I was watching a clip from Tiktok where a certain host was narrating a movie that covered the events of World War 1. The clip certainly with two hosts flabbergasted by some of the events of the war; how they thought they would never survive such an event, and the obsurdity of war, which is something I want to discuss.
Now, you might have come across people saying things like: "I don't understand why wars are fought in the first place." There seems to be no logical benefit of two or more parties mutually destroying each other. One might opine that wars are fought because one or all parties involved believe they win, but I think in most cases it has little to do about winning.
No one really wins in wars, especially one fought where all parties involved have similar strengths and weaknesses. It is often guaranteed that the casualties in such battles will be extreme and the spoils of war space, so why engage? The simple answer is that the conflict, which may have started by one aggressor as spiralled down into something irreversible where peace isn't an option.
For instance, imagine an argument between you and a person--a friend, which leads to that person shooting everyone you care about. The rationally thing to want to do in this instance is to retaliate, if you can, it doesnt matter if you lose, doing nothing about the situation would possibly do you more emotional harm than actively confronting this person and getting your own pound of flesh.
So in instances one or all parties in conflict do not have options or a way out, it often leads to mutual destruction. Now, there are times when these supposed options exist but the parties involved do not see it. Both do not see the value in constraints and they are willing and to cross lines and boundaries.
Personally, I am wary of people who do not understand the concept of boundaries. I do not believe such people should be allowed to exist in society because they are dangerous. Often laws are designed to enforces boundaries so people who would naturally be oblivious to them are put in check.
"But what about freedom?"
I am a centralist and I see the value in having a free society but one governed by laws and policies that protect these individuals and their rights to exist in a society. Nothing is absolute and thinking in binary here ignores the complexities of human societies.
When law and order doesn't exist, chaos reign and chaos isn't necessary a bad thing and it often signals that people haven't found a healthy balance or compromise that would allow for peaceful coexistence of contrary views, identity, religion, etc and that chaotic damce must continue until all parties involved come to a healthy compromise. This chaotic dance which often manifests in forms of wars, when examined in this matter, are not nonsensical.
Lastly, the value of a thing--in this case, peace--is not appreciate until it doesn't exist. For instance, there are people on this planet who haven't experienced hunger and so their relationship with food is quite different from someone who is struggling with hunger and famine, the same applies to peace.
I have come across very chaotic people who are quick to let things spiral down into a hot mess. They have no concept of restrain and are eager to burn everything to the ground, mainly because they don't full understand what that entails. Unfortunately, in this instance, the only true way they can understand is by things burning to the ground, in other words, for things to go past the point of no return.
The other option in this kind of scenario is to be tactful when handling things and people who have no restrain. You often need to give in to their whims and caprices, be firm when necessary especially when you understand what the other party wants. It is often a game of interest.
