One of the striking phenomena one can't help but notice in elementary Euclidean geometry is how easy it appears to be to define triples of lines in a triangle which meet in a point. Now for each given triple of line an elementary proof that they meet is generally easy to give, but the argument is always ad hoc and doesn't explain the wealth of such concurrences.
So, is there some deeper conceptual reason why it seems like “just about any symmetric construction” between $A$ and $\{B,C\}$, when similarly applied between $B$ and $\{C,A\}$ and between $C$ and $\{A,B\}$ gives three concurrent lines? (Of course, stated in such generality it is obviously false: the question is why it seems true.)
For example, is there a general theorem or reasoning that implies the existence of many, if not most, of the points of concurrence of a Euclidean triangle (bisectors, medians, mediators, altitudes, symmedians, etc.) without requiring an ad hoc argument for each? (It could, for example, be something like “any construction of algebraically sufficiently low degree will necessarily give concurrent lines, because the so-many first terms will cancel for reasons of symmetry”.)
Maybe one type of argument which seems to come up is that the line $L_A$ is the locus of $M$ such that $\phi_B(M) = \phi_C(M)$ for some function $\phi$ that can be defined from the vertices or sides of the triangle, and then if $\phi_B(M) = \phi_C(M)$ and $\phi_C(M) = \phi_A(M)$ then clearly $\phi_A(M) = \phi_B(M)$: this works to prove that the mediators are concurrent (with $\phi_X(M) = \operatorname{dist}(M,X)$) and also for the bisectors (with $\phi_X(M)$ being the distance from $M$ to the edge opposite $X$), but I don't know if any more points can be handled that way (and I'm not even sure how to correctly state the underlying principle).