> En réponse à John Cowan <jcowan@...>:
>
> >
> > Oh yes, of course, me too: I was speaking of doing something *because*
> > it conformed to a principle, not merely acting in accordance with one.
> > After all, it is a principle with me not to be run over by cars,
> > so I make sure to cross the road only when none of them are running
> > over me. But I don't do this *because* I have this principle, but
> > merely to stay alive.
> >
>
> I'm sorry, but I just fail to see the difference. Being run over by cars cannot
> be called a principle. It's a matter of survival and survival has nothing to do
> with principles. What is the difference between acting *because* or *according
> to* a principle? To me, the only reason you could act *according to* a
> principle is *because* you have this principle. What is acting *because* of
> principle? To me, it sounds like you have various possible courses of action,
> and you pick up the one that is in accordance with your own principles. In this
> way, I just don't see the difference between *according to* and *because of* a
> principle.
>
> I think we must have a different definition of *principle*, because I entirely
> fail to see your point...
>
> Christophe.
>
>
http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr
>
> Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.