> All progress depends upon the unreasonable man.
Let me share with you one of my all time favorite quotes, from George Bernard Shaw[1]:
>“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
While Shaw himself was a controversial figure even in his own time (roughly a century ago), and would be abhorred by today's standards for many reasons, this particular item, standing alone, remains a particular gem of wisdom.
For a historical example we're all quite familiar with in this industry, think "Steve Jobs". He adapted the world to his vision through innovation and commerce, forcing the creation of entire industries - at least twice over! - as a result. Thanks to him being "unreasonable", the personal computer market emerged which spawned our entire industry. Then with the release of the iPhone, the smartphone market came into existence along with Android and for a time, Windows Phone (RIP).
I strongly disagree with several of Shaw's points of view, but this particular gem has always been a favorite of mine in spite of that. I find it particularly inspiring.
Have a read through some of the other maxims and make your own mind up as to the author's viewpoint.
[1] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Man_and_Superman/Maxims_for_R...
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.
> progress depends on the unreasonable man
and
> unreasonable men start wars
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.
> All progress depends upon the unreasonable man
and
> All actions by unreasonable men are progress
If all wibbles are wobbles it is not necessarily true that all wobbles are wibbles.
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.
It's just the same thing as parent poster said, just with extra steps.
(Ironically, the reference for this is an article titled "No true Scotsman starts a war" https://web.archive.org/web/20190105005853/http://www.atimes...)
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.
A lot of pain seems to come from a poor vocabulary about feelings. What is boring? It's a weak and flattened word like the feelings it's used about.
Do you mean avolition, acedia, irascibility, dissatisfaction, insensibility, repression, discouragement, ambivalence, anxiety? The Psychology of the Emotions by Neal Burton is a fair place to continue the introspective journey you've started [1].
> I lost my creativity and the sense of wonder I used to have in childhood. I am no longer curious because I am settled for the world as it is. I accept things the way they are instead of imagining how they could be.
Comfortably Numb. There's a dose of it going around. Don't worry it's an acute condition. All progress depends upon the unreasonable man. You need to stop being reasonable. Take a good look at the world, and notice there's still plenty to be really, healthily angry about, and so much to be joyously in love with. Just don't give in to ambivalence or settle for the illusion of comfort and safety life seems to be showing you. Take a risk on it.
[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201601...