“The Roots and the Results of Conflict”
Dear, Distinguished Delegates,
By contrast to Saint James, who certainly believes war amongst human beings to be an evil, the ancient thinker Heraclitus, in his pronouncement “War is the father of all (beings) and king of all” (53 DK, 44B, 29 M. Markovich), in Greek «πόλεμος πάντων μέν πατήρ ἐστιν, πάντων δέ βασιλεύς» and also, linked to that: “One must know that war is common and strife is justice and that all things come to pass by strife and necessity” (80 DK, 62B, 28M. M.), (in Greek: «εἰδέναι χρή τόν πόλεμον ἐόντα ξυνόν, καί δίκην ἔριν, καί γινόμενα πάντα κατ’ ἔριν καί χρεών»), seems at first sight to maintain the opposite view.
Nonetheless, a profounder exploration of his pronouncement demonstrates that it does not have an evaluative but rather an ontological meaning. War amongst men is a fact that brings out some as men, and others as gods, and turns the former into slaves and the latter into free beings. It is not stated whether this is good or bad. The second passage, even though it is also possessed of an ontological, assertive meaning, seems to accept natural reality as intrinsically good. But it refers to the natural harmony of opposites rather than to the conflictive opposition between men.
War or conflict between men is an ongoing condition that affects the world and produces new situations, but lacks any moral justification. Conversely, difference between natural beings, notwithstanding its appearing as a war amongst them, is what creates the harmony of the world, just as difference in musical pitch creates harmony in a musical composition. The relationship between young and old need not necessarily be conflictive, but may indeed be mutually complementary and harmonious. The same is true regarding the relationship between man and woman, the relationship between co-religionists and believers in other faiths, between indigenous and alien, rich and poor.
Social differentiation is essential to life. An organism is composed of various members that perform different functions, so that, in their totality, the tasks performed may keep the entire organism alive. Egocentrism is the dissolutive force that can upset the harmony of the organism’s vital functions – or of society’s. When individual cells in a body or members of a society are led astray by introversion or egocentrism, and seek to grow to the detriment of the rest, and particularly beyond the limits that are determined by the place they occupy within the body, a cancerous growth is formed thereby that leads to the demise of the organism.
At first sight it would appear as an inexplicable wonder that present societies are subjected to this malady without destroying themselves, for evil seems to prevail and, consequentially, its conflictive and dissolutive influence on society should have been absolute and irredeemable.
This must have been how the Prophet felt who, as he prayed, told God that he had been abandoned to utter solitude in worshipping Him. But God revealed to him that, even though inconspicuous, there was a multitude of upright, God-fearing people there in that city.
Evil is raucous and seeks to impress and to lead astray by its pretence of force. By contrast, men of God are mild and gentle and effective in doing good. The experience of a person who endured the concentration camps, where brutality and death reigned supreme, is typical. That man wrote that, in spite of it all, humanity is not like a black sheet with white blots of goodness, but like a white sheet of goodness with black blots of evil. Truly, our societies hide vast reserves of love, as was shown by the large or small, but so very numerous contributions in alleviation of the sufferings of the victims of the recent earthquakes and tsunamis of South East Asia. This is indeed hopeful, and declares too that our own efforts will not be rendered ineffective.
However, notwithstanding the existence of sufficient elements of goodness and benevolent forces within the body of society, we cannot remain complacent over the present situation. The entire tenor of our society and its education is still very much influenced by self-love and the triptych of its branches: ambition, avarice, and lust. One might well imagine that people who are moved by altruistic principles are but the exception. And this stands to reason, for all we see in the mass media, and that on a daily basis, is unbridled competition for profit; a struggle for celebrity; vainglory, and the pursuit of pleasure extolled. The situation should not fill our hearts with disappointment but rather with the urge to act. If our society is lacking, and that is undeniably true, we need to labour to improve the situation.
Each of us, from his or her particular post, must send out the message of rejection of self-love and its progeny, and the adoption of godly love, charity and contribution: in other words, the aims that our present gathering pursues.
Only thus shall conflict between the members of our society be contained.
Conflict is deleterious. It absorbs energy and hampers productivity. Instead of producing beneficial work, it destroys works that have been wrought with much effort. It causes poverty rather than wealth. Even when there is unequal distribution of the social product, which entails injustice, conflictive strife does not benefit the combatants and most certainly is not in the interest of those that enjoy the greater portion of wealth. It is more to their interest to cede a greater portion of what they have to the poor, so that social differentiation will attain stability peacefully, and social upheaval will be assuaged. It is wrong to say that, in terms of stability, the class struggle improves the situation. All it does is to cause destruction. And were it to bring about some equalising readjustment, it would result in a general diminution of prosperity. All would become poorer. In certain circumstances it simply creates a few new rich people, to the detriment of those that were ever poor, for the leaders of the former take up the positions and wealth of their past adversaries. It is equally erroneous for that matter, to think that it is possible for social peace to prevail when there is a deficit of social justice. When social wealth is justly allocated progress is achieved in tandem with peace, significant prosperity for the masses, and absence of conflict.
When a segment of society is impoverished while others become rich, the result, as we all know, is all manner of reaction. Sometimes, and particularly when those who own the wealth are in the grip of a spirit of brash display and arrogance, tensions are further exacerbated and so lead to reprisals and terrorism.
Terrorist acts usually betoken contention, vengefulness and desperation. By generating hope, by satisfying reasonable demands, we can disperse desperation and avert retaliation. For the struggle against terrorism to have any hope of success as weapons it must employ not firearms, but those that operate through love, real interest, and relief of poverty and of social injustice.
Admittedly there is a certain aspect of social inequity that is not inherited, but comes as a result of the different capabilities that people have. Even when the same options are open to all, not all will achieve an equal degree of development and prosperity. Still, this does not legitimize the huge gap between the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor. Those that are the most able must show a regard for those of lesser ability, so that the latter may have what is necessary to their survival and for addressing their fundamental needs. Once this is done, then a balancing out of tendencies is achieved, along with social peace.
Let us hope then that our societies will succeed in eliminating poverty and conflict. Then we will all be living a happier life. May it be so.
