Talk:Principle

Page Creation

When I created this page, I was surprised that this page did not exist yet. Then it occurred to me that dictionary entries do not belong in Wikipedia. However, if a Wikipedia entry on a word does not exist, there should be a way to find corresponding entries in sister projects. Maybe this could be automated.

Belongs in Wikipedia

Thanks for creating the page. "Principle" in philosophy is somewhat more far-reaching than a mere logical or rational or verbal principle. It is used in metaphysics a lot. Missing from the article is the origin of the principle and its use to mean a real object or event. By the time all that is in there, the scope is beyond a dictionary entry.Dave 05:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone (a human) tell me (explain) why it is (the reason) that this article (webpage) is written this way (in this/these style(s))? (question mark indicative of inquisition)

Simba 22:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC): Aren't we supposed to assume good faith? Do we really need to assume that whoever reads this page is a complete moron and needs everything explained to them in parenthesis every step of the way? Also, how in the world is "(human) interpretation" justified? Until we find evidence of another species on this planet or somewhere else with human-level intelligence and communication abilities, I think it's perfectly acceptable to assume we're talking about humans when discussing fields of philosophy and the mental realm in general. At the moment I'm busy, but when I get some free time, I'm going to try a complete re-write of this article (starting with finding reliable external sources). As it is, the article is written in hypercorrection and is nigh-unreadable.

Simba Jones - Thank you for that sane assessment. I will help you. ...it is difficult to keep good faith toward anonymous Wittgenstein wannabees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki truth enlighten (talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-principle Principle

Don't forget this term's other meaning of um.. something to do with interest and initial balances/investments. 75.17.12.230 05:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC) -

You mean principal - that is a different word.

incomplete and confusing definition.

Guido Alpa may be an eminent professor but he is incomplete (confusing) because a principle is not a law in the sense that a principle is a fundamental truth on which laws can be founded. For example, the principle of energy conservation (the total amount of energy remains the same for a quasi enclosed system) can be applied to Newtonian mechanics as well as to relativity mechanics, though the formulation of this principle within each one of these theories (systems) results in different laws – the beauty of a principle is therefore that it may be defined without specifying a system and hence without formulating a law. It is clear to me that the original meaning of the word 'principle' has become overshadowed by the term 'law' but if one were to completely outcast the original meaning of this word, then why bother using this term at all? And to call a principle 'the inevitable consequence of something' is like putting the world upside down. With all respect, there must be a better description of the word principle then the one given by Guido Alpa. Sarahhofland (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Usage order

As a guide to usage of the term, Collins English Dictionary (1998) has this list of definiens:

1. Standard or rule of personal conduct
2. Set of such moral rules
3. Morality, adherence to moral code
4. Fundamental or general truth of law
5. Essence of something
6. Source or fundamental cause
7. A rule or law concerning natural phenomena or behavior of a system
8. An underlying or guiding belief
9. A constituent of a substance that gives it its characteristics or behavior
10. (in principle) in theory or essence
11. (on principle) because of or in demonstration of a principle

Some edits have been made, but meaning # 6 seems still to be given undue weight. However, # 6 can be supported by arche and # 5 by principle (chemistry). There are now 49 watchers for this article and almost 400 readers per day. Suggestions are invited for this important but challenging article.Rgdboer (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

South Park

I´m quite amused with that TV series´ South Park pun ( PC principal / PC principle => Canadian supremacy/priministry ) approach to this concept. The question to philophocy ( plato ship of state = ghost ship ( asylum movie ) ) is: is gnosticism ( ie the way/method of questioning/inquisiting ) belief an ideology, or merely opportunismn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD7:CF10:0:E529:9CA7:3FC8:319A (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Non-contradiction

The following was removed from §Principle of non-contradiction:

This principle does not work for non physical events. Example: The move it or lose it rule...if you are not moving you are losing what ever it is at the very same time. Procrastination is putting something off yet at the same time, it is doing harm to character building.

Commentary about procrastination. More common is "use it or lose it" such as knowledge or skill. Use article devoted to that Principle. — Rgdboer (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Restart 20:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's restart the talk, please. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)