"why are you so unreasonable"

[cab21]

so how would you respond to someone asking something like "why are you so unreasonable", or "why does it seem like you are unable to respond in a reasonable way?

[Malovane]

Well, first I would ask the obvious question "why do you think I am unreasonable?", or "in what instances have you noticed that I have been unable to respond unreasonably?".

 

Then I would listen empathetically to their critique, and study the story that they present.

 

From there, it's hard to say.. Are they trying to get you to do something, or believe in something? Could you possibly give some context behind this scenario?

[dsayers]

so how would you respond to someone asking something like "why are you so unreasonable", or "why does it seem like you are unable to respond in a reasonable way?

 

First of all, I wanted to point out that these are different questions. The first is saying, "You are unreasonable; Why is that?" The second expresses more of a curiosity than a certainty.

 

Secondly, both questions are unreasonable in that they are asking somebody who is accused/suspected of being unreasonable for a reasonable explanation of why they are unreasonable. Since both questions are internally inconsistent, I don't think they are eligible for empathy as they are insincere.

 

Finally, because both questions deal with assigning fault and are internally inconsistent, we can understand that they are intended to instigate. I would also go so far as to say that somebody that could ask those questions are lacking self-knowledge as they have used irrationality to arrive at the conclusion that whatever frustration motivated them to instigate in this fashion is not at all attributable to them.

 

On a side note, the level at which somebody can reason, or speak any language, is a direct result of what they've been exposed to. Making the questions strange in that the answer would be fairly obvious.

 

I'd like some feedback on this post. I feel as if that's getting a whole lot more out of the question than is there. I'm curious if this is the result of propaganda of people that denounce such things in order to minimize their evil, or me being closed minded as to alternate explanations.

[Kevin Beal]

Reasonable as compared to what?

 

If I am uncharacteristically calm, grindingly specific and preface anything even remotely controversial with a qualifier, then that is a kind of reasonableness that would make me want to pull my hair out.

 

By asking them "as compared to what?" they have to make explicit some kind of standard. With a standard in mind, you can either try and meet that standard so that they will (presumably) be satisfied, or you can reject the standard on some grounds.

 

A criticism like "you aren't X enough" is meaningless without some understanding about how X can be achieved.

 

And sometimes "reasonable" means nothing beyond "what you are saying makes me feel uncomfortable". So, make sure to get some kind of standard out of them

[MMX2010]

@dsayers: I like your response so much that I've memorized it and plan to use it. 

[PatrickC]

Ha, being accused of being 'unreasonable' sounds suspiciously like the argument from offense.. As Kevin eruditely responds in the manner of a wise sage, "compared to what?"

[cab21]

just for a example of thisperson A - is english your native language?Person B- yesPerson A- why does it seem that you are unable to respond to a post in a reasonable way?Person B- .... i just did...

[Llamabean]

Without context I cannot agree that the question itself is insincere. Generally speaking, if a stranger were to ask this question, I would agree. If a loved one were to ask, I would not. The reason I would not agree is because it is possible for circumstances to exist in which a reasonable person acts in unreasonable ways and might not be aware that they are doing so until it is brought to their attention.

 

I can give an example: My sister calls me saying that she gives up and wants to kill herself because everything is going wrong. Hypothetically, I may respond by saying something like: Why are you being so unreasonable? Which would be to imply: Why are you giving yourself such a hard time or why are you stressing yourself out so much?

 

I'm sincerely concerned with the well being of my sister, BUT in this instance I am not practicing self awareness to such a scrupulous degree. I cannot recall a time where I thought this to be an appropriate reaction, but I can recall a time where I was at my wits end and unable to practice self-knowledge, but still needed to be an emotional crutch for the people in my life that I love.

 

 

I wonder if this was found to be relevant or did it instead seem like it did not belong in a philosophical discussion. I imagine that maybe it's too specific to draw a principle from or completely misdirected. I would greatly appreciate any feedback at all!

--Bean

[dsayers]

I see what you're saying. I would then argue that a caring person wouldn't behave as if to instigate or be unreasonable themselves while proposing that lack or reason is problematic. A more productive alternative for example would be sharing with the person that you feel that what they're saying in the moment is unreasonable and that you feel that this is uncharacteristic of them. With this approach, you'd be sharing your experience, which is valid even if it turns out they're not being unreasonable.

 

This approach would not be provocative. Which has the added bonus that if they react as if it is provocative, then you have your confirmation that they are in fact being unreasonable.

 

I think this approach is much better because it reinforces your own self-knowledge and can encourage an exploration that will enhance the self-knowledge of both parties involved.

[Llamabean]

Then I'd say that, although it is difficult to be a caring person without having self knowledge, it is possible. Given my example, the questioner is without self knowledge and therefore susceptible to responding emotionally before taking reason into account. The approach that you have suggested is more favorable in every way, yes.

 

However, this is the reason that I am not confident that I should be inputting on this philosophical discussion.

Is it necessary to assume that all participants are reasonable? I am struggling with the realization that the majority of people in my life may be reasonable but, they are still statist. I think that it often times follows that they are likewise without self knowledge. This is not to imply that people without self-knowledge are incapable of having civil discussions and being reasonable.

 

My main argument is that a person who lacks self knowledge may ask this unreasonable question, but it does not necessarily follow that they are unreasonable. It may follow that they are unreasonable, but I don't think a principle can be formulated considering other factors of humanity, and circumstances...

 

On the other hand, I fear that I am trying to minimize the evils that I have experienced and inflicted! What do you think?

I don't think there is great relevance concerning propaganda though, would you care to elaborate on that note?

I also don't think you are being closed minded

--Bean

[Kevin Beal]

Then I'd say that, although it is difficult to be a caring person without having self knowledge, it is possible. Given my example, the questioner is without self knowledge and therefore susceptible to responding emotionally before taking reason into account. The approach that you have suggested is more favorable in every way, yes.

 

However, this is the reason that I am not confident that I should be inputting on this philosophical discussion.

Is it necessary to assume that all participants are reasonable? I am struggling with the realization that the majority of people in my life may be reasonable but, they are still statist. I think that it often times follows that they are likewise without self knowledge. This is not to imply that people without self-knowledge are incapable of having civil discussions and being reasonable.

 

My main argument is that a person who lacks self knowledge may ask this unreasonable question, but it does not necessarily follow that they are unreasonable. It may follow that they are unreasonable, but I don't think a principle can be formulated considering other factors of humanity, and circumstances...

People with self knowledge too are susceptible to reacting thoughtlessly.

 

I think it's pretty inescapable that people can be reasonable in one area and not others, and that they can be reasonable some times and not others.

 

If you and I have a relationship, it may be necessary at some point for you to help me see that I'm not being reasonable and make some sort of appeal to reason. Hopefully you don't do that by saying "why are you so unreasonable?", but it does happen to the best of us. It may jar me into reorienting myself with what I believe to be reasonable from the principles that I already accept, and I may see the light.

 

But if you believe that I am being unreasonable and you want me to start being reasonable, then the suggestion that I start being reasonable is itself irrational, since it requires me to be reasonable in order to fulfill the request. We would assume the unreasonable person would continue to be unreasonable. The form is irrational, but it actually may work as a strategy.

 

I don't know about your relationships, but if you suspect that you could be enabling people to do toxic or immoral things, then that's something worth exploring, I think.

[dsayers]

However, this is the reason that I am not confident that I should be inputting on this philosophical discussion.

 

Oh I hope I can convince you (and anybody reading this who values the pursuit of self-knowledge) otherwise, for many reasons. Two heads are better than one is not bullshit. I could be talking out of my nostril, but saying something that might help connect the dots for somebody else. Or I might think I'm making a fantastic point, but it turns out I'm talking out of my nostril. Were I to not speak up, I'd never come to realize this blind spot in my own self-knowledge. I'm not saying that you are with or without error, but we need errors to learn, even if it's the errors of others. Does that make sense?

 

Given my example, the questioner is without self knowledge and therefore susceptible to responding emotionally before taking reason into account. 

 

The moment somebody says something like "why are you so unreasonable", or "why does it seem like you are unable to respond in a reasonable way," they are making the claims that being reasonable is 1) a standard, 2) universally preferable, and 3) something they are able to identify. The questions are a square triangle. You don't have to have self-knowledge to understand that something cannot have 3 sides and 4 sides simultaneously. In other words, somebody who is not speaking reasonably cannot use those words to form an expectation of reason if they wish to be taken seriously.

 

It's no surprise that somebody could be reasonable and capable of acting unreasonably. If I told you that I cannot fly, this wouldn't mean anything to you as HUMANS cannot fly. Similarly if all humans were always reasonable or always unreasonable, the consideration would be meaningless. To say that somebody is typically reasonable, you are also saying they have the capacity for being unreasonable. That's why this conversation is important: The moment somebody puts forth the expectation for acting reasonably, they are bound by it themselves. Otherwise, we know that they're not speaking of an objective truth, but simply trying to put their desires over the existence of other people.

[cab21]

after asking the person, the person responded that the wrong word was used, instead of saying "reasonable", the person meant to say "coherent".

 

making the new question:

"why does it seem like you are unable to respond in a coherent way?

[dsayers]

That's pretty much the same thing except that "coherent" is subjective. They're still saying that there's a standard called coherency, it's universally preferable, and they are able to identify it. They're still demonstrating internal inconsistency by asking somebody for a coherent answer to a question that accuses them of being incoherent. Which you could argue makes the question itself incoherent.

[Llamabean]

Dsayer, I am very grateful for the encouragement! And enthusiastic to participate in this conversation! Also, point taken and well explained.

 

 

 

But if you believe that I am being unreasonable and you want me to start being reasonable, then the suggestion that I start being reasonable is itself irrational, since it requires me to be reasonable in order to fulfill the request. We would assume the unreasonable person would continue to be unreasonable. The form is irrational, but it actually may work as a strategy.

 

Here, I am a bit confused.

I agree that, with all things equal, it is universally preferable to recognize that the statement/question, "why are you so unreasonable", or "why does it seem like you are unable to respond in a reasonable way?" is logically invalid. Thus, it is imperative that such irrational language be avoided...

However, if we consider that in particular instances, ie:

 

If I have a relationship with someone who has proven to be reasonable but, in an isolated event they act unreasonably, I don't think it is irrational to expect that they resume their reasonable disposition...

 

I want to reiterate that the original questions are agreeably invalid, but what about something like, "quit joking around." Is this not a rational way to ascertain whether a reasonable person who is acting unreasonably is capable of returning to a coherent state?

 

I realize that we agree that the form is sloppy, but as far as whether or not this is an effective strategy I wonder if, as dsayer brought up...

 

 

On a side note, the level at which somebody can reason, or speak any language, is a direct result of what they've been exposed to. 

 

 

... anyone can really be in a position where they are able to recognize the role they play in a relationship, for example an enabler, before having logical inconsistencies (rational versus irrational, or reasonable vs. unreasonable, moral vs. immoral) pointed out to them in the first place.

- Perhaps, I'm sort of pointing towards the swaying of the masses who see their slaughter before them but do not react to it believing it to be futile, since we are pressured into being docile. Then, suddenly someone explains that the wrongs you perceive to be normal are in fact not acceptable and that you don't have to comply. So, suddenly you want to be reasonable and logical.-

I say this because if society seems irrational, we learn to comply with irrationality. It seems that it is not until we step back and admit that our current situation is unfit that we can proceed to change. Also, it seems that this conclusion is rarely achieved without help from individuals who have also reached said conclusion. I think that had I not been introduced to FDR and/or a rational ideology I would still be on, or at the end of, a self destructive path. 

-Perhaps I also mean to reinforce my belief that it is the responsibility of the individual to assure that one's self and loved ones are capable of living in the healthiest way. Hence it is my responsibility to point out if someone is acting unreasonably iff I believe them to be of sound mind.-

[Kevin Beal]

Here, I am a bit confused.

I agree that, with all things equal, it is universally preferable to recognize that the statement/question, "why are you so unreasonable", or "why does it seem like you are unable to respond in a reasonable way?" is logically invalid. Thus, it is imperative that such irrational language be avoided...

However, if we consider that in particular instances, ie:

 

If I have a relationship with someone who has proven to be reasonable but, in an isolated event they act unreasonably, I don't think it is irrational to expect that they resume their reasonable disposition...

Totally, I agree with only one reservation: It's the act itself that we are looking at rather than the context that surrounds it.

 

We could have a rule not to show up late to meetings is bad, but context may justify it, like if a meteor landed on the freeway you planned on taking.

 

I took the approach I did initially in this thread because I've been asked to be reasonable before and it was productive.But if a methodology is flawed (asking someone who is being unreasonable to reasonably stop being unreasonable) and it still ends up working, it's still better to try something else, despite that success.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Kevin Beal