Bones wrote:I know your question is rhetorical, but many people have found writing treatises a useful way to spend their time. It depends on the person. John Locke apparently thought it was worth his effort. I suppose the motivation comes from believing you have something valuable to contribute society.
Locke said a lot of great things, and they led to great things, but it didn't take long for them to get perverted and obliterated. I can't argue with you though, I'm just playing cynical devil's advocate.
What era of mankind are you talking about? There are certain assumptions followed in physics and mathematics that distinguish it from reality. The applicability comes to play when the assumptions closely mimic reality. I am assuming that the era of mankind you are talking about does not closely mimic reality and therefore doesn’t provide any real useful rules for governing our society (I don’t want to use “principle” until I know what you mean by it). Also, given the fact that it is so difficult to create assumptions that mimic our current era, I doubt that we can predict with any accuracy how they will apply to a future era.
I find your characterization of math and physics odd. We can land man on the moon and we can build incredible computational devices at extremely small scales with our knowledge of math and physics. These are extremely powerful and reality-oriented ideas.
sjw wrote:In my opinion you are confusing rules and principles. Everything you say is accurate concerning rules. Most human beings only comprehend principles as rules. Like I said, principles may not be appropriate to this era of mankind.
Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004):
principle, n. A basic rule, law, or doctrine.
rule, n. 1. Generally, an established and authoritative standard or principle; a general norm mandating or guiding conduct or action in a given type of situation.
I’m not going to argue semantics. I know these definitions are not the only definitions. What do you mean by principle and rule? What is the difference in your opinion?
Why are you quoting a law dictionary? That profession would be the last to be able to understand a principle. The legal profession wouldn't know a principle if it sued them.
A rule is a prescription, something to obey or follow. A principle is a generalization, something induced from reality. But many people have no concept of a principle, they are taught in public schools as if principles are rules, they can't think creatively or inductively, and the distinction is therefore meaningless to them.