Democracy is a political process which is finally determined by
the number of the votes. It seems to be obvious that avoid discussing the
details of the issue to reach a large number of consensuses. Politicians often
illustrates the ultimate objectives—peace, freedom, love and equality—of
politics, although these are illusions. They articulate these illusions because
these illusions can convince people that they feel empathy with politicians.
This empathy is used by politicians as a tool to appeal solidarity with people.
Reformation or nation can be one of the key words to be used as illusion. Consequently,
these politicians sophism justify the war or bombing in the name of peace
keeping operations or intervention to protect human rights. It is irony.
How can people face to these kinds of irony or in general, how can
we face to the conflicts, and how can we face to the light and shadow taken
over the legacy from the modernism? The recognition for these conflicts is
filled with differences. Differences can be replaced for conflicts. The world
is constructed by the conflicts—
such as recognition, values,
standpoints, and emotion— between people.
Taking into consideration for the enchanted word, love,
this word also conveys conflicts. Some lions push their child down to the
valley. This is called love. Affirmations of violence are called a whip of
love. Love affairs, attachment with family, patriotism, attachment with school,
attachment with company, nationalism, and compassion with human beings, all of
them imply common specific emotions.
Despite, the concepts of these phenomena are different. For
instance, some would argue that the emotion elicited by nationalism is
different emotion elicited by compassion with human beings. The other people
might argue that these are not mutually exclusive. I do not imagine the emotion
elicited by compassion, although I understand the emotion elicited by love affairs
and attachment. The direction of these loves is limited within those who know
each other.
How about love between people live in the same country?
I think it is hard to believe that the specific emotions—elicited by love
affairs or attachment with family—would be elicited. They might share the same
characteristics, such as, race, ethnicity, or human beings in general. Yet,
they cannot get enough information to feel the specific emotion because they
just know general information but not individual information. In this case,
they might imagine the illusions of those individuals which might not elicit
love like specific emotion.
Some might argue that the characteristics and concepts
of love can be shared with animals, creatures on the earth, and with creatures
live outside of the earth. In other words, every phenomenon which seemed to be
caused same types of love is stemmed from love in general.
The idea itself may be reasonable, although it can lead to a few
problems—excessive arrogant attitudes were elicited by this idea— in applying
this idea to practice. The humanists who misunderstood that expanding freedom,
democracy and capitalism produced by developed countries to feudalistic
developing countries are good and justice exemplifies that arrogance attitude
toward people who live in developing countries. In addition, these humanists
deteriorate poverty condition in the name of developing, and even send troops
to help expanding freedom, democracy and capitalism from humanitarian
standpoint. Would this behavior be caused by love? It seems to be cause by
arrogance of people who notice their superiority to people living in developing
countries. I do not believe the love as a concept. Love in this context must be
nonplus for people live in developing countries.
It is often the case with people who shared idealistic
goals; however, they may not reach the consensus in terms of specific policy.
There are only three options—consensus reached by the compromise each other,
consensus reached by the power, or rupture—to deal with this situation. What
can we expect to temporal solidarity? It
seems to be far more intelligent and efficient to deal with the problems by
presupposing the distinctive conflicts and by seeking for the values from them.
Complete consensus of everyone is not the objective at all, but rather, it is
corrupt practice of totalitarianism and democracy. The objective to be dealt
with is to clarify the conflicts and recognize it each other. It is completely a
false belief that people can be labeled as one group. It is called
“overgeneralization” in psychological term.
The philosophy of conflicts does not have objectives which force
integration or solidarity. The fundamental standpoints of the philosophy of
conflicts are to clarify the conflicts and to obtain practical resolutions.
Therefore, it allows for people to recognize the conflicts not as negative but
as positive that can help people to feel pleasure due to the clarity of the
problems. Moreover, it enables people not to convert conflict into emotional
conflict.
The philosophy of conflict primarily suggests respects for
everyone. Looking back on the example of the humanists discussed before. Do you
think that person respect for the people living in the developing countries? It
can be exaggeration; however, I guess that that person just has sympathy and
superiority. Respects do not mean providing aids. It is, however, not easy to
obey this respect principle. Abhorrence and animosity may suddenly come out. It
sounds paradoxical; however, it is possible to represent respect for people
with abhorrence.
In other words, the conflict came out only after the respects are
represented. If someone does not have respect for some person, it cannot come
out the conflict. It is nothing more than “pre-conflict”. Why respects are the
necessary factor to construct the conflict?
I think this is because it is necessarily that to have respects for
preserving intelligent attitudes toward conducting intelligent behavior in a specific
context. Everyone might select the behavior which can be seemed to maximize the
profits in order to live. If people commit a crime or did unreasonable
decision, the choice itself can be the results of serious consideration for
them. It is immature attitudes if someone cannot respects for those individuals
who can make a decision by themselves to predict maximum profits for them. The
goal of the philosophy of conflict is to accept and coexistence with the
conflicts without escaping from it or concealing below the illusions.
Very first problem which the philosophy of conflict suggests is the grounds
of the conflicts. Would it be possible to argue that the pre-conflicts problem
is dealt within this framework? In other words, the problem is how to convert
savage conflicts into intelligent conflicts. The philosophy of conflicts
targets at the savage conflicts. If the philosophy of conflict does not convert
it into the intelligent conflict, the philosophy of conflict cannot be
philosophy of life.
No comments:
Post a Comment