It's a simple question.
(IFF) you don't have a reason (THEN) you are by definition an un-reasonable person (a person who acts without reasons).
(IFF) you claim to have a reason but refuse to reveal it, claiming it is secret, or unimportant, or "just too complicated to explain" (THEN) your unrevealed reason is functionally-indistinguishable from NO reason (AND) you are therefore functionally-indistinguishable from an un-reasonable person (a person who acts without reasons).
Are you a reasonable person?
Topic's posts
Posts in total:
31
-
-
--> @3RU7AL(IFF) you don't have a reason (THEN) you are by definition an un-reasonable person (a person who acts without reasons).Should read as follows:(IFF) you don't have a reason for your actions (THEN) you are by definition an un-reasonable person (a person who acts without reasons). -
--> @Discipulus_DidicitThanks for the critique.
-
I don't think an unreasonable person is someone who acts without reason, so much as a person who refuses to be reasonable.That said, I think it is silly to think that there isn't a reason for doing something. Unreasonable people are even unreasonable for a reason! -
--> @Mopac
I agree, but if they refuse to reveal their reasons, there is no way to reason with them!Unreasonable people are even unreasonable for a reason! -
--> @3RU7ALThat's the idea, they are being unreasonable.You can't reason with someone who is being unreasonable.
-
--> @MopacYou can't reason with someone who is being unreasonable.It's really just that simple.
-
--> @3RU7ALAs we live in an age where people's minds have been turned into mush by nihilism and its brother absurdism, reason will become less and less effective as a means of communicating. If there is no absolute truth, reason becomes indistinguishable from rhetoric. It is simply a means to achieve an end. At thisnpoint reason is little more than magic, and it ceases to be reason in any meaningful sense.
-
--> @MopacAs we live in an age where people's minds have been turned into mush by nihilism and its brother absurdism, reason will become less and less effective as a means of communicating. If there is no absolute truth, reason becomes indistinguishable from rhetoric. It is simply a means to achieve an end. At thisnpoint reason is little more than magic, and it ceases to be reason in any meaningful sense.I disagree. If I ask you for a reason, you can either answer me or refuse to answer me.You only become un-reasonable when you refuse to answer the question.
-
--> @3RU7ALWhen I say reasonable, I am not simply talking about what leads up to something so much as I am talking about being rational.
-
--> @Mopac...so much as I am talking about being rational.Rational and logical are synonymous.
-
--> @3RU7ALCertainly.An unreasonable person is not being rational, not necessarily that they don't have reasons. Rather, that their reasons are illogical.And certainly, even the most rational person can be unreasonable at times. In fact, it is really easy to be prideful in one's reasonableness. That there is the trap, because pride makes us unreasonable. As does false humility, but false humility is in itself a manifestation of pride.
-
--> @Mopac
Everyone is perfectly logical (illogical = impossible), just not necessarily acting according to a logically-coherent conscious (explainable) plan.Rather, that their reasons are illogical.I prefer to make the distinction between people who HIDE their (conscious) "reasons" (AXIOMS) and those willing to make those reasons (AXIOMS) EXPLICIT. -
--> @MopacAs does false humility, but false humility is in itself a manifestation of pride.False humility is vastly superior to acting like a pure-unshackled a-hole.
-
--> @3RU7ALIn situations where say, someone is being charged to direct things, and it really isn't necessary for those being directed to know every detail about why they are given their tasks, it creates inefficiency and ties up human resources to have to be explained everything. Sometimes it is best to simply follow orders, especially when things need to be accomplished in a timely manner.So I would say that being explicit about ones reasons and hiding ones reasons can both be appropriate or inappropriate depending on the circumstance.
-
--> @MopacSometimes it is best to simply follow orders, especially when things need to be accomplished in a timely manner.Here's an example of what that leads to...
-
--> @3RU7ALI did say SOMETIMES, but I will watch the video.
-
--> @3RU7ALI am 5 minutes through the video.As someone who has worked in relay for the last few years, I can say pretty authoritatively that it is a bad idea to cooperate with strangers over the phone, even if they claim to be law enforcement.
-
--> @3RU7AL @MopacThere is a distinct lexical difference between being perceived to be reasonable or not, and having reasons.A. Has reasons to think that B. is unreasonable, giving B. reasons to suggest that A. is being unreasonable.Similarly B. has reasons to assume that they are being reasonable and that A's. reasons are therefore unreasonable, whilst A assumes that their reasons are reasonable and that B's reasons are therefore unreasonable.And so on.The reason defines the reasoning irrespective of whether the reason is perceived to be either reasonable or unreasonable.Therefore the reason is always reasonable irrespective of whether or not the reason is considered to be either reasonable or unreasonable.If you get my drift.
31 days later
-
--> @zedvictor4
I get that 75% of the time you appear to me to make little to no rational, logical common sense.If you get my drift.
1 + 1 = 2 is rational, logical common sense
That 1 triangle + 1 triangle = 4 triangle of a size the same original triangles is synergetically rational, logical common sense. LINKAs soon as some ones pathway does not make reasonable sense, then others should question the the pathway being presented with reasonable questions and alternative pathways that provide more common sense reason.3 + 3 = 6 but in the above linked scenario 3 angles plus 3 angles synergetically = 12 angles.The mathmatician Jacob Bekenstiens black hole mathematics led him to make the following asserations, that, ..." we appear to be 2D creatures having and illusion of 3D"...and this is later confirmed by Hawking and now espoused to be Leonard Susskind that suggest a holographic Universe.When is 3D actually 2D? When a 3D tetrahedron reaches the half-way point of turning itself inside-out. In that specific phase the 3D tetrahedron is a 2D subdivided triangle. We can then make the reasonable conclusion that what we conclude to be 3D tetrahedron is actually just warping of 2D.Ex lay piece of 3D lumber or plywood on moist Earth overnight and it warps.Want to dilate time? Then expand the 2D surface area of the toroidal Gravitational and Dark Energy 2D from whence time { /\/\/\/ } is sourced { originates } -
--> @zedvictor4Therefore the reason is always reasonable irrespective of whether or not the reason is considered to be either reasonable or unreasonable.If you get my drift.While we seem to agree that "everything happens for a reason", REFUSING TO MAKE THOSE REASONS EXPLICIT makes you a de facto UNREASONABLE PERSON....your unrevealed reason is functionally-indistinguishable from NO reason (AND) you are therefore functionally-indistinguishable from an un-reasonable person (a person who acts without reasons).
-
--> @3RU7ALDoes anyone function/act without reason?A reason to act is either deemed to be reasonable or perceived to be unreasonable or vice versa.
-
--> @ebucThere is no such thing as 2D.....Logical, rational. common sense.Bekenstein and Hawking.....1% rational, logical, common sense....99% bullshit.....It's how these people justify their salaries.Yep....Money is every ones bottom line.Though to be fair, it is more a case of searching for the tree in the woods rather than a case of not seeing the wood for the trees.And moist lumber warps and that explains everything?
-
--> @zedvictor4And moist lumber warps and that explains everything?You dont understand what an analogy is. Use a dictionary for analogy and then reread.Your belief that 2D does not exist is unfounded ignorance. You believe 3D exists, yes?3D is inherently inclusive of 2D and 1D. 4th D is the volumetric diagonal ---at 45 degrees-- from vertexexial junction of XYZ aka abc in hyper-spatial mathematics, that Ive presented to you elsewhere and you ignore because of ego.XY{ ab } = 90 degreesXZ{ ac } = 90 degreeesYZ{ bc } = 90 degrees........ad = 45 degrees........bd = 45 degrees........cd = 45 degreesGet your self a copy of Micho Kakus book 'Hyperspace' and educate your self on spatial dimensions.The 3D tetrahedron ---that you my not believe exists--- has 4 axial dimensions defined by four vertexes opposite to four triangular planes and when any one of the four vertexes attempts to pass through its diametrically opposite triangular opening, we have a subdivided 2D triangle { \Y/ | irrespective of whether you want to believe that.That 3D, 3 right angled tetrahedron, is defined by XYZ when the other end of the XYZ are connected to each other.And the volumetric 4th 'd' is the one of the four diametric axi of the previous stated 3D tetrahedron.And this 4th 'd' when considered as one volumetric axi of the 3D tetrahedron attempts to inside-out itself, we have at least one of the fundamentally primary motions ---aka powers--- of Universe.inside-out = 1 powerspin = 1 powerprecession = 1 powerexpand-contract = 1 powertorque = 1 powerorbit = 1 power ---reguires two vertexes, or 3D tetrahedra----.1 + 1 = 2 is common sense1 + 1 = 4 is synergetic rational, logical common sense3 + 3 = 6 is common sense3 + 3 = 12 is synergetic common sense.That untreated pine lumber ---ex planar piece of plywood--- warps as result of absorbtion of moisture is may or may not be common sense, rational, logical yet it is a truth that many people have observed, even if they cannot explain the rational, logical common sense reasons of why.
-
--> @zedvictor4Does anyone function/act without reason?Every action has a logical cause. I believe we are in agreement on this.A reason to act is either deemed to be reasonable or perceived to be unreasonable or vice versa.(IFF) an action by yourself or by another person or entity is apparently incoherent (inconsistent with explicitly stated goals of that party and or common customs implicitly or explicitly agreed upon by both parties) to the either party (AND) the acting party refuses to reveal their reasons for their action (THEN) the acting party that refuses to explain their action is functionally indistinguishable from an UNREASONABLE person or entity.