It's the principle of the matter!
I hate those words. Anyone who defends or argues based on principle and not on what is right or wrong demonstrates inflexibility, intransigence and narrow-mindedness.
Chinese Wisdom Concerning Money
[19September-2007 @ 17:11 EST: Revised preamble. This page still gets the most search hits: There is no Anthony de Croud. The e-mail is SPAM. I post things that pique my fancy at the moment. I like the 8 precepts, but the rest of the e-mail is junk. However, I thought it fair to post everything in its entirety. I did not write the e-mail. I did not forward the e-mail. I strongly encourage you not to forward it either. (I also encourage you to reply to whomever sent you the e-mail and tell them you don't appreciate getting junk mail.)] Received this in our e-mail (English translation follows): PRECEPTO CHINO SOBRE EL DINERO EL DINERO PUEDE COMPRAR UNA CASA, PERO NO UN HOGAR, EL DINERO PUEDE COMPRAR UN RELOJ, PERO NO EL TIEMPO. EL DINERO PUEDE COMPRAR UNA CAMA, PERO NO EL SUEÑO. EL DINERO PUEDE COMPRAR UN LIBRO, PERO NO EL CONOCIMIENTO. EL DINERO PUEDE PAGAR UN MÉDICO, PERO NO LA SALUD. EL DINERO PUEDE COMPRAR UNA POSICIÓN, PERO NO EL RESPETO. EL DINERO PUEDE COMPRAR LA SANGRE, PERO
Comments
"If someone says, 'It's not about the money, it's about the principle', it's about the money."
Everybody is not as gifted with words as you are, Richard. You are very articulate, and we all know how intelligent you are.
Some people might refer to the principle of the matter when they can't explain in words exactly what they mean.
Sometimes I can feel that something is right. I don't have to verbally utter a list of premises and a valid conclusion. It's in my heart. I can feel it.
But then again, maybe this is just a demonstration of my unintelligence.
(There many other examples in various shades of gray not a sdramatic as this one.)
man with the fun (I think I am going to start calling you matt again to save myself some typing). It is not a question of being literate, since it tends to be literate people who use that expression more. Less literate people tend to use, "Because I said so!" (Incidentally, not to worry, I was not hot under the collar when I wrote that and nothing had spurred it aside from wanting to get a post out.)
MOI: I think the world is black and white, people just muddle it up and make it grey. I have no problem with principled people, I have a problem with people standing on principle.
For a straw man example, consider a strongly unionized organization with a clear divisions of labour. Suppose you have two classes of workers - supervisory and manual labourer. The manual labourer is digging a hole, the sides collapse in and trap him.
"John! Can you grab a shovel and dig me out!"
“I'll radio for a labourer to come and help you out."
"I can't wait. I'm feeling something sharp digging into my left thigh."
"It's not my job."
"I don't care if it's your job or not! I need help getting out now!"
"I want to help you, but it's the principle of the matter."
I do this in my job all the time. Disciplining children in school is a good example. There is no rule that everyone uses each time without considering the other factors involved. It is still very subjective and I'm glad they usually give us the credit making these calls in an intelligent humanistic way.
As always, Richard, you manage to open a can of worms that would take a lifetime to debate! But you provide good fodder for our brain growth! Keep doing that!
MOI: I never intend to open a can of worms. For me the issue is simple and clear cut - black and white, you might say.
barbara: The difficulty is that there is some subtle linguistic difference in being a principled person and someone saying, "It is the principle of the thing.".
In English, at least no natively spoken / written English I am familiar with, do we defend moral or ethical actions / choices by saying, "It is the principle of the thing." We will, instead, use moral or emotional terms to defend our position. (I am willing to give non-native speakers the benefit of the doubt, since linguistic usage may be different in their native tongue).
When a person says, "It is the principle of the matter." As far as I am concerned they are not arguing about the morality or ethics of something, they are simply arguing about the letter of the law.
While precision in the use of words is important - it certainly reduces misunderstandings if we all use words in pretty much the same way - it is equally important not to get carried away with the precise meanings and nuances of words, but to understand them in the broader context. And all I'm pointing out is that "It's the principle of the matter" is never used in a moral context, simply a legalistic or power one.
Or ... maybe I need to go and brush up on my understanding of the English language.