Loyalty to *expressed principles that are true* and to *every principle within its scope* are what keep the unavoidable variety and even contrariety of particular judgments from turning into sheer self-asserting chaos.
But the idea that principles are *neutral* is a delusion.
But the idea that principles are *neutral* is a delusion.
Principles are heuristic. When we reason by analogy (as we necessarily do, for there is no other way for reason to bear fruit) from a well-known to a partially-known, we gain information about the principle they share or about the less well-known.
When we are trying to "get down to cases," that is, to make a decision together despite the inevitable partiality (in both registers) of our understanding, we need well-established principles to keep us from simply indulging in special pleading.
That is how laws work.
That is how laws work.
When we misunderstand such principles as "neutral" or as themselves the object of value, we fail to understand their *scope* adequately.
We may even fail to understand the realities regarding which the principles help us to become better informed.
We may even fail to understand the realities regarding which the principles help us to become better informed.
On the other hand, when we try to thrust away at the realities from our own partiality, without regard for the inescapability and necessity of principles for our understanding, we simply replicate within and among ourselves the chaos of error we see in others.
As in so many things in human life and understanding, only by grasping each thing in itself and together with others, only by insisting on *proportion* and *fitness* and *fecundity* in understanding, can we escape both Scylla and Charybdis.
And this is not easy. But worth it.
And this is not easy. But worth it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
