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.