situation you're faced with. In other words your principle creates a predetermined action when faced with any situation.

With the guide i talked about, each and every situation can be responded to according to the guide, and is not predetermined by a principle. There is much more scope for deciding to what to do for all situations we come across.

Put another way, with the guide i mentioned, one can make decisions to present situations in the present, whereas with principles one has to make decisions in the present according to the past. With principles you are beholden to your past, with a guide (or with no principles and no guide), you are free to decide on appropriate action each and every time.

Principles deny change, deny the ability to grow and adapt in one's life.

 

[fela fan]

Goes back to my assertion that there are only good actions in life and bad actions.

One thing i'm currently grappling with is a possible extension to this: there are actions in life that are carried out consciously and unconsciously. I think that when people commit 'bad' actions, actions that harm other people, then they have not acted with full consciousness... maybe not for this thread...

or maybe it is linked. Principles, because they are predetermined, mean people exit consciousness when carrying out action (or actively not doing something) according to a situation they're faced with. Principles block consciousness.

 

[i-am-your-idea]

I think that when people commit 'bad' actions, actions that harm other people, then they have not acted with full consciousness... QUOTE]

please expand on this!

 

[fractionMan]

Principals are the foundation of any concious action.

I don't think it's an either/or question.

 

[fela fan]

Principals are the foundation of any concious action.

I'm not so sure about this. Principles get in the way of conscious action or decision-making.

Situation: consult principle: act accordingly.

Like a rule, blind adherence to a principle is akin to accepting that God exists and must be served.

I think having principles helps to keep their holders out of full consciousness.

However, you may have been using another meaning of 'conscious'?

 

[fela fan]

I think that when people commit 'bad' actions, actions that harm other people, then they have not acted with full consciousness... QUOTE]

please expand on this!

As i read your request it seems not possible to do so without writing pages of stuff. Let me think if i can come up with a short answer...

Okay, what is dark? An absence of light.

What is bad? An absence of good.

What is hate? An absence of love.

Love comes first. But that assumes you and i and other readers are using the same understanding of 'love'.

So, love and good and light and life belong to consciousness. Acting in anti-life ways, acting against existence and the whole world is acting out of hate and harm and darkness. It follows the person is acting in an unconscious manner.

It will perhaps complicate matters, but to be acting in consciousness requires one to be in the present moment. Principles come from the past and if adhered to force their owner to act in the present out of the past.

 

[Dillinger4]

*explodes*

 

[NoEgo]

It's a good question. In language terms probably nothing within this context.

But principles to me are like the example given by kyser. When faced with a certain situation, you take a particular action according to your principle (unless starving in his case) which creates the basis for your reaction and action to the situation you're faced with. In other words your principle creates a predetermined action when faced with any situation.

With the guide i talked about, each and every situation can be responded to according to the guide, and is not predetermined by a principle. There is much more scope for deciding to what to do for all situations we come across.

Put another way, with the guide i mentioned, one can make decisions to present situations in the present, whereas with principles one has to make decisions in the present according to the past. With principles you are beholden to your past, with a guide (or with no principles and no guide), you are free to decide on appropriate action each and every time.

Principles deny change, deny the ability to grow and adapt in one's life.

Very good. You've articulated this well.

 

[NoEgo]

One thing i'm currently grappling with is a possible extension to this: there are actions in life that are carried out consciously and unconsciously. I think that when people commit 'bad' actions, actions that harm other people, then they have not acted with full consciousness... maybe not for this thread...

or maybe it is linked. Principles, because they are predetermined, mean people exit consciousness when carrying out action (or actively not doing something) according to a situation they're faced with. Principles block consciousness.

Following principles is like having a rule-book to consult. It's an easy option; an excuse to not have to think. It's like why bother struggling having to think about a problem when you have a rule-book to follow?

 

[fela fan]

Following principles is like having a rule-book to consult. It's an easy option; an excuse to not have to think. It's like why bother struggling having to think about a problem when you have a rule-book to follow?

And any excuse to not have to think is welcome in this mad world! Why face the madness full on?? Less danger that way, less uncertainty.

Another thing about principles is that the adherent has basically decided what is right and wrong, and then compartmentalises all situations they meet in their life into one of the two categories. It's become a black and white world, good or bad.

The guide i spoke of eliminates the good and bad, for things can only be good or bad according to the judgment of a human, and that is necessarily limiting. Following principles may make life easier (less decisions to make, less uncertainty need be faced), but they automatically limit the life of a human who has them.

Following the guide promotes consciousness in one's life. And when acting out of consciousness, to harm existence is to harm oneself, and that's why the guide is (just about) foolproof.

 

[Gromit]

Principles are our own personal codes of law.

The key is to live by the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law. So you can break a principle if holding to it actually goes against what all your principles intend in spirit.

 

[fela fan]

Principles are our own personal codes of law.

The key is to live by the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law. So you can break a principle if holding to it actually goes against what all your principles intend in spirit.

Are they our own though...?! Did we choose to make them, or were they sort of handed down to us during our upbringing/conditioning years?

And even if they are, what you say is kind of attractive, but then the question is begot: why have them if you're going to break them? If they go against themselves, then aren't they redundant?

And is the key to live by the spirit of the law? What law is this? Human law? Laws are notoriously organs of control by those in power to keep us in check. Principles are arguably laws dressed up in disguise. Maybe even laws reflect the will of the political world, while principles reflect the will of the organised religious world. Two sides of the same horrible coin!

 

[fractionMan]

I'm not so sure about this. Principles get in the way of conscious action or decision-making.

Situation: consult principle: act accordingly.

Like a rule, blind adherence to a principle is akin to accepting that God exists and must be served.

I think having principles helps to keep their holders out of full consciousness.

However, you may have been using another meaning of 'conscious'?

I'm saying that you have principals that can apply to any action. Whether or not you stick to them is another matter.

 

[Gromit]

Are they our own though...?! Did we choose to make them, or were they sort of handed down to us during our upbringing/conditioning years?

And even if they are, what you say is kind of attractive, but then the question is begot: why have them if you're going to break them? If they go against themselves, then aren't they redundant?

And is the key to live by the spirit of the law? What law is this? Human law? Laws are notoriously organs of control by those in power to keep us in check. Principles are arguably laws dressed up in disguise. Maybe even laws reflect the will of the political world, while principles reflect the will of the organised religious world. Two sides of the same horrible coin!

We inherit a lot of our code from friends, family, culture and experiences. What we do with that inheritance is down to us. We take final ownership. Sometime people do choose to discard some or all of what they inherit. Its not common but it does happen so one cant say that personal choice does not come into it.

Can principles contradict each other. Of course they can. You can't legislate for every possible concieved varrible. When we form our codes they are never contrived enough to the point where you could they are generally high level ideas which one adapts to the situations one encounters. Just like most laws some will overide others as the most important principle, this to will vary from person to person.

E.g. Person A values making money and being successful most and family next
Person B vice versa.

Both have the same priciples but a business situation involving family may be handled differantly by both.

 

[fela fan]

I'm saying that you have principals that can apply to any action. Whether or not you stick to them is another matter.

Okay, fine.

But then i have to wonder why have them in the first place if they're optional all the time? Do they help us make 'correct' decisions? Do they get in the way of making 'rightful' decisions?

Mind you, i like the sound of this optional version if applied to the laws of the land whereby you choose to ignore a law and no punishment is forthcoming...

 

[Gromit]

Okay, fine.

But then i have to wonder why have them in the first place if they're optional all the time?

Cause we are human and not robots.