The saying "A thin world is better than a good war (or quarrel)" can be heard quite often. So they say that to show that open confrontation is not always beneficial, right, where it is better to maintain a neutral attitude towards each other - "bad peace".
This expression is applicable both in politics, when it comes to international relations, and when it comes to talking about communication between people.
Political meaning
Indeed, war is always evil, inevitable losses and sacrifices, sometimes irreparable, both for the attacking and defending sides. Maintaining relations between countries within the diplomatic framework allows avoiding this misfortune, trying to find compromises and even ways of cooperation on at least some issues.
And it is not so important if the policies of states at the same time are fundamentally different, if their structure and internal order are antagonistic to each other - in any case, the preservation of peace, even "bad", relations, albeit not friendly, but tolerant, is much preferable to an open military conflict.
Suffice it to recall the era of the Cold War, when the countries of the socialist and capitalist camps confronted each other. Yes, each side saw the other as a potential enemy, was ready to enter into open confrontation, but the leaders of the countries had the wisdom not to start an open military conflict, which would inevitably turn into a global catastrophe.
Human meaning
In interpersonal relationships, maintaining a neutral, tolerant attitude towards each other is also in most cases more beneficial than an open quarrel. It is impossible to please everyone and there is always someone whose views, demeanor or lifestyle annoy you. It is good if they are random people, but what about colleagues or even relatives? Would it really be wise to start "at war" with them?
It is much wiser to act those who are tolerant of the shortcomings and weaknesses of others - this allows you to avoid quarrels and conflicts, maintain at least the outward appearance of good relations and thereby save your nerves and strength.
Of course, a quarrel can motivate you to solve some problems that arise in communication. But "a good quarrel (or war)" is, rather, not a constructive conflict, but a destructive one, designed to finally destroy existing relations and connections, leaving no stone unturned.
Constructive conflict helps identify disagreements and encourages them to resolve them.
So, is it worth starting a "good war" if communication with a person, which in some way does not suit, is generally important and significant? Isn't it better to be patient and try to accept your partner's actions and personality traits as they are? Moreover, if you do not just go on about your irritation, but try to understand why a person has become like this and why he acts in one way or another, you can find a reasonable explanation.
As a rule, the best way to understand a person is to try to imagine yourself in his place, "in his shoes."
And understanding is the first step to acceptance and forgiveness.
