I’d say that “practical’ has two main meanings. One is “achievable given certain constraints and limits”, the antonym is “impractical”. Two is “focusing on the direct outputs”, the antonym is a bit hard to come by but the opposite meaning is, basically, “done for status/signaling purposes”.
Neither of the two meanings implies simplicity or bluntness.
I don’t think that setting a threshold “for what should be regarded as worth attention” is an expression of the principle of practicality.
It is, of course, in a trivial way, but it’s the same way in which putting on your shoes before going outside is an expression of the same principle.
Plus acta non verba implies a certain distrust for words. Distrust is not a Hufflepuff thing at all.
It is, of course, in a trivial way
Practicality is usually in some sense “trivial”, not so? Is there any sense in which the word implies complexity or subtlety?
To me, practicality doesn’t imply triviality.
I’d say that “practical’ has two main meanings. One is “achievable given certain constraints and limits”, the antonym is “impractical”. Two is “focusing on the direct outputs”, the antonym is a bit hard to come by but the opposite meaning is, basically, “done for status/signaling purposes”.
Neither of the two meanings implies simplicity or bluntness.