> All progress depends upon the unreasonable man. You need to stop being reasonable
and yet there's an unreasonable man invading another country right now.
I dont think progress depends on the unreasonable man. It depends on the reasonable man who would put in the sweat and blood, but might be inspired or paid by the unreasonable man.
But honestly it feels like such a useless nitpick. OP is talking about a useful mind-hack to increase your personal productivity and meaning, and you are applying it to how we should assess the morality of global leaders.
That's a mutual dependence then. It's still dependent on the unreasonable man.
I look at this in terms of variance: there are few ways to be reasonable, but many to be unreasonable. Many of the unreasonable ones lead nowhere, but a few lead to progress. That's similar to the concept of antifragility.
> an unreasonable man invading another country right now.
I'd be more cautious equating reason with peace.
Wars are as often the conclusion of pure reason. Strategic advantage
plus opportunity, plus a little too much game-theory can be the
perfect ingredients for belligerence.
and yet there's an unreasonable man invading another country right now.
I dont think progress depends on the unreasonable man. It depends on the reasonable man who would put in the sweat and blood, but might be inspired or paid by the unreasonable man.