One of the things that bothers me is the idea of conflict.
What causes conflict, and what does it take to resolve it? I believe that conflict is caused by a rift between two people's ideals, principles, standards, values or the like. I can't just state every single factor, because to be honest, there are too many. One of the things I've observed though, is about standards.
All people have standards. Even opting to choose mediocrity is standard. Now, when a standard is faced up against another standard, there is a tendency for these people with different standards to clash. It's not even a matter of who's at the right or who's at the wrong. If a standard is set as such, then there are no other acceptable standard. Just that one.
Now I realize that if people didn't have any standards, there would be less conflict. A standard has a "correctness" factor. If one believe that his or her standards are correct, then anything that falls below, or exceeds the set standard, is not acceptable. This is why sometimes, people don't meet halfway.
If a person is open-minded enough to compromise to another's standards, then that's well and good. I am at a stand-still as to what would be better: Compromise, or no Standards at all? The bad thing about compromise is, sometimes, the compromise tends to be unbalanced, therefore creating resentment. If one of two people compromises, then that person is left unsatisfied and resentful. On the other hand, without standards...well...
I think you know how disastrous that can be.
I know this isn't as elaborate or comprehensive, but give it time. I might update it and put in more ideas. This is my take. What will follow is the same article, but will stem from idealisms of known Philosophers.
I philosophize, but that doesn't make me a philosopher.
