What exists is the reasonable problem.

The key lies in a rational understanding. If it is socially reasonable, then this sentence is obviously wrong. I think that when this sentence is "reasonable", it means that it conforms to the laws of the world.

When something happens, there must be a reason, and no matter how we look at it, it is the result of the evolution of the objective world in accordance with objective laws.

In this sense, this sentence does not mean that we should not interfere with what already exists, but that we are taught to discover the "truth" behind it. For example, in dealing with crime, it is not just a matter of cracking down on crime, but also looking for the root cause of crime, whether it is to eliminate the gap between the rich and the poor, improve the social system, or strengthen ideological education.

There is "no absolute truth" in this world, and all quotes cannot be completely true, and we have to understand them in terms of their positive and meaningful aspects.

First of all, what is reasonable? What exists?

If these two words do not fully confirm the meaning, the proposition is meaningless in a narrow sense.

Since it doesn't make sense, there's no need to bother.

But in a broad sense, existence and rationality are both human cognitions.

So existence is reasonable and correct.

Reasonable and reasonable, why not be reasonable.

What exists is reasonable, and that's true. However, the meaning of "reasonable" should be limited. Reasonableness does not mean that it is in the interest of the public, but that everything happens for a reason, everything is caused by the result of other things, and there is nothing that happens for no reason.

Therefore, there are reasons for our country's poverty and backwardness, political corruption, and all kinds of irrational phenomena, and we all need to seriously analyze them.

What exists is reasonable" is a "fallacy" of Hegel, who said this for his political purpose.

What exists is not necessarily reasonable, but it cannot be easily changed".

Unilaterally, this is unreasonable;

But in many ways, there are such things, such as the difference between good and bad, there is no bad and there is good?

This is reasonable in some ways, but not in certain conditions; For example, if you are a police officer, can you be sure that he is a good person and has not done anything bad? On the other hand, a thief, can you be sure that he is not a good person, hasn't he done good deeds?

Friends, you should adjust your mentality, and slowly explore by yourself, this kind of thing depends on your own experience and experience, in my own words, this sentence may not be correct, but it does exist

On the first floor, there is no illness to make you say that you are sick.

I resolutely disagree with the statement that what exists is reasonable. First of all, if this sentence is correct, then there will be no need for progress in society, and there will be no need for reform. This sentence is too absolute, nothing is adapted to the whole universe, which includes both time and space, the change of time, the transformation of space, may change the rationality of things.

For example, if Chinese people come to the United States and still insist on communicating with people in Chinese, they are destined not to be allowed to enter that society; YY When the ancients came to modern times, if they still dragged the literary language in front of the present people from time to time, I am afraid that they would be sent to the temple for further study. In short, there are no absolutes, and there is a certain truth in existence, but it is not necessarily reasonable.