There are 2 types of conflict: 1) constructive: when people compete to give the best solution or to give the best arguments for their ideas.
2) personal conflicts
First type of conflict generates novel solutions for the problems, the second type of conflict generates hate, war and destruction.
By our attitudes we can determine what type of conflict we will have.
Because the recent incidents from Paris made me think to types of conflicts, I will take as example the conflict between an atheist and a religious man.
The atheist despise the religious man rationality.
The religious despise the arrogance of the know all atheist.
Because of their views they are in conflict.
If the atheist says to the religious man "You are stupid because you worship a god which doesn't exists" then he will provoke the rage of the former, and he will create a personal conflict.
But if the atheist will ask the religious man "Why are you worshipping something that you don't see?" he will create a conflict of opinions, which is beneficial for both.
The atheist might get some interesting questions. He might find out that in the practice of religion gives psychological soothing, that creates communities who help each other.
The religious man, may wonder if some of the rituals of his religion made sense.
It is conflict between West and Islam. No doubt. But we can make this conflict personal or constructive.
In this conflict it is supposed that the West is more enlightened. So why the media from West makes money by feeding with stereotypes a population that is more and more anti-emigration?
I didn't watched how the press from France treated the Arabs, but it seems that for a while Romanians were targets of the hate campaign from french press.
Someone said the arrow of truth should be covered with sweetness of a joke.
A joke it is when both parties are laughing.
I don't think a Christian laughed at these images published by Charlie Hebdo. What message they wanted to transmit? That they can slander anyone?
I cannot say "Je suis Charlie" because they belonged to a type of press that slandered and provoked personal conflicts for gaining money. They pissed on the beliefs of people. They didn't deserved to die.The duels for honour are gone in Europe.
In 1859 when the politician Ion Bratianu requested help from Napoleon III for unification of Moldova and Walachia in Romania, he said:
"Romania will be always your ally, Our harbours will be your harbours, our army will be your army".
In 1916 despite that we had a german king, we sided with France. Someone even said: "If Romania perishes it perishes a small country, if France perishes a civilisation is dying"
After the world war I, we gave France, Brancusi,Enescu, Eugen Ionescu,Mircea Eliade,Emil Cioran.
Even in communist times we had cordial relations with France. Till recent years the first foreign language taught in Romanian schools was French.
To destroy this century old friendship it was necessary a handful of beggars, some idiotic politicians and especially a slandering press.
2) personal conflicts
First type of conflict generates novel solutions for the problems, the second type of conflict generates hate, war and destruction.
By our attitudes we can determine what type of conflict we will have.
Because the recent incidents from Paris made me think to types of conflicts, I will take as example the conflict between an atheist and a religious man.
The atheist despise the religious man rationality.
The religious despise the arrogance of the know all atheist.
Because of their views they are in conflict.
If the atheist says to the religious man "You are stupid because you worship a god which doesn't exists" then he will provoke the rage of the former, and he will create a personal conflict.
But if the atheist will ask the religious man "Why are you worshipping something that you don't see?" he will create a conflict of opinions, which is beneficial for both.
The atheist might get some interesting questions. He might find out that in the practice of religion gives psychological soothing, that creates communities who help each other.
The religious man, may wonder if some of the rituals of his religion made sense.
It is conflict between West and Islam. No doubt. But we can make this conflict personal or constructive.
In this conflict it is supposed that the West is more enlightened. So why the media from West makes money by feeding with stereotypes a population that is more and more anti-emigration?
I didn't watched how the press from France treated the Arabs, but it seems that for a while Romanians were targets of the hate campaign from french press.
Someone said the arrow of truth should be covered with sweetness of a joke.
A joke it is when both parties are laughing.
I don't think a Christian laughed at these images published by Charlie Hebdo. What message they wanted to transmit? That they can slander anyone?
I cannot say "Je suis Charlie" because they belonged to a type of press that slandered and provoked personal conflicts for gaining money. They pissed on the beliefs of people. They didn't deserved to die.The duels for honour are gone in Europe.
In 1859 when the politician Ion Bratianu requested help from Napoleon III for unification of Moldova and Walachia in Romania, he said:
"Romania will be always your ally, Our harbours will be your harbours, our army will be your army".
In 1916 despite that we had a german king, we sided with France. Someone even said: "If Romania perishes it perishes a small country, if France perishes a civilisation is dying"
After the world war I, we gave France, Brancusi,Enescu, Eugen Ionescu,Mircea Eliade,Emil Cioran.
Even in communist times we had cordial relations with France. Till recent years the first foreign language taught in Romanian schools was French.
To destroy this century old friendship it was necessary a handful of beggars, some idiotic politicians and especially a slandering press.
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu