A theory of Conflict

A conflict is an interesting event. The two sides engage in defending of what they believe is right, rational or logical but at the same time each side thinks of the other as nonsensical on a certain "basic level." However, yet we have never gone beyond the skepticism of the other side or at least tried to unravel the philosophical or rather the metaphysical nature of a conflict.I propose that each conflict has basically one reason: uncommunicated assumptions. Certain things are taken to be understood and their philosophical nature is rendered unimportant. Each conflict is essentially between two or more contending arguments. Each side is very convinced of their ideas and fails to understand or rather presumes why other side holds their views. And, the very root cause of the entire conflict is this failure to understand or rather reluctance to indulge in understanding other side. Although some of us might think that we have tried to understand the side, my humble answer would be that our approach was not quiet right. However, the question which arises: how can we effectively understand the otherside? The best way to do it is to challenge the very basic notions of "universally accepted" concepts. Language is, as wittgenstien said, a game. We could never understand what any other person understands( for more on metaphysics of language keep tuned for my Treatise III). Therefore, each universally accepted concept has basically a history of actions and experiences attached to it which are different for different people, thus, thoes notions are not very universal after all. This begs another question: if universally accepted concepts are not universal then how are we so easily able to communicate with them in daily "unconflicted life". The answer is not that hard to comprehend. Each concept has many overlaps and these overlaps are what makes things easy. However, its the grey areas where our experiences of the concepts dont overlap that we have conflicts. And the best part is, most people, are not even aware of their own assumptions. And since people are not aware of the their own assumptions, they are not aware of the basic cause of contention in the conflict and thus, a persistent conflict.An example of a universally accepted concept would be human rights or morality. We indulge in different debates of what human rights constitutes or what they are but have we ever inquired what human rights mean. Perhaps we have. Perhaps we have looked up a definition of human rights which says that they are " basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled." Some might be contend that they know what human rights are, but not quiet. This an ideal error. To effectively understand the otherside, we should let the other side define, what basic, rights, freedoms and even the word entitlment means. And we should at the same time try to form a common definitions and each point of contention should be further challenged and analyzed. This sure looks like pain in the ass but this the first step towards effectively uncovering the experiences or exposing the nascent, hidden assumptions of the otherside which even they might not know about and would help us understand their view better. However, here we encounter one problem. Everytime we endulge in painstaking definition of words, there might be new words which would need a better clarification because it would hold a plethora of experiences and assumptions which would need to be exposed. The idea is to challenge the basic notion of universality or the meaning of the very basic mundane most redundant words to expose us the assumptions. And, this would eventually lead us to form a common base for a rational conflict free discourse because not anymore we would be picking in from experiences which are unknown to us but which are known to both the conflicting parties. A conflict without challenging the very basic words or concept is like the following allegory. Two people, both with a chest of knives and each chest has just one sharp knife which is visibly sharpest of the rest. And the two people, are in conflict of trying to prove that his knife is the sharpest. The two people are in two separate rooms and cannot test the sharpness of their knives. Therefore, for each person his knife is sharper than the other person's knife for one they cannot test the sharpness and for second they cannot see the other side. Just like the same example, the knife is like a word and its meaning and the experience is its relative sharpness to other knives. However, just like the two people we know where they know the structure of the knife, people usually know the structure of the word but cannot get into other person's mind to realize the experiences or assumptions behind thoes words just like the two people in the example who cannot look at eachother. On the contrary of conflict, we will find acceptance. Acceptance of other notions, concepts and logic. How is that possible? With acceptance, we are drawing on common experiences and common understanding which lacks in conflict. Therefore, if we could get into other person's head just effectively enough, we might see that conflict never existed.Nevertheless, the exposure of assumptions and challenging basic concepts and notions is philosophy. And, as it might follow, philosophy could help solve a lot of conflicts, not all of them though because philosophers need to get better, I guess. Therefore, enjoy philosophy and a conflict free environment !