I think so. A principle can be rejected, while a good explanation can't be without providing a better one. Or something.
-
-
Replying to @ianrozzano @HPluckrose
You seem to agree that explanations are everything, so I'm just not seeing why we need principles.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ianrozzano
That's just the name for a conclusion like 'Everyone should have the same rights.' It can be explained but is not an explanation in itself.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I see what you mean. My initial reaction was that it looked like an appeal to some foundation of knowledge, which can't exist.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ianrozzano
No, not at all. We have to build principles, argue for them, update them, abandon them if warranted.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I guess i was reacting to the other guy claiming principles don't exist.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ianrozzano @HPluckrose
That's a claim that seems harder to refute than "explanations don't exist." So principle seems weaker than explanation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ianrozzano
They're just different things. The explanation (I would prefer argument) for a principle is what gives it strength but not the same thing.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ianrozzano
It just wouldn't make sense to say 'We need to uphold our the explanations of liberal democracy.'
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
You'd have to rephrase it, but I think it might come out stronger.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.