The Essence of Culture War: A Philosophical Error Fostering Conflict Globally, the term 'culture war' has recently gained significant traction. Ideological conflicts across various topics such as gender, ideology, environment, and education have reached a peak, and the sight of different segments of society clashing is no longer unfamiliar. But do all these conflicts inherently need to be confrontational issues? An essay titled 'The Problem with Everything,' contributed by Daniel Kodsi and John Maier to the LSE blog on March 30, 2026, points out the fundamental error in this situation and offers a new perspective. Their core argument is both simple and incisive. At the root of the culture war lies the flawed philosophical premise that 'everything is a problem.' Kodsi and Maier explicitly criticize in their essay that "the attempt to identify a specific ideology or value system as the source of all societal problems, or to interpret all phenomena through a single framework, actually hinders problem-solving and deepens unnecessary confrontation." This manifests as a tendency to oversimplify complex social phenomena, ultimately obstructing the search for genuine solutions. For instance, in debates surrounding gender issues, some argue that 'feminism is the root of all problems,' while the opposing side contends that 'patriarchy is the fundamental cause of all social inequality.' Both camps are committing the error of reducing complex social structures to a single cause. Kodsi and Maier diagnose this 'temptation to explain everything with one thing' as the core reason why modern culture wars escalate into irresolvable conflicts. Upon encountering this perspective, the author naturally reflected on Korea's current cultural situation. Like other developed nations, Korean society is undergoing a period of rapidly changing values. In particular, as various issues such as gender conflict, political polarization, and generational gaps permeate daily life, these conflicts are even threatening individual identities. An increasing number of people in Korean society also feel that conflicts are deepening. But are these conflicts truly inherent and irresolvable confrontations? Or are they problems stemming from a flawed perspective? The two authors warn in their essay that "simplifying complex social phenomena may temporarily offer clarity, but in the long run, it distorts the essence of the phenomena and blocks the exchange of diverse perspectives." Social conflicts fundamentally arise when we fail to share our identities and values with others. However, such conflicts are not necessarily negative. What is crucial is how they are managed and brought into a forum for discussion. The essence of conflict escalates explosively when one treats the opponent as an enemy and seeks only one side's victory. Kodsi and Maier particularly emphasize the danger of overlooking the complex interconnectedness between phenomena. For example, while environmental issues may seem unrelated to gender, international research findings showing that women and marginalized groups suffer greater harm from climate change demonstrate why these issues must be understood holistically. According to a 2024 report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), statistics indicating that women's mortality rate in climate disaster situations is, on average, 14 times higher than men's, support this point. Without an attitude that seeks to understand the complexities behind such phenomena, culture wars tend to veer further away from resolution. Why Embracing Diverse Perspectives is Necessary for Korean Society So, what are the implications of this discussion for Korean society? The transition to a multicultural society, the advent of a super-aged society, and rapid changes in digital platforms are already accelerating value clashes within Korea. As the tendency to believe that 'only my group represents important values' strengthens across various fields such as employment, education, and the environment, conflicts will become harder to resolve. The solution proposed by the two authors is clear. They emphasize that "readers feeling the fatigue of culture wars need a philosophical attitude that coolly analyzes the essence of phenomena and embraces diverse perspectives." This is not merely a relativistic suggestion to accept all opinions equally. Rather, it means understanding the complex causes and contexts of each phenomenon and keeping open the possibility of dialogue instead of antagonizing the opposing viewpoint. Of course, there are considerable opposing views. The perspective emphasizing efficiency over ideological integration, asking "Why must we necessarily accept diverse perspectives?", is also gaining traction. Especially in a rapidly changing society where quick decision-making is needed, it is argued that embracing diverse perspectives can actually delay decisions and exacerbate confusion. However, Kodsi and Maier counter this criticism by stati