This message contains just sprinkle thoughts about a topic that interests me: The question of why war and conflict exists. Conflict theory and conflict learn the lesson about how to settle conflicts, how conflicts arise and evolve, and possibly resolved. I will come up with some theories on why conflicts occur and explain it from different perspectives, so scientifically and psychologically. And finally, I put forward a theory to be able to explain what is needed before the conflict can be stopped, and whether this is possible.
First I define the term conflict, which, probably, is the root of many wars, conflicts, killings and what else can fall out of the closet. The word conflict comes from the Latin conflictus, which simply means "to collide". A conflict may then be a dispute between two or more parties on a given topic. Conflict has, as everyone knows, took place from time immemorial, in all cases, the "human tomorrow." When I describe in this post conflict, it is the people's behalf. Conflicts in the animal kingdom, excluding us, can be very interesting to discuss, and it should then not be excluded that I will later explain these, but they are significantly different from the conflicts people experience and live with. Humans as we know it, us, homo sapiens sapiens, was a separate species about 30,000 years ago. And it divides our conflicts from other animals is that we can be value-laden. We have morals, and an innate sense. The animals may have very many territorial, sexual, or food-related conflicts, like humans, but a conflict of right and justice, class, race, religion or something completely different, simply do not exist. Sentence. The value-based conflict occurs as humans when two sets of values are incompatible, and the two or more partners are on opposite sides of the boundary value. A conflict arose, and passed between conflict escalation, conflict start and an eventual phaseout of conflict may be long and may take many winding roads (war, violence, discussions, debates, etc.) and need not be conciliatory in the end - in many cases is the result of a conflict an unshakable stubbornness.
One can divide the conflicts in many ways, but a major breakdown, it is values that conflict stems from, whether there is a manifest or latent conflict. You can talk about the evolution of a conflict will always move from the reservoir to the manifested, so that for example the conflict between USSR and USA was latent for a very long time (and did so on standby during the Second World War) but was more or less manifested in a number of doctrines from both sides. One can not therefore say that there was a conflict between the two parties before the U.S. 33rd President Harry S. Truman committed the United States through the Truman Doctrine to support countries which were threatened by foreign powers (read: communist), but the conflict at that time was symbolically visible.
To give a clear answer to why there are conflicts will be close to impossible, and an attempt would in all respects be vulgar. But I will still do my best. Conflict theory has long sought to obtain a single cause for conflict. Freud then, in brief, conflicts as being inborn and inherent in every individual and that this conflict as has been / will be projected onto the larger societal issues. For Marx this is different, almost opposite. Here was the individual's internal conflicts resulting from the eternal class struggle, so samfundest problems are transferred to the human mind. These two attempts to describe the anatomy of conflict from a single account is totally inadequate. This does not mean that they are genuine wrong, but the inadequacy is that there are so many different options that fail to draw into the discussion, and that everything just boils down to one sentence, then reductionism. A combination of the two theories, and supplementing from other branches will provide a more complete picture. As Freud has described the conflict, a natural element in the human psyche. The incompatibility is expressed several times in what we call the daily dilemmas. Dilemma is Greek and means a double sentence, so that there are two or more things that need to be addressed. And just herein lies the inherent conflict that we do not just choose a over b, but we consider them both, and take a stand. The conflict in this example is that we often can not both a and b, one deselects the other. Why then is such that conflict is inherent, I will now try, in good faith, to explain. That man is contentious, and the mind at times inconsistent, is linked to our place as the ultimate biological creature in nature's hierarchy. Human mind and being is significantly more complex than other creatures. We must not only decide whether there will be food on the table that I can put offspring into the world, and I find the most suitable mate. However, one can mention that the aforementioned issues, more or less the only force for our ancestors, questions may also trigger conflicts, but conflicts in "stage animal": Conflict: Will there be food on the table? Answer: Not if the other tribe cut off the food before us. Solution: We propose the second strain killed. And such examples can you create with the other issues. But in our contemporary world, the issues become more complex in nature, so that the conflicts also have become more complex. Therefore, solutions are also similar complex. Therefore, our place in nature will be threatened if we do not always take the best choice and to make these choices, we often look at several sides of the case, and thus determine what ultimately is most advantageous. The best solutions in the longer term, can sometimes prove to cause less problems and complications in the beginning. Looking back at the caveman case, a simple solution to the conflict to be together to get more food or that one of the two parties had to move. So simple solutions are rarely found today. I mentioned earlier that the conflict is linked to our biological creature's space, and this is also true. But if we see ourselves as being direct cohesion with the general evolutionary picture gets even more messy in such a case, all conflicts arise on the sole ground that it was each individual's need for procreation. Is this true? Immediately I will say no - people are in the creature's complexity and ability to make decisions based on anything other than instinct, like morality, emotions, perspective, etc. set of general evolution, which means that not only are the strongest (physical) who survives, but there are too many parameters which makes the outcome for our perpetuation and propagation can be described as relatively simple.
Conflicts can be solved in many ways and many of these so-called solutions will not reap all recognition. Most goes well but the idea of a resolved conflict societies. A utopia of joy and peace. This idea can be expressed in different ways, as Marx's "Great Revolution", as Nazi Germany "Endlösnung" which CEPOS's ultra-liberal free-trade community or in terms of other ideas and theories. Overall we can say that there are two forms of conflict resolution, the one where the incompatibility to be solved or the other, where the players are the problem. The first type of conflict is often the one that will be considered as a real successful solution. In the "Great Revolution" was the conflict between workers and employers resolved once and for all, by working jointly owned means of production, and thereby abolished entities. By CEPOS's idea solved the conflict between industrial and developing countries automatically through the introduction of free trade and the killing of miscellaneous tariff barriers. By this solution form pops up something new, it is incompatible dissolved and something "new" is created. There is not a direct party winning. These solutions also creates dynamism in society, as it will be presented with conflicts and forced to solve them on conflict grounds. The second "solution" that goes on operators' premises is of a different nature. One example I mentioned is "Endlösnung" and this represents the actor-based conflict resolution. Here was another actor who was the conflict / problem; Jews. And found a "solution" by a simple attempt, initially to deport them, and in the second game to kill an entire nation. This kind of solution is typically manifested in war, violence and terror.
My own theory of how conflicts can be resolved relates to the fact that man is a useful creature, and pragmatist. I will now ask the reader to follow this little thought experiment, which will explain my theory: A person has a number of problems / conflicts: He may not like the wife picks on him, partly because he does not like their new neighbor, and seek a solution to this problem. He can not be reconciled with his nyindflyttede neighbor, who is from another culture that our party can not accept. He will now go and this time occupied with the two problems and rank them according to importance. He identified from the following pattern: if he only tries to solve a problem he will stand with the new problem to a solution of a dependent of a solution of b, he will therefore be required to resolve neighbor dispute, before he can take care of the internal conflict. Imagine now that his town is attacked by a foreign power (another city, another country, aliens, etc.) Now our personal standing with three dilemmas: neighbor, the wife and the invasive power. Now he must reprioritize: Before hoe depot may be discontinued, the neighbor down the dispute, but before this can be, there must be peace in the street (he does not care to risk his life by going over to the neighbor). In this non-peaceful times, the neighbor and his wife do the same priority; problem with aliens must be solved first, so we can address the other problems later. The three parties will thus form a common front, and for a moment forget the other, and less important conflicts. Thought experiment is terminated. This is obviously not taken out of thin air, but based on the phenomenon that is seen many times and has been appropriate to assign the popular-sounding name "Independence Day" phenomenon. One saw it in the movie of the same name (and not that the film contains no overt qualities in addition to the content fits like a glove to my theory) that the world stood together to fight the invading creatures, and for some time, old conflicts behind them . Now based my theoretical solution of the world's conflicts are not on the likelihood that soil will be attacked by little green men, then I should be in the strait. But to transfer the common conceptual threat from extraterrestrials to something more human, such a moral dilemma. For example, global warming and the impact it will have. Much can be said about the debate, which is more than alive, but they have an impact until now we have seen, unfortunately not enough to move many minds, not enough that you could see "Independence Day" phenomenon. But if the consequences were painted with a much larger brushes, it is not impossible that this growing problem, would priority so that other conflicts would go in the shade. I know of course also well aware that this is not a permanent solution - yet. But it could lead to a utopian kingdom of peace is not inconceivable. If now the people came together and did something real about global warming together, would have laid a solid foundation for a much broader conflict resolution globally.
