"I'm A Man of Principle"

Do you consider yourself one of these types?

What does it mean to be a "man of principle" (or woman, etc, of course)?

Is it all its cracked up to be?

If a situation goes south in which bothers you, but needs (and has) a solution, to move past, are you the type to focus on the principle of the matter, or do you put more focus on solving it?

More importantly to me, how does one talk someone down who considers themselves a "man of principle" to keep a situation reasonable when they are angry?

this sounds like a "the ends or the means" question to me.
its really a paradox, i think.
there is no correct answer.
ergo, its a silly question.
i am not being nasty, just me lol. you are a knight, you should know these things! but you may be teaching me as well...so again, its chicken vs. egg question.
what matters?
the chicken and the egg are here. so, does which came first matter?
i would say no.
i would say as to your specific question, if anything goes south we try to save it, or keep it as north as we can.
so i would focus on solving it.
if you do that, you will have to also address the principle of the matter.
it sounds easy, and its not pat...but i tried to answer.
as to your last part, you cannot talk anyone down anymore than you can talk someone up.
as i have said elsewhere, when you are down, its a long way up. when you are up, its a long way down.
you cannot choose someone else's path - you can only offer alternatives.
yes, i am am man of principle. but i pride myself on being fair and actually hearing.
i think i do well at this, but i could be wrong. again i could be right.
in end, you have to follow YOUR path, as the other party will do, regardless of what you say or do.
you can offer alternatives. you can lead a horse to water....
something i do, may or may not work for you, i try to think INSIDE the box.
i often find that my box is far bigger than i ever knew.
as to others, that is their own path, and you as a Knight know this, you cannot choose ones path for him. he alone must choose.

I tend to find that people rarely matter, as individuals, and if you find someone overly convinced that they, or their principles, are in some way of significance, you can often simply not deal with them at all and find an alternate route to whatever outcome you desire.

Let folks die as the kings of their weird, lonely, hills if they must.

Distinction, necessity, and proportionality? I'd assume it was more a clash of ones principles forced by circumstances, so measured pragmatism that actively referenced ones principles might be the way to go.

bah, lets get down to it lol. stop the psychobabble!
geesh! and i wanna be a knight lol.
principle is the matter and the matter is the principle.
easy.
as to JamesSand - your own advice should be heeded by yourself.
i am not being bitter or better, you just sound a lot like what you dislike based upon your posts.
as though, you hate martyrs, so you will become one.
thats a pariah, i believe.
either way, its only words.

as to JamesSand - your own advice should be heeded by yourself.
i am not being bitter or better, you just sound a lot like what you dislike based upon your posts.
as though, you hate martyrs, so you will become one.
thats a pariah, i believe.
either way, its only words.

I doubt even my dog will miss me, I run no risk of being a martyr - that need not necessarily mean I need be humble.
I can be as brash as I like, and in turn, all others are invited to sidestep me and progress with their own goals.

As you so delightfully arrive at the conclusion - it is only words

To circle back to the subject at hands - I have occasionally professed to stand on a principle (fairness is a popular one) - usually when I can no longer think of good options to advance the plot in my favour.

I wonder if that's all other people are doing, or perhaps they truly are principled people? If only I had one of those fancy machines that tells me what is happening in people's brains when they respond to things.....

Being a principled person means following the principles you express. Sure you might say you believe in cruelty free emissions, but if that's prioritized behind a hundred other things, that's where you slide into "unprincipled" territory.
Generally principled is also in relation to whatever social morays are relevant

Taking a quick think on the subject, I think my first reaction is that having or not having principles is essentially a matter of weighing the means against the ends. Someone who has principles is concerned with acting morally (by which ever metric) as assessed in the now. While they may feel discontent over the outcomes, they perceive them as justified nonetheless, because they are seen as outcomes of acceptable, or just, or even virtuous procedures.
Someone without principle, on the other hand, is concerned with the moral values of outcomes. Rather than justify the outcomes through the justness of the actions that lead to them, they would justify procedures based on the consequences they ultimately (or at least until any given current time) yielded, and any principles they purport to hold to they are happy to violate at any time when they expect the consequences of doing so to be morally preferable.

It should be noted that by this layout neither is necessarily morally superior to the other, and neither needs be generally whimsical. By some other definition, a concern with the consequences might well itself be called a "principle" by which entire ethical theories can be and have been constructed. But normally, colloquially, when we speak of a "person of principle" we tend to mean someone to who values the journey above the destination more than someone of whom we'd say that they are "unprincipled".

For example, someone who believes in the principle of democracy understands that their personal political opinions will likely not be fully realized by whom ever they elect to govern over them. They understand that a democratically run society is a society of compromize and mild discomfort for a majority of its participants, and they accept that and pursue change through the democratic means they believe are the righteous path. Fellow citizens (disregarding other principles that might inform differentiation) that hold opposing political views are seen as equally legitimate contributors to the process who are perhaps poorly informed and who might join one's own side in the course of a political discussion.
On the other hand, someone who believes in the principle of aristocracy (here in the literal Greek sense of "reign of the best") picture a society run by someone objectively best suited as judged through their own moral framework. They perceive questions about the definition of what constitutes a morally correct government as matters of fact, not of opinion, and they find the establishment of that government, the achievement of the righteous goal, to be a greater good that justifies what ever means it is pursued by. To them, someone who holds opposing political views is an opponent of goodness itself, and for the greater good such opinions must be stopped from spreading through society and disregarded in political decision-making.

I started a fight today based on principle.

Why?

Because I had not the means to achieve my desired ends - far out of reach indeed.

But, what I could do, was make one person in the world miserable based on my values - and so I strode into battle, laying about with my steel, so that though there was no possible victory, at least I would have stood for something.

It was cathartic, if futile.

From Buddhist standpoint I would say that is better to have flexible mind,
rather then to be a "man of principle."

When things go south, I usually give much more emphasis on principle of matter rather then solving it.
I know that´s in contradiction what I said above. But even if we as a human know what is good we act differently right ((:

In case of "principle of matter" there is higher probability to escalation of arguments and aggression. The way
to bit reduce is usage of neutral words, like: "what is your perspective?" "What exactly are you against?", "I see/feel it ...this way"

The second option "trying to find solution" is more way of compassion, balance, etc.. , I would say it´s bit a way of receding,
because the solution should be point which is compromise for both person.

Principles come in many shapes and forms. 7.5 billion people - the possibility for human potential is never doused by factors like count or place or time or age or anything like that. My hope in the world and in my Modern day Jediism is that we understand and choose our own. The ability to freely choose can be explained many ways. That freedom and freedoms similar can be misunderstood or even hated sometimes not because of content but of misunderstanding. Some people may not want to choose or make a choice. That’s ok too. So many times I’ve been told or I’ve heard the word arrogance and even pride when concerned. It’s often difficult to display character and principal without that opposition. Hard ticket to punch. People like A. Crowley and A. Rand are my fav when it comes to revealing character and principals NOT common. J Campbell does the same thing. J Krisnamurti does it - so many people And ways - which to choose. ???

I have a set of principals. They change as I learn more and adapt and grow. When the seek “light “is on in my heart - there’s always room and time to adjust - my choice. That helps me to grow - leaving room for another chair or two at the table type of mentality.
For me - principals were hard to find and choose. I’m picky and hard headed as well. I may be the only one.

I cultivate principals. I try to teach this with my family and friends as well as others in my path. It benefits many.


As far as character of attitude and every day acts - I’m a fire cracker some days. Yea - I got a hair trigger on my feelings some times - here lately - I’ve had “opportunity's”’to shown principals and character in time of confrontation. You could say - arguments are for moments when they are needed and chosen for - the ol “for such a time as this” type of mentality. It takes practice. Vader choked people out often and Kylo let it loose. Those moments for me - I’ve sat my monkey down and taught him to act right. I failed in the beggining- hard - ask my wife - no broom is safe when daddy is upset- but now - every person isn’t scared of what I call my “whinging
Wally.” The difference now is when the upset comes - Wally doesn’t disappear but takes a seat. ( I call my “monkey” Wally or Murry - just me)

Cultivation- that’s the key for me. There is a hidden secret in it. Thanks Pro for this. I look forward to what this can bring here. As always - my inbox is open.

The problem with principles is that it separates oneself from the rest.
And then we are more easily inclinable to duality perception, you know "My principles and values are ...." < they are good and right to me,
each deviation of other people to our values leads to sorting on good/bad.
For instance when somebody grew up in polite family, then the person will meet a very vulgar people, this automatically leads to clasification as
bad people. Thought those vulgar people can be very empathetic and sensitive friends, but you can´t see beyond your perception.

This day in age I live in - so much can and is being used to separate and segregate and to me - I may be the only one - but my focus is real connections - kinna the opposite of the main steam flow and what “mostly” happens. Cultivated character for me draws. Some it can separate. For me character and principals are easy to attach feelings and emotions. That’s why it’s so hard or was / is so hard for me. Being “wary” of attachments can help. It did for me.

Proteus wrote: Do you consider yourself one of these types?

It feels a bit self-inflated to talk that way but the truth of it is that in certain matters, i am. I spent the first half of my life making bad decisions that caused myself and others a lot of pain. Some of my principles come from recognizing the unfairness and the foolishness of that. They were learned the hard way, so to speak, and are quite important to me.

What does it mean to be a "man of principle" (or woman, etc, of course)?

It means that you have a sincere regard and concern for how your own, personal behavior impacts the world around you.

Is it all its cracked up to be?

Yes.

If a situation goes south in which bothers you, but needs (and has) a solution, to move past, are you the type to focus on the principle of the matter, or do you put more focus on solving it?

Its funny, we can all use the exact same words while saying completely different things.
How about a guy is flat broke, behind on rent and about to be evicted if he doesnt come up with some money. He's at the bus stop one day and theres a lady sitting on the bench next to him who keeps falling asleep. Shes wearing nice cloths and tasteful jewelry, and her purse is slightly ajar. He can see her little pocket-book inside of the purse. He knows theres money in there because he noticed her take it out and grab cash to pay for the bus pass. He doesnt know her backstory, but he can tell she has money because of how shes dressed. It so happens that her car was recently totaled because some hot-rodder side-swiped her at almost 65mph. Someone at the insurance agency failed to dot some “i” or cross some “t” and theres a delay on getting her rental car. Which is probably a good thing, because the pain meds her doctor gave her are opioids and she keeps nodding off- def dont want to be driving when that happens. This is her first time ever even taking a bus.

He knows its very possible that with what she’s got in the purse, he can go to bis landlord and at least buy himself a little more time to figure out something else. He’s not afraid to do it. Hes a bold guy and he knows he can get away with it. Its right there; its his to take.

Well, does he focus on the solution to his problem or does he focus on the principle of what he is thinking about doing?

More importantly to me, how does one talk someone down who considers themselves a "man of principle" to keep a situation reasonable when they are angry?

People often say that integrity means doing the right thing even when no one is looking. Thats one kind of integrity but integrity also means doing the right thing when EVERYONE is looking and they all expect you to fit in with the status quo. A person who is standing up for their principles will be willing to take an unpopular position because they believe it is the right thing to do. Perhaps to the extent that it costs them their careers. Perhaps even to the extent that it costs them their lives. A truly principled person takes their position knowing that they may very well lose, big time. They dont fight to win a battle of dominance or a war of egos. Theyd rather not fight at all. They've found themselves in a situation where there is either external pressure or internal desire to do something that they know is wrong, and they chose to do the thing they believed to be right no matter what it cost them.

Theres nothing you can say to talk these people out of their decisions. In fact, this is a person who you should probably be supportive of.

The inverse of this is that people often use noble concepts to justify their lousy behavior. Even to the point of being outright murderous. Prime examples are the many communist revolutions of the past or the nazi party or today’s ISIL. All of these groups/movements claim/ed to be acting on noble principles and values but the bodies of their many victims belie their virtuous claims. Talking these people out of their actions depends on your (or rather, society’s) ability to counter their propaganda and to impose physical consequences upon them. Movements that embrace violence have to be intellectually exposed with rational argumentation, this is a sort of social vaccine against them, and those who refuse to acknowledge the rational basis for peaceful activism have to be forcefully overcome before their numbers grow large enough to dominate their host nation/states.


Finally, people sometimes claim they are standing up for a principle when they are really just defending their own self image. Perhaps they feel slighted and really just want to see that they are acknowledged and respected. Or perhaps they feel a sense of contemptuousness towards others and need to “win”. In the first case, you only have to let them see that you accept them on the terms of mutual respect and mutual courtesy. You will respect them and they will respect you and life will be good. In the second case, you have to either be able to fight back effectively enough that that its not worth their trouble to bother you or you have to learn how to disengage and not fall into their drama, to begin with.

Im sure there are others that im not thinking of but im also sure this post is too long, already lol

Regarding to this thread I was thinking about Intolerance,
Which is in fact result of attachment to certain principles and why is that?
Because the set of principles we believe in gives us a firm ground, and if somebody represent
something which is in contradiction with her/his believe system it cause intolerance and hatred,
because the person is worrying about safetiness which is now endengering for him/her.

Firm ground gives us security and certainty that things will be safe also in the future,
but it´s just illusion, nobody can do anything what would secure permanent safetiness,
because Universe is dynamic and then no changes are still.

Intolerance is in fact great pointer which shows to what is one attached to.
And clearly shows system of values.

The only people who are not men/women of principle are those who have lost themselves to their own nihilistic narratives.

Everyone has principles: they are the outward (explicity) expression of our values, our "scripts", that operate within us and provide the structure for how we measure value in the world.

The problem is that many of our principles are informed by external authorities, rather than a natural conclusion of examining our values. Additionally, many of us live our lives taking many of our principles for granted, rarely examining them, and because they are usually untested, the contradiction between principle and value never is revealed.

Until things go south.

Introspection is a useful tool for examining principles and values, both preemptively and during/after a crisis. That's why journaling and discussing morality and philosophy is so valued among Jedi forums: it lets you take a look at the monster within, so to speak, so that when circumstances call forward the monster, you have it well trained to do your bidding, and not succumb to circumstance.