The problem with principles is that every principle is composed of several objectives, whereof some sooner or later (ie, ultimately) will arrive to a contradiction between them (called contradiction of objectives). It means that principles actually are sloping plans towards a swap between principles. No principle can survive the destiny of being substituted by another principle.
Now, if the number of principles is finite, which it must be if the claim above is correct (ie, that all of them arrive to some contradiction between its objectives), then the route of embracing principles is actually an eternal merry-go-round between all principles. This merry-go-round may moreover be regulated by a natural law, ie, governing the change of society. It may thus have the power of both explaining history and predicting future for the human society.
Until this route of embracing principles is clarified, I can just cite Groucho Marx in that “Those are my principles, but if you don’t like them…well, I have others”.
|
regulated by law
|
|||
|
regulated by law
|
|||
is clarified,
|
regulated by law
|
|||
|
regulated by law
|
|||
|
regulated by law
|
|||
Menvall's Blog: Phylogenetics - change on different levels 