The Philosophy of Conflicts
Profile of the Author : Gentarou Kurosaki Born in 1961
Research Institute of Gentarou Kurosaki(Japan)
Profile of the Translator Yu Takioka Born in 1988
Affiliated with University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign and Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology
Accepting conflicts is far more reasonable and appropriate than demanding excessive corporation to cope with interpersonal troubles. No consensus is there. Consensus is not a goal. Inappropriate objectives can cause the worst conflicts. If it is true, then people should make an effort to express reasonable conflicts and seek for better conflicts. The philosophy of conflicts is the most peaceful thought. It can facilitate in keeping better and sustainable conflicts. Peace can be constructed by passively. This is neither pessimism nor optimism.
Who is angry if a school trip is cancelled due to a bad weather? Certainly not. If there are, there would be a few people. What on the earth are supposed to be angry with? Would it be nature? Would it be the earth? Would it be natural laws? Would it be a low pressure atmosphere floating above the Japanese Sea?
I have never seen such a person. In terms of these situations, people might feel sorry, regret, depressed or disappointed. Would you feel angry with a stray dog if you are bit? If you feel angry with the dog, it must be extraordinary cases, and you would be angry with the government that did not prevent people from suffering. It is, however, natural that people would be angry with a friend if the friend is late or ignored the promise.
Moreover, people might be angry if people do not say hello, do not present a gift, do not consult with them before taking an action, or do not expose an appropriate attitude.
Why are people angry? It is because some people did not display an attitude which is expected or the attitude might not be recognized as a common sense. If I expect some attitude and it must be naturally occurred, this expectation?as if often case with it?must be just an unreasonable belief. I think that those people with angry with their belief must be disrespected because the angry caused by this mechanism is based on their innocence. Besides, this attitude reveals their infancy and a deficiency of imagination.
Someone, however, might argue that angry must be natural under some specific conditions. There are people who angry with those do not respect a manner. A person might claim that the problem is that most people do not angry with others’ disrespectful behaviors and attitudes.
Is it true? No, blaming and reproving are conceptually different. Blaming is originated in feeling while reproving is originated in reason. If you are a normal adult, then feelings caused by such case would be not angry but be disappointing, disrespect, dislike, sorrow, pity, or disgust. If you are wiser, you might not be affected by such situations.
On the one hand, there are cultural norms in the human society, and it is uncontestable that people must obey those cultural norms. On the other hand, those cultural norms have been divergent recently and people have been faced with multi-cultural contexts in every day. Thus, those divergent cultural norms must be distinguished. Some might adhere to one cultural norm and even believed that must be respectful, although I think it is in vain.
In summary, those who excessively connected to one cultural norm must be a person with incompetency to tell cultural differences and must be too conservative to understand it. Cultural differences have rapidly been expanded. Thus, angry as such must be originated in an incompetency with recognizing multiculturalism or those individuals must not accept that situation.
Anger and hate from these kind of level are indifferent for me to analyze, although it might cause homicide. Thus, it could be carefully observed. It was widely accepted that people might feel angry with someone who killed some family member of them. Moreover, angry is provoked by the War because an individual might be suffered vital damage by the War. The angry might cause hate and might drive people to revenge.
Would it be justifiable such kind of anger might cause revenge? It is obvious that the presupposition of this anger holds that the others who triggered anger are also the same human. Since they are the same human, people cannot pardon them. If they do not recognize them as the same human, it must be hate not angry. There might be a theory that can deny angry and reason is predominant to feeling, although I cannot easily conclude that theory would be correct.
Do you think that reason must be more significant than feelings? Do you think that reason must be always significant than feelings? Do you think there is a rule for an exception? If you believe these statements are true, what are feelings for people? I believe that feelings are the essence of human. In these days, rapid decision making are praised, whereas it is also true that the long term decision making process is also respectful based on philosophical tradition, particularly, if you must make significant decision. I would argue this issue later and then go to the next chapter.
- The Inside and The Outside
The psychological wall divided into the inside and the outside is an inevitable element of organizations or communities. The psychological wall is consciously or unconsciously constructed by the members of the organizations or communities, such as family, school, company, a pastime club, a regional community, a municipality, a nation, the Japanese society, the international society. The functions and the domains are different among these organizations or communities albeit every organization or community has their different psychological domains divided them into the inside and the outside.
A community?whether it is unrepresentative or representative? has their unique ideas, objectives, and values. Assimilation pressure facilitates in maintaining the order between members within the inside of the community. The role of the member is assigned by the community in order to maximize the efficiency of it. If the individual does not adapt to one’s role in the community, the one can be eventually excluded from the community. If it is in a family, it can disown, running away from home, and divorce.
The most typical strategy for strengthen the inside harmony is to create the enemy or threats outside of the community. As a result, that community becomes “closed”. If the community attempts to strengthen the familiar friendships between the outside of the community, it would be “opened” community. The Japanese has been in favored of reading the study of the Japanese or Japan, although a few people noticed that this is a universal tendency of human beings, and people recognize uniqueness as an identity from it. If it is overemphasized, then it would cause a “closed” tendency of the Japanese. Thus, it needs to pay attention to it unless it is overemphasized.
A famous scholar, who studied in Europe, wrote several books with his experience in Europe based on the concept that there is no society in Japan, but is seken, an invisible closed and homogeneous community. A famous critic wrote the book whose concept is that Japanese office worker is not an individual. These statements are easily acceptable for the Japanese, and even it can convince the Japanese that these statements make sense.
It is unfavorable statements because they discredit the liberalism constructed by the modernism, and they even deny the modernism itself, namely, denying democracy. I am not confident that these authors might have limited imagination capabilities or might have unknown intentions. It is, however, necessary that people should not only have reasonable attitude toward the statements, but also should have imaginations of consequences of the statements. I do not recognize the modernism or democracy as absolute values, and do not worship it as a holy scripture. Rather, I realized that there are several criticisms and improvable concepts of them. I simply disagree with those prior statements which discredit the worthwhile ideas of the modernism, and I believe that the valuable ideas of the modernism must be held as a historical heritage.
Individuals are affiliated with multiple communities. If they are acknowledged their contribution to their communities, they can be given the higher position, given the reward, or recognized as justice in the communities. If these communities were recognized as higher evaluations in the society, their reputations and honor would widespread beyond their affiliated communities. Whatever the communities are observation of the inside and the outside of the communities are always required to review. Moreover, people have to remark that extreme concepts can be prone to be an opposite concepts even though the concept incorporates supreme ideas.
Considering these global age, the better strategy is “opened” than “closed”. Organizations and people have to recognize the “opened” strategy as a goal of the organizations. I reemphasized that recognizing the differences between the inside and the outside and having the interests in the outside are not only important strategy for the outsiders but also it is important for insiders. One Japanese Proverb holds that those who help others are to be helped by others.
- The Gaps.
In these days, the gaps between the rich and poor have been picked out as a social problem. Economic statistics underlines the fact, and there are some individuals who criticize the government as a responsible agent for the gaps. Some individuals disagree with the governmental economic policy. Their criticism is toward not only the government or the members of the cabinet, but also toward the Market fundamentalism, and Capitalism in general. If I explain that the current society guarantees the equal opportunity and it is in the Pareto optimum point, they will not understand them. Rather, it can facilitate in intensifying their resentment. “Equality” means that this is the equal rights as natural rights. Those are few people who do not recognize the existence of the gap as the results, or private property system. They are usually called as daydreamers and people will not count on them.
The gaps do not only exist in the economics but are in competencies, techniques, expertise, connections, reputations, popularity, the fields of the interests and its domains and depths. People are tended to enlarge distinction or uniqueness from others as they are growing up. Denying the private property system is nothing more than the denying one of the aspects of the gaps. I wonder if someone does not understand that it is an idea that discounts the freedom, and even it deteriorates other worse gaps.
That is the question whether it presupposes that people are naturally unique or naturally the same. If people do not agree with one of these propositions, then it is impossible to reach the conclusion. In this case, how can you reconcile this?
The issue in Japan in 2006 is not what kind of the gaps are justifiable or not, but the poverty covered beneath the gaps. The issue is not increasing the gaps but the increasing the social class recognized as poverty and working poor. The problem is how the society can deal with these issues are substituted for the issues of the gaps, although the central argument should be how to reduce the poverty and how to preserve the right to live.
The cause of this issue is decreasing the typical employment and semi-destructed the Nenkojyoretsu system?it is the Japanese unique reward system that people can get larger amount of earnings based on their working year of the company. The age when the forms of employment itself should be discussed has come.
Employment is one of welfare. The reason why nation attempts to increase the employment and to reach complete employment is because it is a part of welfare. It is basic policy that the government makes those individuals who might not be hired work, in terms of economic reasonability, and cope with the life without receiving any support from the government. The transitions of the economic environment and industrial environment, however, challenge the traditional thoughts of the relationships between employment and welfare.
A lot of philanthropists say that there are many people who are living less than $3 in the world, and they should be paid attention. Yet it is difficult to compare and comparison between such kind of world and Japan. It is possible to live without earning money in the world, whereas it is impossible to live without earning much in Japan.
In Japan, economic activity is fully dependent on the currency, so people will die if they do not have money due to starvation.
It is natural that required labor force decreases as the civilization is progressing. In the past, the slogans?represented labors’ demand ?were to reduce the working time and free from working. It does not need to criticize it when it makes true in these days. Moreover, it is in vain to idealize working. An employment as ”slavish working style“ is a special forms whose history is only a few hundreds of years. It is plausible that it will be extinct.
The argument of the basic income may reflect the transition of the age. The idea of the basic income is that the government is responsible for distributing minimum amount of money for everyone that they can live. If the government is unable to provide complete employment, then they must warrant the right to live for those individuals who cannot get a job. People who are worried with the increasing the gaps between the rich and the poor do not understand the reality. It is a daydreamer who believed the existence of the government?have competency to warrant the equality of all of the gaps among people?created by omnipotent God. The idea that the government has to reduce the gaps of the results is not a justice but is an individual belief. In addition, some might criticize Capitalism as an ultimate cause of the gaps, although it is not reasonable.
The very issue which is discussed seriously is to reduce not the gaps among people but to reduce poverty. The obstacle of this discussion is a politician who wants to enlarge their influence by insisting on the reduction of the gaps. These politicians attempt to discount the very central issue, reducing poverty. This kind of illogical argument is widespread through mass media. It is required that the “conflict spirit” and the “conflict technique” to correctly evaluate the validity of the argument. Details of these notions are discussing in the later chapter.
Human beings live in two different worlds, namely, the first world is constructed by biological perspective, and the second world is constructed by cultural perspective through language. Keizaburou Maruyama once argued that the first world is defined as “Miwake structure” and the second world as “Kotowake structure”. These two worlds would not be integrated. It is the predisposition of human beings that they have to live without reconciliation of two worlds, with hurt, injured and depressed.
There is no justice in the animal world. They behave based only on their instinct. Animals can live with only desire. This seems to be brutal, although it is the way they live. There is no domain of the will.
Some might discriminate drive caused by physiological needs and desire caused by cultural needs. They would think that drive is legitimate but desire is illegitimate due to its excessiveness. It is, however, unreasonable. There is no longer pure drive. All of the drive and desire are integrated and it is impossible to differentiate them. Human beings are the creatures who are broken or broke their instinct. It was often said that human beings do not have instinct but its ashes of instinct.
Sleeping is also not pure drive. When you are dreaming, you will notice that its world is constructed by the reflection of the cultural world. To be human beings is to live inside of the cultural world. The only distinction between drive and desire is whether it is included physiological factor or not, however, it is also implausible.
Greedy used to be recognized as sin. Despite, it is recognized as moral and as a condition to success in these days. There are culture and desires in the world. It is individual preference that it is fascinating or not, disgust or not, threats or not. If language is excessive, then culture and desire are also excessive. It is, however, not justify regulating them due to their excessiveness. Rather, people should accept them.
Moderation, simplicity and even abstinence are also desire. It is inevitable to recognize desire and drive are inextricable.
It is just that people will attempt to acquire desired social position, earnings and fame. These desires are evaluated as normal and can be evaluated as necessary desires. People can get a desired position and reward by making a contribution for an organization. The contribution demanded here is how to work as a function. In other words, it is value as a tool. People often make an effort to enhance value as a tool and might proud of it. This is admirable; however, it can be possible that people would considered those individuals to be excellent as tools but not to be interested in human if those individuals value themselves as tools.
On the one hand, there is a person who is handsome, rich and has a respectful social position but not interesting when chatting. Moreover, this kind of person may believe that he/she spoke interesting story. It can be possible to think that a trivial story form the rich can be proverb. On the other hand, there is a person who is interesting, however, is not useful as a tool or not adaptive to an organization, so to speak “social maladaptive”. I think this is extreme case, however, people will think the world as tool if people are adaptive to enhance value as tool. It means that those individual are prone to evaluate people as social position and earnings. They will eventually decrease interests in human characteristics. This phenomenon is called a bureaucratic pathology. Someone, however, might argue that the most valuable factor of human beings is the character. Is it true?
Human beings are creatures who live in cultural world and social world. In these contexts, they are responsible for some social role as it is natural. This social role can have strong duty, and its duty can be against people’s own will. People are not completely free, although freedom is respectful in this age. People are still regulated by their environment. In general, the more people can adaptive to their environment, the more people can live under satisfactory conditions. If people attempt to preserve their free will excessively or to preserve idealistic view on the world, they can have numerous dissatisfactions.
Nevertheless, it is plausible that to make society more liberal because society and culture are constructed by human beings. If this is true, then it is appropriate strategy to adapt its environment for happiness as individual strategy, but it is better strategy to attempt to reasonably behave based on free will as the whole. Human beings have a capability to change environment into better and worse. It may be one option not to change the social environment, and it may be need to take a responsibly for it. Someone might argue that there should not be any responsibility for it because there is not such a strong power to change the social environment.
Moral, however, is not only to obey the rule, authority or regime but also needs to have self-awareness for them as citizens. This self-awareness can differentiate moral people from non-moral people. Unfortunately, moral people can be minority in the society.
- The Post-Modern Age
What is the post-modern age when we live? Is it be the age of an exhausted modern, the age of terrorisms, the age of empire, knowledge and information, or the age of a controlled society?
It is possible to interpret this age from multiple aspects, and recognizing and evaluating it is also diverse. Everyone live in the same age, although recognition of it is diverse. The same logic can apply to the age which became past. It is not reasonable to think that metaphysics warrant the absolute truth. This is the ground where post-modern philosophy opened up. Everything is relativized. Cultural relativism is one of them. This was considered to be the basis of the post-colonialism movement. It is, however, used for legitimizing the argument that freedom and democracy are not exception for this relativism. It is true and nothing is exception.
The Post-modernism disproved the absoluteness, suppression, and a controlled society, which were produced as by-product of the modernism. This is justifiable and fruitful, although it is a critical distinction between what there are issues in the modernism and disproving the legacy produced by the modernism.
It is a general notion for the liberalists that values of freedom, human rights and democracy in the modern age and in the post-modern age are not required to be evaluated by the same paradigm. No one seeks for the absolute truth or reason. In addition, metaphysics does no longer exist. It must be the part of religion.
How can we legitimate freedom? Would it be due to popularity or superiority of history? No, these are not necessary argue to legitimate freedom by reasoning. It is enough to legitimate freedom if you represent your confidence of the existence of freedom. Schumpeter, an economist, articulated that being aware of what self-confidence of the validity is relatively true, and representing this self-confidence without shirking back, both of which can differentiate citizens from savages.
The modernism has light and shadow, advantages and disadvantages. Despite, there are numerous points to be modified. It is not an appropriate way to think about the modernism to pay only attention to its disadvantages and to discredit its advantages. Who could illustrate the political expectation without considering advantages of the modernism?
There are unfathomable issues when recognizing the age, objectives and values. It is implausible to integrate these as one absolute truth. Moreover, conversation and progresses of culture and science cannot promote mutual understanding. In fact, it can be unavoidable conflicts between them. It seems to be true that the only way to deal with issues? catastrophes of violence and war, discriminations and poverty?is to reasonably continue these conflicts. This is the practical objectives to deal with these conflicts.
People’s introspection has been progresses since the modern age. According to Yi-Fu Tuan, he pointed out that words refer to the introspection and opportunity to use these words has dramatically increased since the modern age. Brutal situations have decreased in daily life. It has also been produced the consciousness of empathy as human beings since the modern age. It is the modern condition that people would feel sympathy with people with poverty live in the opposite side of the earth. War became more devastating due to the progresses of science and technology, although it is hard to conclude that people’s mind is deteriorated. This is one of the hopes.
- The Public and The Private
Someone regrets that predominance of the individual freedom violates the public order of the society and asserts that people should obey the public rules. Of course, the order in this context means the visible hierarchy of the power and the authority.
Nevertheless, I wonder if it is true that the individuals are surrounded with excessive freedom. I suspect that an independent and free individual from the public. It can be true that “the private” individual are nothing more than the individual with suppressed by the power of “the public”. In other words, “the private” individuals are the individuals who are given some choices by “the public” and make a decision from them.
For instance, “the private” individuals are working for the company by train, doing the same tasks and going home every day. This enables us to get bread and butter. People consume entertainment provided with by the public in holidays in a week. Acquiring information and thinking about it is nothing more than the reaction to mass media.
“The public” knows everything about individuals’ reactions. Is the private room remained? If there is “the private” room in the world, then it is controlled by “the public”. Pierre-Felix Guattari pointed out that there is a “self-renunciation toward the subjectivity of the market”. No one voluntarily wants to renounce “the private” room. Rather, this is the result of uncontrollable conditions. It is the cliche; however, this situation is “self-domestication”. Self-domestication warrants the security and the life, although it forces to lose freedom instead.
The person with the higher position in a company is prone to be kicked out by one letter. I don’t understand the meaning of the higher position due to its instability. Hierarchy in the organization is nothing more than the means of enhancing motivations to work. Those are lamentable who are convinced to believe in the pseudo-value of the hierarchy in the company.
The world “private” are reduced to a symbol. This issue is criticized from the perspectives of “individual” and “mind”. Not only does proclaim the reconstruction of “the public”, but also someone does proclaim the reconstruction of “the private”. “The public” is no longer conveyed the government, but it represents the society as power including the government. This can be the real aspect of “the public”.
Considering the origin of these worlds, it can be true that there were conflicts but both were not inconsistent with each other. Thus, it is required to maintain the better “the public” to promote “the better private”. Sometimes, the private is devoted for the public because it presupposes that this judgment can eventually cause “the better private”. The problem is this presupposition does not always reach the consensus among people.
Some?people who are at the end of the spectrum from my position?might argue that it does not matter because they believe that “the public”, consisting of beautiful order, is the only value of the human beings, and the private is valueless. Moreover, they might replace the meaning of “the private” to the condition that do a volunteer work for and make a contribution to “the public”. I don’t understand the position of these individuals. Would they argue this is not the private utterance?
Regardless of their consideration, it is the fact that this is paradoxical situation because there is no private that can support “the public”. “The public” that should contribute to me is putrefied and perplexed. If this recognition is true, then I wonder it might exist other than despair. In this situation, the power is not restricted. Yet, there are conflicts between powers.
The individuals who have the power are not concerned with the private or with the public, but if they are concerned with something, it must be the power as means but not objectives. The notion of “the private” and “the public” are about to be utilized by the power. People should notice their manipulations of meanings. It is natural that the alertness of these manipulations of the meanings is responsible for the journalism and the mass media. I discredit them because they are also the part of the power.
- The Power and Violence.
The answer of the question of what is the power is not the only one. Steven Lukes argued three different types of the power. The primary power is the power which A makes B do. The secondary power is the power that A is multiplied. The tertiary power is the power that B cannot notice the existence of A. this is the critical problem whether people can notice the power or not.
Foucault conceptualized that the power resides in every human relationship and it was promoted from the bottom but not the top. I would not argue the details of this because the issue I point out is not the micro power but the macro power including the government. The most noticeable characteristics of the macro power are that it monopolizes the legitimate power. This is the essence of the power of the nation state. The power in this context means the police and military power. The counter violence against crime and evil is legitimated by the law. The power is observed in the capitalists and in mass media, although the center of the power is the nation.
Yet, as Negri and Hardt argued, the new subject of the power came out. This is “the empire”. The empire showed up because the power of the nation has decreased since the end of the cold war in 1990’s. “The empire” is defined as the subject that has the power as the network of the nations. This is the age when the power transcends the boundaries of the nations.
The issue of this age is not the matter of the international law or the matter from the humanitarian standpoint, but the matter of the “global order”. Moreover, they emphasized that war becomes usual conditions for the exceptional conditions. Furthermore, in the modern war, the power relationship between the stronger and weaker is obvious. The stronger states the objective that they do not produce the dead soldiers. The power and war are facing to the new condition.
What is the relationship between the power and people? The normal condition of them is found obedience and dependence. People would not recognize the power as legitimate if they cannot gain the security, the order, efficiency, proficiency, secure and peace instead. If people do not recognize the power as legitimate violence, then the power will threat the individuals who fight resistance, abhorrence, and malignance against the power.
The problem may not be the power itself but be the way of the power. Anarchism is plausible in theory, although it is not realistic. To seek for acquiring the power is to obtain the will that makes this predominance temporally to permanent that is over the generations.
Whether it is fortune or not, there are filled with factors that can exert it. The capital can not only be accumulated or be taken over, but also can be augmented. The capital itself is the power in these days. The power is the tool that allows people to be satisfied with their drive and desire. People think that it is impossible to live in better conditions without preserving the power. In addition, people cannot live without being dependent on the power. Additionally, people even believe that the better society is the society which people are dependent totally on the power. It might be illusion, although there is not enough time to realize it as illusion. If people articulate that, they would be told not to think about it and are told to enjoy this situation. Seeking for desire and pleasure is recommended by the society compared with critical thinking.
As noted before this chapter, the most noticeable characteristics of the power are that it is used as the legitimate violence. Violence is considered from different aspects. Some philosophers think about it is the essence of the existence of human beings, and the others think about it is as holly. Yet, I have questions about the methods of the interpretation of it. I am not sure that there is universal essence of human beings. Some might prefer to use or observe violence, the others might not. It can be the matter of preference or the matter of individual characteristics.
Violence is not only being the means but it also is objective. If it is means, it can be another means. If it is objective, it cannot be replaceable. What is the condition that violence is becoming the objective?
Regardless of the power or violence, power contains devilishness. The more strengthen the power is the more devilishness is. People would recognize it as nobleness and holiness. These notions can easily trespass the judgment of goodness. Human reason must fight against this devilishness. Moreover, people must notice that the subject is incorporated by the violence structure and the power.
A large number of people show their obedience and respect to the power, although they criticize the putrefaction and unjust of the power. It might be the true attitude toward it, or it might be a gesture to pursue for another objective. The power knows the wisdom and a mean spirit of people who obey to it. When people are controlled by the power and when people are incorporate, the power will strike people as violence.
It is nonsense to argue good or evil for someone’s way of life. This question is not the problem of good or bad but is the problem of the necessity. The criteria of this question are inappropriate. Human beings are the social animals so that they can adapt to the society.
Let me think this question as philosophical question. What is the good or bad? Once, the ancient philosophers thought about the absolute good or bad, although it is a common sense for intelligent people that there is no such absolute good or bad in these days. If there is bad, then it must be the “bad”, such as “the social bad”, “the moral bad”, “the economical bad”, “the religious bad” but not the “absolute bad”. The absolute bad is not unnoticeable but it does not exist.
Children are told that telling a lie is bad whereas psychologists argue that children become adults when they understand and how to use it. One Japanese proverb states that telling a lie predicts being a theft. Another Japanese proverb says that telling a lie can be useful. In these contexts, lie is not an” absolute bad”, although there are some cases that telling a lie can violate the credibility and if someone is labeled as a liar, then he/she would lose some profits. If someone tells a lie in the court, that individual are sued as crimes of perjure. Telling an “appropriate lie” can be helpful to smooth communication or it can produce profits.
How about committing homicide? Is it absolutely bad? This is not an absolute bad; however, a murder can probably be punished because it is considered to be “the social bad”. Human beings attempt to exclude these kinds of individuals and punish them as a social animal. I do not argue whether capital punishment can be legitimized or not because this is not the central matter, and it can lead the wrong track of this argument. In this case, there are multiple aspects to be argued other than “ethical bad/good”.
One might argue that individual homicide is a crime, however, the war is different form it. This is the argument from the transcend law perspective. This is also not “the absolute bad”. Despite, trying to avoid a war is a majority opinion. This thought is based on the “ethical field” of human rights and humanity.
There are some implicit advocates for eugenics: a superior gene must survive and inferior gene must be excluded. I disprove this idea not because supporting the minority rights but because I believe that it is impossible to decide for human beings to what is superior or inferior. If god exists, he could not decide as well. What if you are facing to a dangerous beast? Wouldn’t you trigger your gun? Would you hesitate to trigger due to respect animal’s rights? What if it is not an animal but dangerous human beings? To live essentially conveys to fight.
What are the worst bad in bad? It is an extreme good. What if determining social bad completely? What if eliminating the grey zone of the law and determining absolute good and bad? Majority of the population agree with the idea that the homicide is a crime. How about love neighbors? How about enacting a law to punish telling a lie in daily life? How about punishing people those who do not represent nationalism? All of these challenge human rights and human nature or challenge “human life”. Try not to criticize relativism frivolously but to criticize frivolous relativism. I question what is bad with understanding the fact that there is not such an absolute bad. This is not mutually exclusive.
- The Grounds of Conflicts
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.
- Bullying: A Conflict Case 1
A student told a teacher that he had no reason to bully someone. The student who bullied responded. There is no reason to do so, although it is possible to analyze and imagine the reason. The victim of the student did not do anything with him. He said that he did not want to school because the student might bull again, and he articulated that his feelings were filled with fear and uneasiness.
The teacher told student that bullying was bad, and not to bully again. There was no reason. This is a lie. He just did not understand the reason and did not make any effort to understand it. A victimized student was a student who had a lot of experience in foreign country. He was outstanding in the class because he asserted his opinion unflinchingly. The student who bullied this student might feel a kind of threats; however, this student could not understand why he felt the threats. Yet, he had emotion to express his state of mind by any means. This emotional state was so strong that he bullies the student. Bullying is his means to express his strong emotion.
Anyway, what the teacher said was unsophisticated. The student could understand bullying is bad or violence is bad. The problem is not why bullying is bad either. The problem is why this student could not understand his emotion by reason and language. The teacher’s duty was not only tell students knowledge what was prohibited but also should help students to develop their cognitive ability to understand their emotion as language. Moreover, that teacher would have understood the feelings and emotions of him. The teacher might be responsible for not telling him how to develop patient attitude toward outstanding people.
Despite, someone might argue that understanding some situations by emotion is more significant than by reason. This person even may argue that the victim has responsibility to be bulled and the victim could have had more cooperative attitudes toward students. This is undoubtedly unreasonable. The modernism presupposes the ego with thinking thing (cogito) but not presuppose the ego without thinking thing (cogito).
This presupposition is neither truth nor absoluteness of the human beings, but it was widespread consensus and promises among modern citizens.If someone rejects this consensus, then he/she also will reject modernism. The person who argues the problem based on this kind of reasoning is an enemy of the modern civilization. I was lamented by seeing the book written by this kind of silly logic. The example which I pointed out is a typical bullying case. It is not seemed to be paid special attention.
Yet, I think this example can provide a lot of interesting points to be analyzed seriously. That case can light shed on the numerous points; the role and duty for teachers, the limitation of acceptance to cultural differences, whether seeking for the identity of the classroom or not, and what is the definition of bullying? If I analyze all of these problems, I can write a book for this topic.
Anyway, let me focus on the definition of bullying. Bullying is often done by several persons to one person or a few persons. The problem I point out is whether there are qualitative differences between a quarrel and a bullying. How these are different? Is it possible to say that a bullying is bad but a quarrel is not?
Take into consideration of the case; it is obvious that there was no quarrel but a bullying. A quarrel requires for at least two people to have the will to start a quarrel each other. In that case, no will was found from the victim. He did not have any will to quarrel. There was only violence. This was asymmetry conflicts; rather it was completely unidirectional conflicts and there is also found in the world as well.
How to cope with this situation for the victim?
In this specific case, the victim can avoid injured if he transfer into another school. He also can adapt to this environment by exposing more corporative attitudes or playing such kind of behavior. It can also be alterative to cope with this situation by discussing in class.
This specific case exemplified the immature and emotional conflicts. It is; however, these kinds of conflicts are observable in the society where immature adults live. If this is true, and criticize and disrespect its immaturity, then it cannot change this immature conflict structure. If people want to change the structure of superiority, then they must change the conflicts structure. What does it mean? I will be back this problem light after analyzing other examples.
- Pre-Conflicts: A Conflict Case 2.
It has been passed for ten years since a person worked. He was over 30 years old. He was not interested in working so much or he was not special hobby. He was unmarried and a single. He lived independently from his family, and he felt it abnormal that the thin human relationship was built. He has no friend, although he made some communication with his colleagues and sometimes he went drinking with them. Nevertheless, he was not interested in doing so. He just did so because it was custom. He thought that he should not make personal relationship in a company. Thus, it was natural that he did not have any rivalry relationship or solidarity with his colleagues.
He might have feelings to build the human relationship that needs to consider introspection of other people. Yet, he might not know how to build such kind of relationship, and he might not want to be involved in annoying psychological problems. He said that he had never met the person who was interested in. It can be the problem of his sensitivity or he can believe that he was not an interesting person. As I discussed before, conflicts presuppose relationship. If this is true, then there is no conflict in this case. Is it true or is it preferable due to no conflict? I define this situation; there is no relationship, as a pre-conflict stage.
It is a global phenomenon that in sociological field, thin human relationship became a hot topic. People who feel loneliness in the city are not a few. There are people who have a lot of friends, although they cannot build interpersonal relationship in the inner level. It can be one leading question to analyze the phenomenon why people have to build this interpersonal relationship.
To begin with the analysis of this question, I will discuss the opposite case.
It is how people can build good emotional relationship. The key factors I assume are respect, love, empathy, and compassion. These emotional factors can be produced by personal relationship. Fellow feeling can be one of the opposite as well. It is, however, I will not analyze because this feelings are indirect feelings these are produced via organization. Conflicts between organizations will be argued in the next chapter. It seems to be unreasonable that recognizing the opposite notion from the philosophy of conflicts as good. Yet, I hypothesize this as good temporally.
Respecting people are feelings come out with jealousy and envy evaluated by some specific values and perspectives. Empathy is produced by pleasure elicited by sharing some specific values each other. Values in this context are not limited by the representation of language. It can be value which is expressed by arts or nonverbal activities. It can be better to be understood to say “the world” instead of values. Attachment with “the world” can produce special ties between people.
Friendships or compassion are not the things to be discovered. These are born and raised unconsciously. I think that it might not be an appropriate example; however, I argue the case of loving dog. Who will ask the values=the world to a dog in feeling compassion with a dog? My point is not to say that the creature must be respected equally but my point for this example is to love what or not to love what is the matter to be argued by human’s wisdom. It does not seem to be plausible to elucidate these questions if the neuroscience might develop incredibly. Rather, considering the statement what is has to be loved is in vain. It would express the deficiency of the decency toward the love.
Interpersonal relationships?defined as inner relationships with people?can be the origin of the conflict and the pleasure. Would it be better to say that it is the origin of the chaos? In other words, pleasure, sadness and angry are originated in the chaos. Would it be fair to say that it is the essential part of the human beings?
If it is true, then I can conclude that absence of the human relationship is pre-conflict from the interpersonal conflict perspectives. It is; however, fair to say that the structure of the phenomenon is conflict against a life.
- Identity: A Conflict Case 3
Here is a conflict story between two people who are working in the same company. One of them is a worker, and the other is a manager and is a supervisor of him. Let’s say, Tom for worker and Jason for the manager. The relationship between Tom and Jason were not bad. One day, Jason blamed Tom for putting Tom’s favorite figure on the desk in the office. Jason said, “This figure is not appropriate to have because you are mature adult.” This trivial phrase dramatically changed their relationship. For Jason, this figure was valueless whereas this figure was one of the significant symbols which embody Tom’s value. Thus, it was unacceptable violation for Tom to be blamed for having this figure and he might feel disrespect from Jason. Tom started having antagonistic attitudes because of this unacceptable attack from Jason afterwards. Jason noticed this attitudinal change, although he did not notice the reason. Tom became less conscientious for working and he felt uneasiness in seeing Jason’s face. Tom still puts his favorite figure on the desk.
I will discuss not the figure but identity. I wonder if the figure for him may be the idle for religion. If it is true, then it can be inappropriate to bring such religious and holly items in the office. A lot of company prohibit bringing the religious items, although Tom’s favorite figure are a clearly religious item or not.
Alternative interpretation is that it can be a star for Tom but not religious item. The constitution protects the freedom of speech, thoughts and religion. If this alternative interpretation is true, it can argue that Jason’s behavior can be considered to harm this freedom.
Now, I do not argue the questions: who should be judge and how should the judge evaluate specific value. Instead, I will answer the question why this situation is caused. It is reasonable to think that judgments are unavoidable and the judge must be human beings. In the case argued above, it is not required to judge and no possibility to be judged. In many cases, I assume that the conflicts are usually not judged, and are invisible or covered up. I think that people initially assert their situation that they are injured their identity when they felt disrespect, disgrace and when they guess its reason.
Identity is unique. Not a few cases are invisible from others. People feel their identity when they are affiliated with specific social and cultural groups. Family, the place where people were born, school, a company, a club, a party, a group with sharing specific interests, a religious group, social activist party, a political party, a social position, a career, generation, ethnicity, nation, and specific historical views, all of them can be the origin of the identity. If people analyze the identity of themselves or others, then they can notice that the strength differences among demographic characters, or notice that some characters are not consciously recognized, or notice the distorted and complicated figures of identity.
Identity is an extension of social and cultural aspects of self-recognition. Therefore, people can feel pride, self-awareness, responsibility for the group or notions which can produce solidarity with them. Identity?these characteristics produced by the solidarity with specific group or notions?must not be disproved or disrespected. Rather it must be natural and sound, although it depends on the characteristics of the group or notion.
Considering the case of a baseball game, a pitcher threw a ball at the middle of high where an idle batter of a pitcher can easily hit a homerun, without thinking a team. This case must be criticized. If he exposed this thought, he could be expelled from a team, and no team could recruit him. A game exists when the players recognize their identity each other. If this game is inside of the civilization, then there must be respect each other. It is, however, in real world, not a few coaches told players that they should have antagonistic mind as if they were killing the members of the other team. It did not violate the law, so it can be protected due to the right of freedom of speech. It is free to do so, however, not a few people think it is immoral.
Some people might feel their school as their identity. There are many people who graduated from the famous institutions take a pride of their educated school, even though they do not explicitly say so. Yet, I do not understand how to evaluate such people who graduated the most prestigious schools and do not make any contributions for the academia or the society. I highly expect that they would make a contribution not to devaluate their institution, although those people who think as I thought are minority.
Thanks to the fame of the school, it is nothing more than the psychological effects to believe exaggerated self. Nevertheless, people are prone to have overestimated images of them. For instance, I heard many cases that corporations recruit people as executives those who graduated the most prestigious institutions, even though just appeal their company to the public. One professor said that the purpose of the university is to sale the name and fame to students. It is true because it is impossible to obtain the brand of the most prestigious school if the individual do not graduate from that school.
Identity has both positive and negative meanings. On the one hand, it can facilitate and promote the activation and development of a specific group. On the other hand, it can also provide the cause and reason of conflicts with people. Considering its effect to individuals, it can be true that excessive and exaggerated identity can cause satisfaction and pleasure. This, however, can also make people machine that can be functioned as a part of the organization. This is the case that individual lose their identity. Yet, someone might justify this situation as right way of life not as a result of depraved identity. Revaluation of self-identity and imagining others identity must be valuable in order to live with furthering the understanding of human nature and the society.
- Conflicts and Interests: A Conflict Case4
Here is a story between a person who work as a chief of the human resource department, and a person who work as a head of a section of the same department. Name James for the former and Alex for the latter. In the human resource department, the reformation of the evaluation for people was discussed in order to adapt the current economic environment. James and Alex were agreed with the basic concepts of the reformation plan. This section is special because a lot of people are working only for this section and as a result, the solidarity between people is strong.
James changed his attitude toward the reformation plan when they provide the document with the member of the meeting to discuss this reformation plan. He said that the reformation plan will not be accepted by the workers above 40 years old, and he told Alex that this plan should be completely revised. Not only was Alex perplexed, but also other colleagues of him were so. Alex was perplexed because the meeting will be held in a month. It seemed too impossible for him to revise and write a new document for the meeting. Moreover, Alex was not sure what kind of reformation plan can be acceptable because James did not point out specific points. Furthermore, Alex was responsible for making this reformation plan. He was afraid of being penalized if he cannot make a new reformation plan only a month. Thus, Alex became nervous with James.
James rejected the reformation plan because he thought his interests. He calculated the effect of the new plan. As a result, he notices that he could lose 20,000,000 yen for life-earnings if this plan was passed. James knew that this plan was profitable for the company, although he did not want to accept this plan because of his interests. He also thought that Alex was responsible for this plan. He knew that he would not receive any damage if this plan was not accepted.
In this case, they share the same goal, values and means. In addition, their personal relationship was not distracted. It is; however, it must be recalled the fact that the differences in the standpoints can cause different interests. There are few people who can free from their own standpoint. Moreover, it may harm others.
It is really difficult to give up the status quo for people even though they believe that the society should be more equal. It is extremely difficult to free from own standpoints. It is easy to criticize that behavior as egoism, although it is also easy to advocate egoism. Thus, the problem is the limitation of the egoism. The egoists want to be recognized their maximum autonomy regulated by the law and culture. They try to argue that minimum regulation of autonomy whereas anti-egoists argue to maximize the minimum regulation. This debate is in vain because most of the problems are end of the spectrum.
The strength of the standpoint is different. In this case, James is in a stronger standpoint than Alex. James utilized his position to reject the reformation plan. I do not want to argue that the problem is strength and weakness of each standpoint. It is inevitable that there are strong and weak standpoints in the world. In some cases, these differences are large and fixed, but in the other case, are not.
In this case, I am not sure that Alex who seemed to be a weaker standpoint did counterattack or he might be succeeded as a result of the attack. Differences in standpoints are different from the relationship between dominance and obedience. Foucault pointed out the fact that there is some sort of freedom, and this freedom produces the power and it was represented as different standpoints. If there is no freedom between dominance and obedience, then it can eliminate standpoints and it can be the condition that the complete domination eliminates the notion of the domination. It eventually eliminates the notion of the standpoints.
People are affiliated with the multiple societies and multiple standpoints. Some might devote his life to utter their idealism whereas the others might devote their life to criticize egoism. I am thinking of both and consider to how to balance these different notions. I am not sure that I can have another option.
I am not able to sympathize with the optimists who ignored the real world or egoists who cannot understand others. As Shakespeare says, “All the world stage, every men and women were merely players.” It is not the problem of judgment whether it is good or evil but it is reality in the worlds. Standpoints or interests are naturally produced. It is not reasonable to reject and disprove that fact. Rather, people should recognize themselves as players in the world.
- Pressure of Tolerance
Interpersonal conflicts, in many cases, converts into conflicts of feelings. If the conflicts are in the field of academia, it is really rare case that people cannot bring its conflicts to friendship. Conflicts in religion are also easily converted into conflicts of feelings, if there is a man of religion who is expected to have tolerance, or a man who told that one achieved enlightenment and call them as a man of religion. In both cases, these are preferred conflicts because there are grounds to conflicts.
Conflicts of feelings can be expressed as “unforgivable”. Unforgivable feelings can be attributed to the fact of the past, to the conflicts of thoughts or to cultural differences. Some might attribute these feelings to physiological sense, to emotion, or to “no reason”. If someone threats property or life, then unforgivable feelings can come out. Unforgivable feelings can be elicited by reason or unreason, although there are a few individuals who think its origin. It is because the feelings of unforgivable are temporal feelings that alleviate, extinct or shut it up before it is converted into concrete conflicts.
In a daily life, in many cases, cost is greater than the benefit to express individual conflicts. It is impossible to obtain larger gain than the cost except for winning the litigation or settlements that enables for people to get a large amount of compensation. Conflicts are much larger costs for organization and the society than individuals. The case which is required to corporative attitudes or tolerance is recommended not because it is a moral but because it is profitable. One of the ideal goals of education is to cope with individual conflicts by smoothly and sociably.
Considering to the Japanese society, its social condition? corporative attitudes are excessively demanded?prevent them from maturation of conflicts. Suppressed conflict energy is released to the target as bullying because bullying is a rare opportunity to release this energy. The unique Japanese bullying as social pathology? a lot of people can be forced to have corporative attitudes toward to the person who is bullying? is attributed to the absence of reasonable conflict experiences.
One of the remedies for this social pathology is to make people understand that rejecting or ignoring of unforgivable feelings as negative is unreasonable. People who speak ill of their supervisor with drinking should not be disrespect as immaturity of self-regulation. Whatever the form is, it is important to express or recognize these feelings. Excessive suppression as tolerance can distort the recognition of their natural feelings. It is required that people should notice its risk to distort people’s recognition and feelings.
It is also true that speaking ill of their supervisor with their colleagues cannot be conflicts. The important point here is to judge if it should be the problem to be dealt with speaking ill of or should make it real conflicts. If individual always attempt to avoid any conflicts because of cost-benefits calculations, then they may be prone to select the option which seems to make maximum profits. Yet, someone may have this thought as belief or may think it is inevitable judgments. There is however, not a few people disagree with that belief. These people believe that people can change their future society by their will and have the will to seek for the better world. It is natural that there are conflicts between people who recognize and take responsibility to long term goals, and people who are prone to get short term benefits.
Expressing conflicts can convert asymmetrical conflicts into symmetrical conflicts. In order to express conflicts, it needs to be the better grounds and technique of conflicts. That better grounds have to allow people to express their conflicts with reason and language in front of the opponents but not expressing as violation, speaking ill of, or conspiracy.
This is the opened and flattered world where there is easy access to the Internet. The Internet can allow people to expose their information and utterance. This indicates that the Internet can be used as a basis or an infrastructure of conflicts. I think that people should use the Internet as means for this purpose.
The important lessons from the philosophy of conflicts are what people should reevaluate the origin of conflicts, should have the will to express conflicts beyond personal interests without thinking conflicts as negative, should make better grounds to reasonable conflicts, should have enough experiences of conflicts, should exclude the excessive corporation and should fight against tolerance pressure. Having these attitudes is the responsibility for future, and can produce hope and can help to preserve humanity.
Taking a conflict position appropriately is far better choice to suppress their feelings to avoid making conflicts in a daily life. Appropriate conflicts mean what expressing true reason and tell the reason of unforgivable feelings appropriately. It is easy to say. It is; however, difficult to practice it if there are asymmetry between standpoints. If people face to such a case, then they should consider the strategy that enables for individuals to express the conflicts and take an advantage of them. In this case, interpersonal conflicts turned into conflicts which connect to the third party.
Some philosopher thinks that human beings have progressed when it comes to morality since the modern age. The reason is that people can feel unforgivable feelings for unreasonable harm or injury of people who live in the opposite side on the earth or other parts on the earth in general beyond race and ethnicity.
Individuals who do not have that kind of feelings cannot say so because they think it is shameful, evil, anti-intelligence and anti-modernistic attitudes to speak so. It became a common sense that people, as the same human beings, cannot recognize poverty or anti-humanistic behavior or harm, as a result of these behavior, as just. It is usually argued that moral evolution occurred in human beings because of extension of interests and empathy.
A lot of philosophy of success demands that people should have sincere interests in others. It means that people who have no interests cannot be successful. In this context, having interests are praised and indifference are criticized.
The critical point is that these interests are not the same. Interests argued in the context of moral evolution are not interests in people but in the moral society. If there are interests in people in this context, then these interests may be the by-product of the interests in the moral society. It is the same interests if people are interested in their own society. In this case, people are interested in the way to the society but not in individuals as well.
The more extending people’s interests, the more the view point of the interests move toward the society from individuals. The more increase the interests in the society, the more decrease the interests in people in the real world. The society is divided into the small societies and becoming diverse: life-style, preferences, special fields of expertise and interpersonal relationship. If people are meeting neighbors, then people may meet with them as a member of different groups. I do not focus on whether it’s good or not. I just believe that it is important to note the fact that the post-modern people are always separating interests in people from interests in the society. This idea is necessary to think about the different conflicts between an individual vs. an organization /society.
I heard the story about an elite student who was jailed because of excessive demonstration about workers’ right. This student did not have conversation with workers who were also in the jail. It indicated that the student was interested in the thought but not in people.
It is also the similar story that a person who is interested in human rights may not be interested in people. These people are not a few. Rather, it seems to be clear tendency of the modern society. I may be the one of them.
Is there anyone who you are talking with but you are not interested in? Why?
Is it because of the deficiency of empathy or of benefits? Is it because of conflicts? Conflicts can generate either strong interests or indifferences. In many cases, risks are in the indifferences. I do not care about philosophy of success; however, I think it is important to have some interests and not to be indifferent in any case. It is not necessary to have strong interests but to have minimum interests so that it can facilitate in understanding the others.
c 2011 Research Institute of Gentarou Kurosaki(Japan)