Most of the conflicts that we hear or see daily in the newspapers, whether they are from the Middle East, Latin America, Asia or any other part of the world, are usually the same, some say one thing and the others say another.
We do not have to go too far to experience a conflict, we can see it on daily bases on the streets, when we go to work, in our work environment, where we live, and even with the people we love.
Wikipedia defines “conflict” as a situation in which two or more individuals with different interests enter a confrontation, opposition or begin a mutual antagonist action with the purpose of neutralizing, damaging or eliminating the rival, even when it is a verbal confrontation, to obtain the fulfillment of the objectives that motivated such confrontation.
Wikipedia’s definition establishes that in every situation where there is a conflict there are two sides to the coin, where the people involved have an objective, that their point of view is correct, and the one that should selfishly prevail, no matter what’s on the other side of the coin.
If all this is seen as objectively as we could, it’s simply that we desire by all means that people would do the same as we would, without taking into account a small detail, that no person in this existence has gone through what we have lived.
It could be that among the way (and it is very valid), we meet people that are very alike in our life’s philosophy, and that this people share some of our values, teachings or the way of seeing life, and that is very good.
The situation gets complicated when someone of the billions of people that live in this earth disagree, think differently, believe something completely different from oneself, they act in a way that would be an insult to us.
This is when we have the opportunity to ask these people that understand they have a conflict, if they have stopped to think that this person has a different way of seeing life?, and that they possibly don’t know, (as same as himself) that there is another side to the coin.
It is very easy to suppose; society automatically does it, we first learned it in our family circle, it was reinforced in our schools, and we are even reminded that we should do it with the massive communication media.
Curiously when we are in that catatonic state in which the reason is not part of the equation, that the mind is processing egocentric suppositions, in other words we are only seeing one side of the coin.
We don’t take the time to take a breath and first of all recognize that the absolute truth does not belong to us.
Secondly, we are having the conflicts because none of the parties have the capacity to listen to reasoning, and for each idea.
It’s the simple act of not listening to the other person, where the false pretense that the truth is in our side was borne, and that everything else is wrong.
As a matter of fact it is that same way of thinking that has lead human being to war ever since the world is world. In this precise moment the people involved are not in a talking position for none of them are in the best disposition to find a solution. We desire war over peace.
How about, if from now on, instead of imposing our own judgment in any circumstance we give ourselves the opportunity to listen to other people, and see the other side of the coin before reacting.
How about if we begin to stop assuming, and eliminate this word from our vocabulary.
As a matter of facts it is proven by thousands of people that have already tried it. That by eliminating that word their conflicts have diminished, their happiness have increased and that they have realized that being right is not as important as they thought , and that the objective of humanity should be to work together for a collective good.