Not Satisfied With His World

Does this look like a happy man? A man satisfied with his world?

Some people in the audience might recognize his face. This is George Bernard Shaw, a very famous Irish playwright.

He may be more famous, though, for some remarkable quotes from his plays, his other writing, and his public speaking.

"Unreasonable" People

Possibly the most famous is. "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."

All of these people refused to adapt to their worlds and instead changed the world around them. They were all "unreasonable".

So Were These Guys

...but so were these people.

They didn't like their world, either, and sought to change it, but very few people wold call their changes "progress".

So what's the difference? What makes one group of unreasonable people "bad" and the other "good"?

Positive/Negative Is Important

(or Light/Dark If You Prefer)

I think of it more as positive and negative. Good and bad have moral connotations and, though there is common ground in most moral codes, there are enough differences to make things that are "good" in one "bad" in another.

My current definition of positive unreasonableness is adapting the world for the most benefit to the most people, but even with that definition, we have to be careful. Darth here, after all, argued that he was bringing peace to the galaxy - the most benefit to the most people. So there has to be more to it.

Learning To Listen

Humility is a beginning, although possibly not the only one.

Humility allows us to understand that we don't know everything.

Once we realize that, we learn to listen to the people around us.

That's all good, but so far seems pretty "reasonable".

Learning When Not To

Listen

The "unreasonable" part comes from understanding when not to listen.

Reason (logic - which is different from "being reasonable") leads us to the understanding that if we don't know everything, neither does anyone else.

In turn, we realize that if we have a great idea, we don't have to listen to other people who say it can't be done. They might not know what they're talking about.

LISTENING

IGNORING

So the key to unreasonableness seems to be knowing how to weigh who or what we should listen to against what we should ignore.

This can be a difficult balance to achieve.

Still, there's more to it.

We want to achieve progress.

Have You Seen This

Man?

While looking for examples of "unreasonable" people, I came across this guy.

Some people would say he was "unreasonable" and he certainly changed the world - most people would say in a positive way.

If you don't recognize the face, it's Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

I would argue that he achieved progress.

...Or This, Uh... Guy?

But maybe this guy was more unreasonable?

If you weren't a child of the 80's, you might not recognize him, either. That's Falco, who sang "Rock Me, Amadeus".

The song's not the unreasonable part, though. Falco once claimed the ghost of Mozart spoke to him and guided his music. He even claimed that he had an entire new album written, but was waiting for the spirit of Wolfgang to tell him when to release it.

That seems more unreasonable, but I'd argue he contributed a lot less to the progress of the world, even though I think, "Rock Me, Amadeus" is a pretty cool song.

But is it progress?

That brings us to the question -

(On Second Thought, Ask Someone Else If You Didn't Understand The Last Slide)

Shaw was the socialist/atheist. Chesterton was the capitalist/Christian. Both of them had ideas that were considered radically "unreasonable" in their day.

So which ones would lead to progress? Which of them was "positively unreasonable"?

What is "unreasonable" in the sense that Shaw meant?

If it seems like I'm coming up with more questions than answers here, you should probably go back to the part about realizing what we don't know.

What's The Motive?

To figure that out, we have to judge the motives of the people doing the talking around us.

Where is the reaction coming from?

When it comes to "unreasonable" ideas, most negative reactions come from fear. It may not be obvious fear, and that person may not even realize their own fears.

We still have to listen, though - to everyone - and then choose what to ignore.

Highly Illogical

We have to listen because sometimes people have a valid point.

They may have solid, logical reasons that this idea, this path, is not the right one to pursue.

These are usually not the people basing their reactions in fear - or any other emotion - but, somewhat ironically, in reason - not the copout of "being reasonable" - but actual reason - logic - thought.

That's Whack

Spot the difference?

Just be careful. Sometimes arguments can be dressed up to appear logical, but aren't coming from reason or logic.

And sometimes logic may steer us away from our course, but every "unreasonable" thing we do doesn't have to be logical.

There are great things in this world that logic would have said, before they were created, had no reason for being.

G.B, Shaw, The Early Years

So back to Shaw, and what bing "unreasonable" lead to for him.

G.B. Shaw was a kid who hated school, the son of an alcoholic father and a mother who left them when he was 15.

He overcame stagefright and a stammer by standing on a soapbox at Speaker's Corner and telling the world his unreasonable ideas.

I Haven't Seen One Of These on Pawn Stars Yet

He was very nearly tried for treason during World War I just for stating his unpopular thoughts about his society at the time.

He couldn't get his plays produced anywhere because they were just too different.

But he didn't stop. He knew when not to listen.

He recovered - became hugely famous and wealthy - and respected. His plays were produced in numerous theaters in the UK and North America - and he went on to win the Nobel Prize for literature in 1925.

He was probably glad he didn't listen.