The origins of conflict since man's creation have evolved with much the same repeated conflicts with no method of resolution.
Practical Science and institutions have very gradually tried to build structures to address conflicts with a legal framework.
Despite these efforts conflicts are still present today and will probably continue throughout humanity. AI is a new variable that complicates things even further in how the future will look like.
This is an interesting topic {for me} about individual differences in how we grow or when we stop growing our free spirit.
Are we aware of these things in us?
Will we ever progress from when we first developed our consciousness and do we have it in us to adapt to new horizons?
History says no. Scepticism is probably a good rare trait to own as part of our identity.
We have a lot of discussions around scepticism and the immovable faith we hold onto.
Most evident in social issues which can be immovable in a whole lifetime. Philosophy is not given much prominence in mainstream media which could actually be a cultural healing antidote.
Replies
It's a complex subject you've raised, my friend. Philosophy, the love of wisdom, is awfully unsexy, TAD. You're a few centuries or millenniums early.
Around 2,300 years ago, Plato thought leaders should become philosophers, or vice versa. That didn't turn out too realistic.
Ironically, Chimp troops are more like what Plato envisioned, than many of our leaders.
Troop leaders act as "peacemakers" and must ensure all chimps get fairly looked after (refer Van de Waal's extensive research). If not, they can be brutally and immediately usurped from power. Working together actually makes more sense than fighting. Chimp troops seems to get that more than us, instinctively. Great teams also get that.
But, on the whole, humans are far more complex creatures TAD, despite having DNA similarities.
Many of us prefer "strong" leaders that are an extension of our individual ideologies and personality whatever that may be; often verified by one's group.
If you're a feminist, male leaders are toxic symbols. If you're Indigenous, white leaders generally symbolize oppression (hence, the voice). If you're a conservative, or right-winged, you generally prefer strong leaders (Trump) and would hate the Greens for example (or climate change). If you're religious, you'd want leaders than embody you're individual/group faith - not the opposition God called by another name with different ideologies. And so on it goes. "Peacemakers" and "Philosophers" might be seen as lefty, snowflakes and softcocks to many, so to speak - unless they fit your individual ideology. Etc, etc.
That's all fairly predictable: the norm.
Taking a step back, and with some irony, cynicism and scepticism, arises from Post-Socratic thought: that focuse more on individualism.
Let's take a step even further back, back before the beginning.
Pre-birth. When we were a tiny seed in our mother's womb. When our brains were undeveloped. Except for one part. The limbic part: the part that kept our hearts pumping, the part where our emotions and long-term memories (our identity) are, the part directly hooked into the spinal cord. That's our very first, primordial, language. Irrationality, and the world of non-reason.
We don't start to develop or integrate reason (say frontal neo-cortex) and good decision-making until around 25-30 years: but, it's on training wheels.
So, really all that along with our individual cultural setting, upbringing and our environment (when we learn to look like adults and refrain from undesirable consequences) explains much of why we are the way we are. And all that is put on steroids when we find others (our group, our tribe) that amplify and verify it. And why we will fight over power, land, money, sex, religion, "our own truths" or whatever individual ideology we're attached to - put on steroid by our group. Why we won't work together as a whole race. Why peace is almost an impossibility, long-term. Not until we evolve more. And we may never get there.
It's predictable, really.
PS: TAD, you might like the Buddhist's idea of Two Truths: the relative and the absolute.
Great reply HOE You are younger than me and more developed in thinking around this.I watched a really great Art through the ages Doc last night. Lots of periods since early Greek times have focused on horrific battles around Power (ego)land, money,sex and religion and we are still in that headspace today.Basically learnt very little.Western Democracy still have the same battles though in more an invisible form The battle of forming consciousness to work with different powers competing of the mind. All about self interest and inost cases really about self interest if you can muster the herd to work for you..AI is certainly going to be a huge new phenomena with unknown consequences.
If ever there is a time to become a free spirit it is now
Sadly subjects at educational institutions that shape the free thinking is becoming a rare conversation. In the 70,s Philosophy was still quite an active subject to persue. John Lennon and many others pursued those things with popular culture.That generation has followed the money trail and we are no better off today.The battles today still persist on an ugly scale
I like your references to the Monkey's ( great band as well as Happy souls.)Hope they survive our herd conflicts
More independent free Philosophers would be great for our survival.Who would vote for them? They would be killed off . Look at how much money is spent in the USA to create a herd
"The state is the coldest of all cold monsters"