
The dictionary defines resolve (noun) as Firmness of purpose.
Which made me think about the concept a little...
The other day, someone contacted me with a request that I couldn't grant. The person explained this request (and the reason behind it) to me in a fair amount of detail, with what I thought to be a fair amount of logic. Logic is something I appreciate, so I returned the favour by dedicating an hour or so to considering the matter, after which I provided them with a detailed written explanation of why I couldn't agree.
They called me the next day, close to outraged that I wasn't budging. I explained why, again, using simpler examples of the principles behind my argument. They reverted to threats. I repeated the reasoned logic. They said I was being abstract, that the fact that I was basing my side of the argument on principles was impractical. I smiled. In my case, the principle I was using to defend my thinking was one that I've over time given plenty of thought, arriving (long ago) at the conclusion that it made perfect sense to me, and that I'd use it as a base for reasoning about other things.
So why do I believe that you shouldn't back down when someone challenges you on a principle?
Here's why: True principles should be based on one absolute, and one absolute only: reason. They should came into existence because at some stage, somewhere, you asked "why?" And then tried to explain why, gathered facts, looked at prior experiences, conducted experiments, carefully considered the results, and finally arrived at a conclusion with the knowledge that what you came up with was based on your ability to think, and nothing else. If the principle can be proven wrong with a logical, proven argument, you should concede. Otherwise, never.
That's resolve.