Since existence is reasonable , why do we fight crime?

Existence is reasonable, but it does not mean that existence is legitimate. Plausible here means "there is an intrinsic cause". Don't look for words.

Many people like to quote the famous quote of the German classical philosopher Hegel: "Everything that exists is reasonable, and everything that is reasonable is realistic". The historical conditions of the time were praised by the conservative rulers, because existence is reasonable, and their rule can be justified. However, many people tend to ignore the latter sentence, if the former sentence represents the present, then the latter sentence is for the future.

When feudal society is about to be replaced by new relations of production, it still exists, but this can only represent the objective "rationality" under that short-term realistic condition, but it has tended to be irrational, so it tends not to exist until it is finally replaced. Therefore, whatever is reasonable can be realistic, and existence is reasonable, which can only be explained under certain conditions and certain time limits, and cannot represent future trends!

At present, the existence of criminal behavior is still objectively justified, and this truth is caused by a series of imperfect social factors, such as the legal system and morality. However, this kind of "reasonableness" is only a temporary objective rationality, and it is by no means a real permanent "reasonableness", and the "reasonableness" of our subjective good intentions is different from it, because we all hope for the perfection of all social factors, that is to say, we always judge whether it is "reasonable" with the most perfect moral and legal standards, but the objective "reasonableness" is not transferred by our will, but the rationality of our subjective will can represent a trend, which will eventually make criminal behavior theoretically "unreasonable" The phenomenon tends to "disappear" and thus becomes "irrational" both subjectively and objectively.

Sometimes when we look at problems, we are too limited to the present situation, rather than the perspective of development, so we will comfort ourselves with "existence is reasonable", but Hegel's latter sentence implies that the real force representing the future will eventually break the objective "reasonableness" of the present, and the "reasonableness" that conforms to the subjective good wishes of human beings!

Therefore, "existence is reasonable" should not be a reason for stagnation and connivance, because the "reasonable" here may be the "reasonable" that is about to be "unreasonable"!

Reasonable doesn't mean right, and one day you accidentally fall. Reasonable means that if you don't come that day, it will rain, the road is slippery, and you are not careful, so it will cause you to fall, which is the reasonable existence of your wrestling, but it does not mean that you have to fall, you can't fall if you don't fall! The rationality of crime refers to the fact that under this social system, under the guidance of values and material distribution, it is possible to exist according to people's possessive desires, and cracking down shows that the behavior of crime is incorrect.

The fact that existence is reasonable shows that there is a soil for the occurrence of crime, and it does not mean that it is unreasonable to crack down on crime.

Fighting crime is a natural law that cannot be changed, because black and white never blend.

Crime is an active and subjective act, and the same is true of fighting crime, crime has its rationality, and the same is true of fighting crime.

The way of heaven is to make up for the deficiency.

With big data for statistics, large-scale outbreaks of similar cases can be prevented.

It is possible to identify the high crime areas within the region, to help with the allocation of police forces, and so on

First of all, this statement is true, this is Hegel's statement.

The original text is actually "everything that exists in reality is rational", and it was later simplified by the Chinese people to "existence is reasonable". But now the meaning has deviated from the original text.

There is no right or wrong in a general sense of the philosophical assertion, only whether it is justified or not.

In addition, Hegel has a sentence that says that whatever is rational must be realized in reality. This was his original intention, mainly to demonstrate the reality and possibility of a bourgeois revolution in Germany.

The so-called existence is reasonable, it is the reason of existence, the reason of existence does not involve being beneficial and harmful to people, existence is existence, it is the product of nature, you can understand it in this way, whether it is good or bad, it will have its role and role.

Truth and law are not equated, and truth means that this theory conforms to objective laws and natural laws, and truth is relative and conditional. The law regulates and regulates human behavior only within the scope of human society, and the law is strictly time-limited and often changed according to the needs of the ruler, while the truth is not transferred by human will, and whoever violates it will not succeed and will be punished. Therefore, the law cannot be treated as the truth, let alone the law, because the law is the ruler who regulates human behavior in order to maintain his own rule, and it is an artificial regulation that governs human society.

This also requires a legal basis.

All existence has its rationality, which means that it is inevitable, inevitable, and realistic, and the existence of reality does not determine our attitude towards it and the measures to deal with it, that is, thieves have the rationality of their existence, laziness, only this kind of skill, and has a relationship with certain people, but this does not affect the treatment and punishment of it by the law.

Rain doesn't mean we're going to get drenched

That's the difference between humans and animals.

All existence has its rationality, it is the naturalness of things, and no one can transcend the laws of nature.

In addition to not being able to transcend the laws of nature like animals, human beings will also restrain themselves in order to achieve better development.

Legal norms work on people, and we can't legislate when it will be windy and when it will rain.

Reasonable does not mean right, but the fact that it exists cannot be denied. Being right is more important than being reasonable.

Who told you that everything that exists has its legitimacy, and that this is the truth?

Hegel said that all existence is rational.

Do you know what philosophical rationality means?

Do you know what happened to philosophy after Hegel's death because of reason?

All existence also has its irrationality. Subjective and objective are not the same.

Everything that exists has its rationality.

Everything that exists can be replaced!

But there is relative plausibility. There is not only one fact.

Because the norms of the law also have their existence truth.

Because the law also exists. The law also has its plausibility.

What is reasonable is not necessarily legitimate. Reasonable is not necessarily good for us.

It was reasonable for ancient dinosaurs to rule the world at that time, but it is reasonable for humans to rule the world today, and it is reasonable for aliens to rule over humans in the future, and it is reasonable for aliens to rule over humans in the future.

It is true that existence is reasonable, and both wars and the gap between rich and poor have cause and effect, so they are reasonable.

You call him brain-dead, and then say: There have been swear words and swearing since ancient times, so I am right to scold you.

"Existence is reasonable", typical objective idealism. We must uphold objective materialism and persist in looking at problems objectively and dialectically.

The so-called existence is reasonable, that is, it is in line with the geography of the family. Rather than being ethical. Let's take an analogy.

For example, if a thief steals something from you, do you think this is reasonable? Should I give him my wallet? Therefore, existence is only in line with family geography and morality.

Its inverse proposition is that what is unreasonable does not exist, and this statement is obviously incorrect. There are still many injustices in society, and to say that these injustices are justified is to destroy human nature.

Serious wealth disparities and violent war crimes are unjustified. As long as these irrationalities still exist one day, then the phrase "what is unreasonable does not exist" is wrong, and naturally, existence is reasonableness has also become a fallacy.

The phrase "being is reasonable" itself has a premise, and reason here refers to absolute spirit or absolute reason, not the kind of "reasonableness" that we understand in our daily lives

The correct understanding should be that there is a reason for existence. That is, the existence of irrationality has its unreasonable reasons. Reasonableness here should be understood as neutral.

Hegel said.

Hegel said in his famous work "Little Logic": was vernünftig ist, das ist wirklich; und was wirklich ist, das is vernünftig。

This is mistranslated as: Reasonable is existing, and existence is reasonable. And the correct translation should be: everything that is rational is realistic, and everything that is realistic is rational.

Hegel said.

Hegel's famous quote comes from his Principles of the Philosophy of Law (Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts 1820).

The original text is: was Vernünftig ist, das ist Wirklich; und was wirklich ist, das ist vernünftig.

The English translation is: what is reasonable is real; that which is real is reasonable.Translation:

what is rational is actual and what is actual is rational.

The focus is:"vernünftig"on the word,"vernünftig"with"vernuft"(rational) related, translated into English"reasonable"or"rational"This is not the same as the Chinese meaning of "reasonable" in the usual sense, where the Chinese word "reasonable" means "reasonable or reasonable", but the closer meaning here should mean "reasonable". This is not a translation error, this is a philosophical saying, and this sentence also has its special philosophical context.

It was Descartes who said that what exists is a fait accompli, and no one can return things to the state they were before they happened. What has happened, it is unreasonable to accept the fact that it has happened. Since something happens, there is a reason for it, and there is a place for it to exist reasonably, whether you want to accept this fact or not.

Being is reasonable, Hegel said.

"Existence is reasonable" is a philosophical saying, but it is constantly used to stir up nonsense. In short: the misunderstanding lies in the word "reason". What exists is in line with the principles of heaven and earth, but not necessarily in line with the principles of human ethics.

According to Hegel, the origin of the universe is the Absolute Geist. It has everything in itself, then externalizes the natural world, human society, spiritual science, and finally returns to itself on a higher level. Therefore, whatever is on this trajectory is rational (vernünftig), that is, necessarily what will emerge and be realistic (wirklich).

The reverse is also true. This is the original meaning of "existence is reasonable". There are countless phenomena that conform to a certain "reasonable" and have their own reasons, but are not necessarily "right", such as crime.

At first, it was Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling, or the Chinese "Schelling". The original text is was vernünftig ist, das ist wirklich , und was wirklich ist, das ist vernünftigThe literal translation is "what conforms to reason is realistic, and what is realistic is rational."

This statement also appears in Hegel's Little Logic. Because Hegel is so "powerful" (perhaps even higher), those who have read the little logic mistakenly think that it is Hegel's original! To be honest, Schelling's achievements cannot be ignored, but for some reason they are always overlooked.

It's like Nietzsche is very famous in China (maybe not many people have actually read his works), but Qi Keguo, Berek and others know very little. In addition, I calculated that this sentence was first seen in Schelling's mouth based on time, anyway, it can't be said that the time axis is behind to copy the time axis to the front! At least so far, it seems that time is irreversible.

Sartre was even later, and for this person, there may not be much controversy about this. Rather, Hegel and Schelling, who were contemporary, were controversial about this sentence. Hope this helps.

Fuck your sister, it's Sartre who said it!!