Home is not a reasonable place? Why don't we talk about what is reasonable? ...

As for "home is not a reasonable place", it seems that it has become a consensus among the people and needs no discussion. But is this really the case? My view is just the opposite: home is not only a place to reason, but also a place to reason. The key is that we should understand what is really "reasonable".

These scenes may have been experienced or seen by many people-

Isn't it obvious that young couples should live their own lives without the interference of old people? Why do you insist on living with your parents?

But parents are lonely and need company. Shouldn't parents be filial? Besides, isn't it good for parents to help me with the housework and take care of the children?

-you can ask your aunt to do housework and take care of the children!

-Aunt, are you at ease? Who will pay for this money?

……

Outcome: disagreement, even divorce.

If you don't study hard, you won't be able to gain a foothold in society in the future. How come you don't even understand such an obvious truth? How can you play games like this every day?

-learning is too difficult. ...

-can you not learn if it is difficult? The more you don't learn, the harder it is!

-I just don't like studying. Many people succeed without studying!

……

The end: children's grades are declining, and parents are constantly sighing and blaming, day after day.

It is based on this experience that people have summed up the lesson that "home is not a place to make sense". But in my opinion, none of the above is "reasonable", but "reasonable".

What's the difference between "reasonable" and "reasonable"? Well, it's not just different, on the contrary! The definition of "reasonable" is simple-

If you accept the definition of rationality, you will find that people who like to be reasonable are often the most unreasonable. They think that their truth is absolutely correct, unquestionable and irrefutable, and the other party can only accept it. If the place does not accept it, it is "unreasonable".

When they say "what you say is reasonable", they will definitely add a "but" to prove to you in various ways that "what I say is more reasonable or what I say is right".

You tell him to be filial to his parents, and he will definitely say that small family harmony is more important; or vice versa, Dallas to the auditorium You tell him that harmony in a small family is the most important thing, and he will definitely say that filial piety is the foundation of being a man.

You tell him that studying is really difficult, and he will definitely say that it is an attitude problem. As long as we realize the importance of learning, no matter how difficult it is, we can overcome it.

On the other hand, if you tell him that you can do it with the right attitude and go all out, he will say that it is impossible to go all out to do things that you are not interested in. If you want to achieve something, you have to do what you like best, such as playing games.

Do you see it? As long as we fall into the infinite loop of "reasoning", everyone thinks that they are right and wants others to accept their "reasoning", and the problem is basically unsolvable.

Some people say that it is unreasonable, then "talk about feelings." Shouldn't home be emotional? Personally, I think "talking about feelings" is a bigger pit

Let a person decide whether he has deep feelings for his parents or his wife, instead of roasting him on the fire.

Is it really good for a person to endure the day-to-day life of her mother-in-law who is incompatible with her personality for "true love"?

Let a child linger at his desk until late at night for the sake of "filial piety" and "gratitude", and blame this on "insufficient understanding of the importance of learning" Are such parents worthy of filial piety and gratitude?

If you don't listen to me, you don't love me. If you can't meet my expectations, it's unfilial. If you can't meet my requirements, you don't value me. This is not called "emotional kidnapping".

No reason, no feelings. What's that about?

Reasonable!

As we said before, being reasonable means allowing others to prove themselves wrong. But don't get me wrong, being reasonable doesn't mean admitting mistakes, nor is it a muddle of "you are right with me". Reasoning is a kind of cultivation.

If we want to explain what is reasonable, we may talk about philosophy. The philosopher Popper has a famous viewpoint, which has a far-reaching influence on scientific research: there are only two theories in the world, one is the one that has been falsified, and the other is the one that has not been falsified, but may be falsified in the future. Sounds a little circuitous. Let's look at the difference between Newtonian physics and fortune telling.

Newton's physics was overthrown by Einstein's theory of relativity, so we think it belongs to the category of "rationality"-it allows us to prove it wrong under certain conditions, which is called "theory" or "science";

The fortune teller chose an auspicious day for you to get married in the Gregorian calendar. You are not happy to get married on this day, but this does not prove that he is wrong, because he will tell you that it is because of the conflict between your life and your partner, or that you are "too old" during this period. In a word, a fortune teller can't be wrong-just because nothing can prove him "wrong". So we exclude fortune-telling from "reason" and call it "pseudoscience".

If a person can understand the rational "truth" from this height, he can easily come to the conclusion that there are only two "truths" in me, one of which has been proved wrong and the other has not been proved wrong. If my "reason" does not belong to these two categories, it is more appropriate to call it "emotion" and "emotion" instead of "reason"

Knowing what the "reason" is, we can better understand "allowing others to prove themselves wrong". The establishment of any "reason" requires certain conditions. If someone overturns this condition, you have to admit that this "reason" is not established.

For example, we admit that "a man should be filial to his parents" is reasonable, but "filial parents must live with their parents". Is this "truth" valid? "The harmony of a small family is very important", which we recognize, but "living with parents is not harmonious", is this "reason" valid? "Learning is very important" is true, but "poor academic performance is because you don't realize the importance of learning" or "if you realize the importance of learning, you will learn well". Is it true?/You don't say.

When you present your "reason", ask yourself first, what are the conditions of this "reason"? Is this condition true? Many times, you will find that the "reason" that you originally thought was "reasonable" is often untenable.

You may ask me, if everyone doesn't care, why bother? So who is right? The key is not "right" but "under what conditions". Newtonian physics has been proved wrong. Can we say that Newtonian physics is useless? I can't. Let's just say that the applicable conditions of Newtonian physics have changed.

In the family, the most important thing for us is not to argue about right or wrong, but to find out what choice we should make under the current conditions.

Choosing to live with parents is because both sides agree that under the condition that parents need companionship and care very much, small families need to make concessions, and young couples should also find ways to create their own personal space;

Choosing not to live with parents is because both sides agree that living with parents and children has a great negative impact on the harmony of small families. They should live separately from their parents and try other ways to be filial to the elderly.

Children's poor academic performance is because the emphasis on learning itself is not enough to bring good grades, and they need correct learning methods to gradually build their confidence in learning.

All these choices require repeated communication between husband and wife, parents and children. But the basis of communication must be that all parties admit that their "reasons" are not absolutely established and can be overturned under certain conditions, that is, I can communicate. If a person cannot give up his own truth, he must accept his own "correct" truth. He is an incommunicable person, or an "unreasonable" person.

Reasoning is easier said than done, and it may become "reasonable" or "emotional" if you are not careful. How to break it? There are two tricks:

The first trick: learn to separate "my thoughts" from "me".

People don't like their ideas being denied, because people's intuition will confuse "I" with "my ideas". "My idea is wrong" means "I am wrong", which is the instinct of human genes. The way to resist this instinct is to train your perception for a long time.

When we feel offended and try to defend our ideas, reminding ourselves that my "ideas" are wrong does not mean that "I" is wrong. Therefore, we should focus on "ideas" rather than "me" for other people's different opinions.

This requires long-term practice, but as long as you do it, you will find that the world is beautiful.

In fact, after reading this article and understanding the difference between "reasoning" and "reasoning", you already have the ability and foundation of perception.

The second trick: try to read a book that "subverts the three views".

Some people read books just to find some "correct" truths in books, so as to tell others and "educate" others. Now we know that this is called "reasoning", not "reasoning", which we should try our best to avoid.

As a "reasonable" person, we should read more books, because reading can broaden our horizons and let us know that we can have many different views and angles on the same thing, and some books may even "subvert your three views". We just need to read more books about "subverting the three views", cultivate a kind of "self-denial" ability through constant subversion, and become a real "reasonable" person.

Finally, let's sum up: