The absurdity of conflict

[trenton]

I watched Leo's video on conflict and I would like to add my own insights that I find hilarious and I hope it makes you laugh.

After finishing the video I sat down and went back to practicing chess.  As I was playing I started thinking "why is there so much conflict and war in a chess game?". I then started laughing because the point of the game is literally that pieces are at war and they want to checkmate the other king.  In order for there to be no conflict in chess, chess would have to die.  It would be absurd to sit here and moralize about how cruel it is that the pieces are attacking each other and oppressing the other side.

 a similar example is in Pokemon the first movie.  A lot of Pokemon fans make fun of the message that fighting is wrong.  Literally the point of Pokemon is that you catch Pokemon and train them to battle each other.  If you want conflict in Pokemon to stop, then Pokemon needs to die.

Playing this kind of music in the background of a chess game would be ridiculous.  The nature of the game is conflict.  That is the point, and if you want no more conflict, then you can't play.  That creates another conflict.

Now let's get a little more real.  Say a wolf and a rabbit.  It would be silly to moralize to a wolf about why eating a rabbit is wrong.  The point of being a wolf is that you are a predator and your nature is such that you must eat a rabbit.

Capitalism is another good example.  The idea is that many different companies compete for customers by producing goods and services.  Naturally, this leads to conflict and other companies will want to destroy each other.  this also creates income and wealth inequality which causes is to think that corporations are evil.  This is not a bug of capitalism, it is a feature.  Just like In chess, Pokemon, and in the animal kingdom.  Capitalism must divide the rich and the poor simply by the nature of the economic philosophy.  Interestingly, communism tries to unite the rich and poor, but in an unsustainable way.  How would we unite the rich and poor?  Would it be like Martin Luther king trying to unite the slave and his master in his "I have a dream speech?"

One more example is in war.  Sometimes my sister argues that men caused all the wars throughout history.  My mom and I dispute this point.  My mom looks at examples of violent women who wanted genocides against the pegans in Europe.  Meanwhile, I argue that in order for a country to survive, it must compete with other nations for land and resources.  This will inevitably lead to war regardless of who is power.  We could say that the nature of a country is that of a super organism that must oppress other super organisms in order to feed itself.  I would argue things like "do you really think the illegal drone strikes and bombings in the middle East would stop killing civilians if Hillary Clinton were in office?". 

Of course this argument is another form of conflict over my sister's feminist ideology.  Her boyfriend cheated on her and she had a lot of bad experiences with men because of my dad's sexist favoritism toward me.  I would argue that racism works the same way, but my sister pulls up videos of other like minded feminists who defend their generalizations about men. We could say that men and women are stake holders in the war of the sexes.  So of course the division of man and woman will lead to conflict if they are not unified in a sustainable way.

One way I try to resolve these types of ideological and political conflicts is by finding common ground.  This tends to be more effective than arguing that one ideology is the one true one, which is the biggest absurdity in history.  For example, I agree with my sister on some actions that could be taken to stop income inequality and human trafficking.  She respects me for my research into slavery because most men don't know what women go through because of the prevalence of forced prostitution in the black market. You could say that I am trying to look at multiple points of view and unify them, thus stopping polarization.

This method for resolving conflict is limited when my grandma insists that Trump won the election and the democrats cheated.  I can't challenge this close minded argument because she rejects any and all evidence I show her while defending any all actions of Trump.  I wrote a message to her explaining how transgenderism works, and I don't know her reaction yet.  It is like a marry couple that will argue and hate each other until death do they part.

Fundamentally, the point of survival is that you are in conflict with death.  If you are alive, then you are not dead.  From this point of view, there will inevitably be conflict and it is absurd to look at conflict like it is wrong.  Conflict is the nature of reality.

I hope you get a good laugh at the absurdity of conflict.

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, trenton said:

I hope you get a good laugh at the absurdity of conflict.

Say that when you're in the thick of it.

[trenton]

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Say that when you're in the thick of it.

Of course when I'm in the thick of it, I would either isolate myself to avoid getting hurt or kill myself to escape life.  This is my typical strategy for dealing with conflict.  Otherwise, I might make it worse by talking to people who may as well be speaking Chinese.  Each of my words will have a different meaning attached to them for every person, so instead I don't talk as my words will be taken as I don't mean them.

Maybe a more accurate way to put is "I hope you had a good laugh at the idea that conflict is wrong.". What the post really argues is that conflict is inevitable, not that conflict itself is absurd.

Maybe this is a sign of the problem I'm describing.  I would rather say nothing than say something I don't mean or that someone will interpret in a worse way.