Let there be world peace.

[Mr Hyde]

I believe peace doesn't exist infact I would be so bold to say that no kind of peace has ever existed.

In three thousand years of human history when has peace ever existed?

The world is conflicting and chaotic. The world has always been anything but peaceful.

If there is a person reading this thread who believes strongly in world peace please tell me what it is and how it exists.

[The Atheist]

I believe peace doesn't exist infact I would be so bold to say that no kind of peace has ever existed.

I'd take a bet that it did prior to human society emerging. In the beginning, early man was too busy protecting himself and his family from predation & starvation to worry about other humans.

[B-Mental]

I know of many people that have claimed to me that war is neccessary. I cannot subscribe to this belief though. I think that as long as humanity is greedy and envious, there will always be war. Any conflict would negate the possibility of world peace.

[Reccura]

... I think that as long as humanity is greedy and envious, there will always be war. Any conflict would negate the possibility of world peace.

I agree. :)
Because there's no such thing as human satisfaction, we will always be greedy and hunger for more.

[Mr Hyde]

I agree. :)
Because there's no such thing as human satisfaction, we will always be greedy and hunger for more.

Desire is elastic. There is no end to it.


I'd take a bet that it did prior to human society emerging. In the beginning, early man was too busy protecting himself and his family from predation & starvation to worry about other humans.

Some have said there was a sort of equilibrium amongst the veil of ignorance before the conceptual creation of knowledge emerged.

I'm more liken to agree with that myself. (shrugs.)

However if we were to go to such a time I'm sure there would be no reality of peace there either.

B-Mental stated:


I know of many people that have claimed to me that war is neccessary.

It is.


I cannot subscribe to this belief though.

Why not?


I think that as long as humanity is greedy and envious, there will always be war.

And when can humanity ever stop being greedy and envious? Those positions of the human expirience will never cease.


Any conflict would negate the possibility of world peace.

World peace to me is a serious delusion that will never happen.

[motherhubbard]

Peace is one of those subjects that we can examine on a large scale as well as on a small scale. Can we reasonably hope for world peace on a planet with 7 billion people? I don’t think so.

I wonder if we can achieve peace in our own nation, community, homes or selves. Some people need an adversary. I don’t know if that is because they want to feel that they are right and someone else is wrong, if they like conflict, if it provides distraction from self examination, or what. I think this holds true for many individuals as well as for many nations.

Maybe we could have world peace if we started in our own personal lives, homes, and neighborhoods. Still, I do believe that someone’s greed would come along and screw it all up.

[Sweets America]

I don't think there will be any kind of peace as long as there will be humans here. We can try and find peace within ourselves but with the others, that's hard. Maybe it could help if the whole planet developped a feeling of compassion and saw any human life as equal. No possessive love or passioante hate, just something in the middle.

I certainly don't think that war is neccesary. The idea sounds horrible to me. There is a difference between saying that peace might never be achieved and saying that war is indeed necessary. You make it sound as if war were a good thing.

[B-Mental]

I wish Hyde would explain why war is neccessary. It makes no sense to me. I will never subscribe to the belief that warfare achieves any end. Nations and people squabble over petty things, and then the innocent are harmed. What is the point of warfare? What makes it neccessary? As for the notion that greed and envy prevail, well, there is only oneself to control. When one learns to control their desires, it makes a step in the correct direction. What makes peace so delusional? A lofty goal perhaps, but not a delusional one. Hyde perhaps you are a pessimist?

[JBI]

3000 years? Tsk Tsk. I'm no scientist, but I would think violence goes back far longer than that.

[Mr Hyde]

3000 years? Tsk Tsk. I'm no scientist, but I would think violence goes back far longer than that.

Of course violence goes far longer than that. I used the length of 3000 years to describe the presence of civilization.

[Mr Hyde]

Peace is one of those subjects that we can examine on a large scale as well as on a small scale. Can we reasonably hope for world peace on a planet with 7 billion people? I don’t think so.

So peace doesn't exist then, correct?


I wonder if we can achieve peace in our own nation, community, homes or selves.

Not a chance.

[Mr Hyde]

I wish Hyde would explain why war is neccessary. It makes no sense to me. I will never subscribe to the belief that warfare achieves any end.

Is not destruction just as instrumental as creation itself in transforming the new? Imagine a forest on fire and what then comes afterwards.



Nations and people squabble over petty things, and then the innocent are harmed.

:lol: Innocence doesn't exist. Who is innocent and who isn't?


As for the notion that greed and envy prevail, well, there is only oneself to control.

Even self control has limits where basic instinct dominates.


When one learns to control their desires, it makes a step in the correct direction.

Correct direction? Sounds like a moral judgement.

And what metanarrative are you using to describe correct direction?


What makes peace so delusional?

What makes it delusional? The hypocrisy of morality and ethics in whole nations, cities, communities or towns around the world describing our species of primates as being a moral one where they also say that we aspire towards fairness and peaceful altruism as well yet the fact of the matter is that these same nations,cities, communities, and towns infact survive on inequality, unfairness, competition,war, violence,blackmail, forced isolation, forced alienation, threats, scarcity of others and malice.

These same cities, communities, and towns hold judgement around those who live around them in describing individuals as being either superior or inferior in various classist positions of living all the while having the audacity of preaching equality.

What do you think?

[motherhubbard]

B, I think you had a beautiful post. I just want to give you a bug uppercase hug <<<<HUG>>>>.

Hyde,

I have peace in my life- within myself, within my entire family, and within my social network. Love is the answer there. The question is, what can I do to encourage WORLD peace. I don’t know, but I do what I can where I can. If everyone would make the same effort wouldn’t the world be a better place? I understand that not everyone will make that effort. What can we do about that? It seems that you are looking to justify your own beliefs about the world and you can certainly do just that. But, you could no matter what you believed. Yes, there has always been struggle. But, some would say that there has always been peace as well.

[Mr Hyde]

I have peace in my life- within myself, within my entire family, and within my social network.

Privileged.


The question is, what can I do to encourage WORLD peace.

There's nothing you can do or anyone else for that matter.

Peace will never exist. It is a illusive fictional figment of human imagination gone wild.


If everyone would make the same effort wouldn’t the world be a better place?

That will never happen.


It seems that you are looking to justify your own beliefs about the world and you can certainly do just that.

Doesn't everybody?


But, some would say that there has always been peace as well.

Really? Where?

[NikolaiI]

Well, violence in the world, anyway, is decreasing, according to this presentation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk

Hyde your ideas are not good ones. What I mean is that if you are hopeless, then you will not even try, so it's a dangerous enemy.

Some people in the history of the world have lived trying to give hope. People are not hopeless, nor are they the violent hateful greedy -- etc I do not wish to write these words over and over -- people you wish to make them out to be. Some are, most are not. Some are the opposite of what you describe, and have saintly qualities. Those are rare, but maybe not quite as rare as you would think.

[NikolaiI]

(deleted, sorry)

[Mr Hyde]

Well, violence in the world, anyway, is decreasing, according to this presentation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk

And yet prison populations are growing. Poverty is increasing worldwide.

And every year we donate massive amounts of currency for creating new weapons of death.

Yes please tell me more about this peaceful world of yours. :rolleyes:


Hyde your ideas are not good ones.

As if I haven't heard that one liner before.



What I mean is that if you are hopeless, then you will not even try, so it's a dangerous enemy.

I'm not hopeless. I believe the entire world to be hopeless.

There's a difference.


Some people in the history of the world have lived trying to give hope.

Hope is fleeting.

[motherhubbard]

Privileged.
my life is what I make of it, and how I deal with it.




There's nothing you can do or anyone else for that matter.

Peace will never exist. It is a illusive fictional figment of human imagination gone wild.

That will never happen.

I typed up this whole thing and got logged off. That really stinks!

When I read your response all I could think of was how you sound like my kids when they loose their shoes.

“ They’re lost! I’ll never find them! Maybe somebody stole them. I’ll have to go to school with no shoes and I won’t be able to go out for recess without my shoes. Just think of how dirty my socks will get! It’s not fair! I put them up and now they aren’t there!” It goes on and on, but I thought I’d spare you the rest. I say go look in the closet!

The point is that the world is not perfect and life is about more than total happiness. But saying how bad things are and how nothing can be done to improve is so defeatist. It’s the same attitude that keeps my kids from seeing their shoes in the closet.








Really? Where?


It's everywhere we choose to make it happen. As I said, I have zero conflict in my life. When I have a problem I work it out. We don't battle or feel contentious in my family. I don’t struggle with my neighbors, not even the couple that causes trouble. What would be the point of that? I don't need an adversary. There is a difference in debate, discussion, and resolution, but these things can lead to peace. Name calling and false accusations begin I don’t care to participate. If enough people just refused to be involved with conflict there would be no conflict. The world doesn’t have to be 100% pleasure and happiness to be perfect. Sometimes we have to find happiness and peace in adversity.

I wonder if you feel powerless to make changes in your own life or in the world. Maybe that is why see things as hopeless. I do not feel powerless and therefore I have hope.

[Mr Hyde]

No offence mother hubbard but your last post I find to be so metaphorical and idealistic that for a person like me who only converses with empirical clarity such comments are pretty much un-replyable.

[motherhubbard]

Not offended Hyde, not at all. It was a little Pollyanna:D . I think there are some points in there that you could address if you chose to. Maybe, and this is what I prefer to think;), I just made such a fantastic argument that to response can be made! :p

[Ohmyscience]

I must agree with Hyde that people will always be greedy and selfish to some extent but I think war is preventable on a large scale. With increase in globalization there is just too much at stake for a large powerful nation to attack another one. They would not risk the economic alienation and their investments. Thats why the westernized countries can only attack those that arent part of the league. Eventually when western cultures dominates all, would any wealthy country attack each other? There will still be skirmishes in impoverished nations but I think there would not be any major wars. OF course if thats not what you mean by some sort of world peace then.

[Dark Muse]

I agree, war is a part of human nature. If history has not already proven that, then I do not know what will. They destroy each other, they destory other life, they destroy the very thing they need to surivie. The idea of World Peace might be nice and fluffy, but it is simply not realistic. I do not beleive (even if the world survies long enough) that it will ever happen. There is no indication of this. War, strife, crime, violence, these are all the makings of the human race. Never has there been a time when these things did not exsist.

Even back in ancient times, there may have been some communtities that were more peaceful then others, but there were still tribal wars, over women and territory.

"Civilization" really has not gotton all that civilized, they just came up with bigger and better ways to kill each other, and everything else.

[amanda_isabel]

Why in the first place do we simply say that peace is the opposite of war? Why are we making it seem as if we have only absolutes: absolute war, or absolute peace?
I don't agree.

Conflict, I believe, is inherent in human nature. War is a manifestation of this conflict, but not the sole manifestation. War is a conflict gotten out of hand.

Peace is a notion that involves not the absence of conflict, but the ability to move on despite the conflict. As far as world peace goes, yes, there will never be world peace. I agree to that. But that doesn't mean perpetual war.

[Epistemophile]

someone started this thread with the desire to know other people's ideas about peace and how it can be attained and look, we started arguing, fighting with definitions. and stopped being peaceful. why don't we hug each other, present each other with flowers and smile? that way we will stop being verbose and peaceless.

(alas! those will only be cyber-hugs!)

lets be good to one another. as the Good Book says, love is the answer. it is better to be sinned against than sinning. we are only humans. we live, drink, eat, drink again, and do a lot of silly things and then die. why make life more complicated by going to the war? we've got 'call of duty', haven't we?

[Dark Muse]

Then again it would be boring if we all just agreed on everything all the time. A good argument makes things interesting and spices up life.

[Mr Hyde]

I must agree with Hyde that people will always be greedy and selfish to some extent but I think war is preventable on a large scale. With increase in globalization there is just too much at stake for a large powerful nation to attack another one. They would not risk the economic alienation and their investments. Thats why the westernized countries can only attack those that arent part of the league. Eventually when western cultures dominates all, would any wealthy country attack each other? There will still be skirmishes in impoverished nations but I think there would not be any major wars. OF course if thats not what you mean by some sort of world peace then.

Even in times of so called national peace without massive wars there is always many conflicts being fought.

( Class warfare for instance, crime, blackmail,scandals and ect.)

Humanity as a whole has never been in a state of peace nor will it ever see such a state therefore peace is a comfortable illusion.

[hoope]

Hyde! that is not true.. if we humans r creating all these wars & r destroying the world that doesn't mean we r right & that doesn't mean that there is no Peace..
Looking at the nature so beautiful .. the greeny hills ,., the blue sky decorated with lovely mighty clouds.. the moon @ the nyt & the stars.. the clamness.. the life as whole is more worthy to spread peace.. to live Peace.. to Create Peace.. We humans r destroying our earth.. we r those who created wars.. so its not impossible to stop it..
and once we do that we will regain our Peace .. It's hard to speard it though in this harsh cruel world.. that ppl struggly everywhere .. but its not impossible..

Hyde your ideas are not good ones. What I mean is that if you are hopeless, then you will not even try, so it's a dangerous enemy.
agree with nikolai....:D
Am hopeful .. and i believe in a better future.. .. rethink about ur ideas... about life .. coz it may lead u to endless darkness.




I'm not hopeless. I believe the entire world to be hopeless.
There's a difference.
Hope is fleeting.


“We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.”
OSCAR WILDE
“Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow.”
Albert Einstein
“Hope is a state of mind, not of the world. Hope, in this deep and powerful sense, is not the same as joy that things are going well, or willingness to invest in enterprises that are obviously heading for success, but rather an ability to work for something because it is good.”
Vaclav Havel


U CHANGE IN UR HEART.. AND WHAT U BELIEVE IN ..IS WHAT HAPPENS...
BEST WISHES:)

[Petrarch's Love]

I believe peace doesn't exist infact I would be so bold to say that no kind of peace has ever existed.

In three thousand years of human history when has peace ever existed?

The world is conflicting and chaotic. The world has always been anything but peaceful.

If there is a person reading this thread who believes strongly in world peace please tell me what it is and how it exists.

After reading your statements on the slavery thread, I was curious to hear more about your views, and the OP to this thread seemed like the place to start. In response to this post, I'll first say that I agree with you that the world has never been peaceful. I agree that there is so much unbearable injustice and suffering in the world that the act of trying to imagine it could crush and break your mind. I agree that the way the world is made is such that none of us can truly exist without at least some tinge of inequality and without at least some shading of guilt because of that inequality. What you are describing are truths that I think anyone who has thought deeply about the ways in the world must recognize at some fundamental level. Certainly this recognition is considered a starting point to most religious and philosophical inquiry. All that you have said is also recognized in the fundamental Buddhist insistence of the recognition of perpetual suffering as the first truth of the world, and in the fundamental Christian insistence that all of us are sinners as a basic truth of the world. Whatever way you want to phrase it, I think you're right that recognizing that the world is a mess and that we are all a part of that mess is both essential to do and horrifying to do. The understanding can be paralyzingly terrifying; the guilt can be overwhelming. The idea of world peace as a practical reality appears truly laughable.

Yet I am one of those people you addresse in the OP who believes strongly in world peace. I believe in it in the same way you do, but in different terms. I believe that it is something imaginary, something abstract that exists in peoples' hearts or minds: a "comfortable illusion" as you say, but "comfortable," not in the sense that it lets people off the hook and lets them relax and not care, rather in the older sense of the word comfortable, as something which offers comfort to minds in genuine distress. I believe in the concept of world peace even more strongly because I have recognized its impossibility in the world. Recognizing injustice and suffering is one thing. Being consumed by it is another. Yes, a person could spend his or her life giving into the chaos of the world, giving into the hopelessness of it, but what would that do except to waste a life, and possibly to contribute a little more misery to a world already saturated with misery? At a certain point it becomes necessary to not only recognize that the world is messed up but to recognize that worrying about it is not going to do anything one way or another about that mess. A belief in the idea of world peace, in the notion that on the great level there is a potential for change, can coexist with a pragmatic recognition that nothing has changed. The comfort of a hope for an improbable peace does not exclude or push out the torture of despair for a world that cannot seem to function as a whole without war of many kinds. Yet people need the hope as well as the despair; the inspiration to try to create what peace they can around them as well as the guilt of the peace they have marred around them, either by action or inaction. Perhaps this peace is illusory, but even if so the illusion serves a purpose. It serves the purpose of helping people to believe that some measure of peace within their own lives is possible. It gives people an ideal to strive for so that they won't settle for chaos, so that they won't allow the world to become universally devoid of love and happiness and peace.

Ultimately none of us as individuals are going to be able to do anything that will snap the whole world into a peaceful existence, so ultimately, while we certainly should be aware that the world is filled with suffering, the influence of our actions will only be confined to a certain, usually quite small, portion of the world. What is so wrong then, with someone whose belief in the possibility of a peaceful world stirs him or her to create a small pocket of peace within his or her own family? Or with someone who has spent his or her life trying to do no active harm? Or someone who is striving to act well towards others and to love everyone to the best of their ability, who has done practical things to improve the quality of life for people around him or her? Are these people perfect? No. If you judge people by whether they live up to the ideals they embrace, then you will be eternally disappointed. If, however, you have tolerance for the fact that all people are flawed, that all people fall far short of their own ideals, then you may find that many people are, none-the-less, doing a great deal toward creating some fragment of peace in their own lives and the lives of those around them.

[Dark Muse]

Looking at the nature so beautiful .. the greeny hills ,., the blue sky decorated with lovely mighty clouds.. the moon @ the nyt & the stars.. the clamness.. the life as whole is more worthy to spread peace.. to live Peace.. to Create Peace.. We humans r destroying our earth.. we r those who created wars.. so its not impossible to stop it..
and once we do that we will regain our Peace .. It's hard to speard it though in this harsh cruel world.. that ppl struggly everywhere .. but its not impossible..

Hyde your ideas are not good ones. What I mean is that if you are hopeless, then you will not even try, so it's a dangerous enemy.
agree with nikolai....:D
Am hopeful .. and i believe in a better future.. .. rethink about ur ideas... about life .. coz it may lead u to endless darkness.

Not everything is warm and fluffy, in fact very little in reality is. History and the present, and the direction the future is going in do not offer any sign of hope or possible change, there have been philosophers sense the begining of man that have contemplated world peace, but has it yet once been realizeid? No! Once relgion was thought as a way to bring peace. Ha! Look how that turned out. It caused more strife.

Though you call his ideas bad, becasue they do not present some utopia dream world that only exisists in the imgination.

But they are plain and simple reality. The ideal has never in histroy become the reality. Becaue that is not the way the real world works.

Peoeple will always find something to fight over no matter what. They will make some reason for it.

[hoope]

Not everything is warm and fluffy, in fact very little in reality is. History and the present, and the direction the future is going in do not offer any sign of hope or possible change, there have been philosophers sense the begining of man that have contemplated world peace, but has it yet once been realizeid? No! Once relgion was thought as a way to bring peace. Ha! Look how that turned out. It caused more strife.

Though you call his ideas bad, becasue they do not present some utopia dream world that only exisists in the imgination.

But they are plain and simple reality. The ideal has never in histroy become the reality. Becaue that is not the way the real world works.

Peoeple will always find something to fight over no matter what. They will make some reason for it.

ur ideas r a bit scary.. & though sometimes it comes in my mind too..
but i try to look @ the bright side.. even though it might be very little...
the world isn't so perfect after all.

[Ohmyscience]

Hyde, despite the conflicts that persist don't you agree the world today is less cruel then it was 100, 1000, 3000 years ago. Historically speaking rulers would dominate other nations for the sake of enjoying their enemies suffer. This animosity does not exist in any modernized nation (on the level of a nation). No nation would condone another one to pillage another one purely for enjoyment. You can argue that 20. cent has killed more people than any other but that is due to difference in weapons and population. WWI would have suffered the same consequence in number of deaths with equal pop. and technology. Imagine Ghengis Khan with WMDs. I think the mentality in modernized society today is less cruel than it has been. We do not condone torture, we do not tolerate racism and sexism as much. So on a whole I think thats quite an improvement. I won't say that we will be without conflict but if you can agree the world is less cruel today then it is possible to improve even more so, dont you think?

[Mr Hyde]

Hyde, despite the conflicts that persist don't you agree the world today is less cruel then it was 100, 1000, 3000 years ago.

No not really. I will however say that we have gotten better at hiding and concealing such acts in that the only thing the civilized have advanced in is sophistry.

(Add intentional confusion and persuasion in the mix too.)

( Doublespeak and ect.)



Historically speaking rulers would dominate other nations for the sake of enjoying their enemies suffer. This animosity does not exist in any modernized nation (on the level of a nation).

Instead today we take over other countries under the mask of benign altruistic emmissaries under such guises like democracy, hope, freedom, and the illusion of equality.

( When in actuality were really more concerned with our enemies natural resources like oil for instance.)

( Conquering an enemy becomes all the more easy especially if you fool them into believing that you are the emmisary of some metanarrative peace holding a torch of liberty in one hand with a sword in the other for stabbing.)


Imagine Ghengis Khan with WMDs. I think the mentality in modernized society today is less cruel than it has been.

Again I wouldn't say we are less cruel but rather we have become very clever in hiding and concealing our ruthless selfishness under what seems to be benign harmless symbols, metaphors and ideals.

( Of course nothing is what it seems to be.)


We do not condone torture,

We don't? Maybe not publicly but amongst hidden prisons, bases and interrogation rooms I would say the opposite......

The only reason why the world seems less cruel ( which it isn't ) is because there are so many things that are kept from the public spotlight.

As human beings have evolved we have found it much easier to control others by that of intentional concealment, misinformation, misdirection or bluffing.


I won't say that we will be without conflict but if you can agree the world is less cruel today then it is possible to improve even more so, dont you think?

I don't believe the world is less cruel infact I would say it is just as cruel as it was yesterday and the day before.


I'll first say that I agree with you that the world has never been peaceful. I agree that there is so much unbearable injustice and suffering in the world that the act of trying to imagine it could crush and break your mind.

Nods*


I agree that the way the world is made is such that none of us can truly exist without at least some tinge of inequality and without at least some shading of guilt because of that inequality.

Only if you believe in guilt. Guilt only exists if you let it.


What you are describing are truths that I think anyone who has thought deeply about the ways in the world must recognize at some fundamental level.

Sadly most people I talk to runaway from the subject.

Most people have an inability to see the world like this especially how I see it.




All that you have said is also recognized in the fundamental Buddhist insistence of the recognition of perpetual suffering as the first truth of the world,

Suffering is a big part of the world, yes.


and in the fundamental Christian insistence that all of us are sinners as a basic truth of the world.

I don't believe in sin.


Whatever way you want to phrase it, I think you're right that recognizing that the world is a mess and that we are all a part of that mess is both essential to do and horrifying to do.

Sure.


The understanding can be paralyzingly terrifying; the guilt can be overwhelming. The idea of world peace as a practical reality appears truly laughable.

Indeed.


Yet I am one of those people you addresse in the OP who believes strongly in world peace.

What is peace? Has it ever been achieved? Why bother?


I believe that it is something imaginary, something abstract that exists in peoples' hearts or minds: a "comfortable illusion" as you say, but "comfortable," not in the sense that it lets people off the hook and lets them relax and not care, rather in the older sense of the word comfortable, as something which offers comfort to minds in genuine distress. I believe in the concept of world peace even more strongly because I have recognized its impossibility in the world.

Why bother striving for somthing that is impossible? Seems like a waste of time to me.



Yes, a person could spend his or her life giving into the chaos of the world, giving into the hopelessness of it, but what would that do except to waste a life, and possibly to contribute a little more misery to a world already saturated with misery?

I wouldn't say I'm consumed by it but rather I acknowledge it everyday.

I merely affirm it's manifestation and reality everyday.

Beyond my acknowledging of it I strive for pleasure, passion,interaction and all my desires daily without my life becoming spoiled by such realities.


At a certain point it becomes necessary to not only recognize that the world is messed up but to recognize that worrying about it is not going to do anything one way or another about that mess.

Sure. I would also say that wishful thinking, optimism, and hope is not going to do anything one way or another about our existence either.

(Might as well include everything, no?)

What is simply just is.


A belief in the idea of world peace, in the notion that on the great level there is a potential for change, can coexist with a pragmatic recognition that nothing has changed.

Not in my world it doesn't.



The comfort of a hope for an improbable peace does not exclude or push out the torture of despair for a world that cannot seem to function as a whole without war of many kinds. Yet people need the hope as well as the despair;

Only people who cannot adapt and live amongst conflict, war, chaos and the many struggles of life need illusions to coax them copasetically into a false sense of security.

I much pride myself in not needing such illusions for myself.


Perhaps this peace is illusory, but even if so the illusion serves a purpose.

I find it ironic that a great deal of humanity dares to define reality when most of it's existence is centered around phantoms and illusions.




It serves the purpose of helping people to believe that some measure of peace within their own lives is possible. It gives people an ideal to strive for so that they won't settle for chaos, so that they won't allow the world to become universally devoid of love and happiness and peace.

And why shouldn't we settle for chaos? What's wrong with that?


If you judge people by whether they live up to the ideals they embrace, then you will be eternally disappointed.

I've been disappointed with humanity for some time now.

[R.A]

I think of peace as a notion to declare that all humans living on one earth share the same compassions over their brothers and sisters, regardless of their religion, region, or color.... but will it ever be achieved?? I don't think so as long as there are specialists in making such levels between humans.... Humans are living on the same planet, there sould be peace, but it's beyond reach...

[Petrarch's Love]

Sadly most people I talk to runaway from the subject.

Well, I'm not running away.


Sure. I would also say that wishful thinking, optimism, and hope is not going to do anything one way or another about our existence either.

(Might as well include everything, no?)

:lol:Absolutely right! I agree with you that no particular mode of thinking is going to directly and actively change anything. Sitting about being an idealist can be just as unproductive as sitting about being a nihilist. Being so optimistic that you're in a state of denial and figure everything's going to take care of itself isn't any more helpful than being so much of a pessimist that you figure everythings going to self destruct. Thinking can, however, act as a prompt to action, and contribute to our decisions about how to act. A person's mindset makes a great deal of difference in terms of how he or she reacts to circumstances, what actions he or she takes to help alleviate the wrongs and injustices that exist to whatever extent a single, flawed individual is able to.


I don't believe in sin.

I don't know what you want to call it, but your posts certainly seem to indicate that you believe in something like sin. Your judgments of others because of their complicity in the injustice of the social/economic system, because of their failures to fully address or redress certain realities, certainly comes across like someone who is condemning the sins of others. You can call it sin, wrong doing/thinking, succumbing to beastial instincts...whatever. You certainly are pointing to flaws in human behavior, and I was simply agreeing with you that such flaws are present in all of us.



Why bother striving for somthing that is impossible? Seems like a waste of time to me.


Only people who cannot adapt and live amongst conflict, war, chaos and the many struggles of life need illusions to coax them copasetically into a false sense of security.

I much pride myself in not needing such illusions for myself.

I was not sufficiently clear in my former post, and perhaps took too much for granted. When I spoke of an illusory ideal I was referring specifically to the concept of the entire world in perfect peace which is certainly, at the very least, a reality so far removed from the world as it has always been as to exist only as an ideal. However, I did not mean to, and never will, suggest that peace itself is impossible, or that it is any way illusory. Little fragments and oases of peace are just as great a reality as suffering is. The better instincts of the human spirit are just as real as the grasping, selfish instincts are.

Your concept of peace outlined briefly above is that it only exists as a sort of imaginary security blanket, something I strongly disagree with. In my previous post I spoke of the importance of having an ideal belief in the comfort of a larger world peace, not because it is a nice convenient way to forget that bad things happen and to slip into a happy denial, but because the striving toward that ideal helps people to connect to the very real peace that does exist in this world. There's an old saying that I like, which goes something like this: "Peace does not mean to be in a place where there is noise, trouble, strife or hard work; it means to be in the midst of all these things and still be calm in your heart." It's entirely possible that this quote has circulated the internet a bit and acquired a tinge of cliche, but I still bring it up because I think it points to what true peace means. It does not mean you need an illusion to handle hardship. It means you are someone who can face hardship with the strength at your core of knowing with absolute certainty that there is great suffering in the world, but that there is also great contentment to be found. Even if that contentment is not a part of your own experience at a given time, there is significant strength in possessing the certain knowledge that such contentment exists.

The extremes of either denial or despair are equally easy ways out of dealing with the struggles of the world, and ultimately equally likely to make it difficult for a person to confront hardship. Either way is also simply saying that you don't care. It can be just as difficult, in some ways more difficult, to recognize the reality of peace in the world as it can be to recognize the reality of violence and suffering.


I wouldn't say I'm consumed by it but rather I acknowledge it everyday.

I merely affirm it's manifestation and reality everyday.

Beyond my acknowledging of it I strive for pleasure, passion,interaction and all my desires daily without my life becoming spoiled by such realities.

Fine, acknowledge those realities of violence and suffering, but also acknowledge those realities of peace, enjoyment, and contentment. The fact that you don't let your life become spoiled by the darker realities indicates that in some small way you are aware that better realities exist as well.

[JBI]

On the topic of belief in sin, anyone who doesn't believe in god doesn't really believe in sin, as, according to my OED, sin is defined as:
An act which is regarded as a transgression of the divine law and an offence against God; a violation (esp. wilful or deliberate) of some religious or moral principle.

With variants for figurative use of course accepted, such as "to live in sin" meaning something quite different, though having the same root.

In the sense, sin perhaps doesn't exist, and it becomes a question of ones own personal beliefs.

[Mr Hyde]

On the topic of belief in sin, anyone who doesn't believe in god doesn't really believe in sin, as, according to my OED, sin is defined as:
An act which is regarded as a transgression of the divine law and an offence against God; a violation (esp. wilful or deliberate) of some religious or moral principle.

With variants for figurative use of course accepted, such as "to live in sin" meaning something quite different, though having the same root.

In the sense, sin perhaps doesn't exist, and it becomes a question of ones own personal beliefs.

I believe in neither god or sin so I suppose that would exclude me.


I agree with you that no particular mode of thinking is going to directly and actively change anything.

Nods.


Sitting about being an idealist can be just as unproductive as sitting about being a nihilist.

Definately.


Being so optimistic that you're in a state of denial and figure everything's going to take care of itself isn't any more helpful than being so much of a pessimist that you figure everythings going to self destruct.

Spot on.


Thinking can, however, act as a prompt to action, and contribute to our decisions about how to act.

Even then however there is the futility of determinism where things are determined in a way where even thinking becomes useless.


A person's mindset makes a great deal of difference in terms of how he or she reacts to circumstances, what actions he or she takes to help alleviate the wrongs and injustices that exist to whatever extent a single, flawed individual is able to.

I believe that the universe exists around aimless relativity and indifference so in my view it doesn't really matter what mindset you have.


I don't know what you want to call it, but your posts certainly seem to indicate that you believe in something like sin. Your judgments of others because of their complicity in the injustice of the social/economic system, because of their failures to fully address or redress certain realities, certainly comes across like someone who is condemning the sins of others.

On the contrary. I don't believe in sins,morals, ethics or golden rules of any kind.

I merely get upset at watching the hypocrisy of others in their constant denial of reality. I merely get upset that there is a majority of people who refuse to acknowledge real events and motions that surround them.

It has nothing to do with a moral judgement on my part in that I don't believe in such things.

It has more to do with a judgement of preference in that I judge others through my own subjective perspectives.

( Perspectives that are void of moral sentiments and golden rules.)


You can call it sin, wrong doing/thinking, succumbing to beastial instincts...whatever.

On the contrary again. I embrace primitive instinct.

I merely criticize others who are in denial of what they themselves are.

I merely criticize those who are hypocrites in denial who deny that they themselves have any part in the inequality, chaos, and suffering of their world on a daily basis. Am I making any sense to you?


You certainly are pointing to flaws in human behavior, and I was simply agreeing with you that such flaws are present in all of us.

That's just it. I don't see them as flaws. I see them as natural tendencies.

I merely criticize those who like to pretend that they are different somehow from such tendencies.





I was not sufficiently clear in my former post, and perhaps took too much for granted. When I spoke of an illusory ideal I was referring specifically to the concept of the entire world in perfect peace which is certainly, at the very least, a reality so far removed from the world as it has always been as to exist only as an ideal. However, I did not mean to, and never will, suggest that peace itself is impossible, or that it is any way illusory.

I support the notion that peace is impossible.

If you believe that peace is possible please indulge me by telling me how.



Little fragments and oases of peace are just as great a reality as suffering is.

Peace is fragmented? Explain.


The better instincts of the human spirit are just as real as the grasping, selfish instincts are.

What is better?



Your concept of peace outlined briefly above is that it only exists as a sort of imaginary security blanket, something I strongly disagree with.

Indeed I do believe it to be a delusional security blanket to calm the emotions.



In my previous post I spoke of the importance of having an ideal belief in the comfort of a larger world peace, not because it is a nice convenient way to forget that bad things happen and to slip into a happy denial, but because the striving toward that ideal helps people to connect to the very real peace that does exist in this world.

What is this very real peace you are talking about?

To me it is a impossibility the word peace and there is simply no reason to strive for somthing that is out of reach.


There's an old saying that I like, which goes something like this: "Peace does not mean to be in a place where there is noise, trouble, strife or hard work; it means to be in the midst of all these things and still be calm in your heart."

So it's a subjective expirience then?




The extremes of either denial or despair are equally easy ways out of dealing with the struggles of the world, and ultimately equally likely to make it difficult for a person to confront hardship. Either way is also simply saying that you don't care.

What's wrong with not caring?

Also just because one doesn't care doesn't mean that they confront hardship any less effective than another.






It can be just as difficult, in some ways more difficult, to recognize the reality of peace in the world as it can be to recognize the reality of violence and suffering.

Are you saying peace exists objectively?




Fine, acknowledge those realities of violence and suffering, but also acknowledge those realities of peace, enjoyment, and contentment.

I can only acknowledge things that happen amongst myself.

Things out of the realm of my own control I cannot acknowledge that well in that they are outside of myself.


The fact that you don't let your life become spoiled by the darker realities indicates that in some small way you are aware that better realities exist as well.

In some regards. Of course what I look to be better realities I'm sure is much different from how others perceive it amongst themselves.

[Petrarch's Love]

On the topic of belief in sin, anyone who doesn't believe in god doesn't really believe in sin, as, according to my OED, sin is defined as:
An act which is regarded as a transgression of the divine law and an offence against God; a violation (esp. wilful or deliberate) of some religious or moral principle.

With variants for figurative use of course accepted, such as "to live in sin" meaning something quite different, though having the same root.

In the sense, sin perhaps doesn't exist, and it becomes a question of ones own personal beliefs.

The OED definition still allows for a secular use of the word as a violation of a "moral principle." However, I don't really think the exact definition of the word sin matters to the point I was trying to make. I was trying (rather clumsily it would seem) to draw and analogy between the Christian belief that we are all sinners and a wider secular view that people are all flawed in some way, that no one is perfect. Mr. Hyde certainly seems to think that people have shortcomings and that these shortcomings are a part of human nature. I don't think that acceptance and the acceptance, using Christian terms, that we are all flawed sinners are all that far apart. Both recognize that there is something in human nature that causes suffering.


On the contrary. I don't believe in sins,morals, ethics or golden rules of any kind.

I merely get upset at watching the hypocrisy of others in their constant denial of reality. I merely get upset that there is a majority of people who refuse to acknowledge real events and motions that surround them.

It has nothing to do with a moral judgement on my part in that I don't believe in such things.

It has more to do with a judgement of preference in that I judge others through my own subjective perspectives.

( Perspectives that are void of moral sentiments and golden rules.)

On the contrary again. I embrace primitive instinct.

I merely criticize others who are in denial of what they themselves are.

I merely criticize those who are hypocrites in denial who deny that they themselves have any part in the inequality, chaos, and suffering of their world on a daily basis. Am I making any sense to you?


Again, I don't care what you call it. I don't care whether you believe in God or not. When you get upset by the hypocrisy of others, when you are upset by injustice in the world caused by the actions of other people, when you want to draw attention to the way all of us have a part in "inequality, chaos, and suffering" in our world, you are clearly judging the flaws of humanity. Call them flaws, sins, whatever. Your posts demonstrate that you do get upset by the faults of others. If you really and truly didn't believe in any morality you wouldn't care about what other people do or do not do. If it's all so pointess, then let them all be deluded and run around thinking whatever they want. Who cares if they realize that they are causing all these problems if nothing can ever change? You do care that people not just walk through the world without understanding certain dimensions of experience that you understand. You feel that it is wrong that they not acknowledge and understand the things that you are pointing to, and that is a type of moral judgment about those around you. You have been making sense to me. I agreed with you early on that people should have to recognize their own complicity in the way the world is. What I am disagreeing with you about is that this is all they need to recognize.


That's just it. I don't see them as flaws. I see them as natural tendencies.

I merely criticize those who like to pretend that they are different somehow from such tendencies.

OK, let us say that the "flaws" of human beings, the features of human nature that cause suffering, are natural tendencies. My question for you then would be why the other features of human nature are not also natural tendencies. Why are hope and love, and a desire for peace only features of hypocrites? Why are they less "real" than the tendencies that cause harm among people? They are just as real.


Peace is fragmented? Explain.
I was not saying that peace is fragmented, I was saying that there are fragments of peace in the world: pieces of a person's life or places in the world where life is at peace. Sometimes this is only the experience of a few moments, sometimes a more lasting personal peace. What I was trying to say is that just because the whole world isn't simultaneously at peace, it doesn't mean that there isn't peace at work in the world.


What is this very real peace you are talking about?

To me it is a impossibility the word peace and there is simply no reason to strive for somthing that is out of reach.

Again, I wasn't talking about world peace. There are many kinds of peace. There is the peace that is found in the love between people, in families, or in friendships. There is the peace that can be found in moments of untroubled pleasure, when you are resting and listening to music, or looking up at the sunset at the end of the day, or enjoying your favorite meal, when you allow yourself to forget yourself for a little while and enjoy some aspect of the world in an untroubled way. There is also a kind of peace that can exist inside the core of a person. It is a peace that comes from having been through hardship and accepting that and accepting that such hardship will come again, but feeling confident that you will make it through all the same, and that it will not erase the good that there is in the world. This acceptance of the struggle in life, accompanied by a recognition of the good that life has the potential to offer, can lead to a kind of peace that becomes a part of you regardless of what happens.

You are right that world peace has never come about historically, but neither has true world war. Just as there has never been a period when there was no war somewhere on this planet, there has also never been a period when there was no peace, when there was no love at all between people. Why should war be considered the only real thing and a bond of love between people, or joy in some aspect of the physical world, or hope for making things better for ourselves and those around us be "delusional?"


What's wrong with not caring?

Sometimes it seems like the only way to get through. Kept up too long it will make a person deeply unhappy. In the larger picture, if no one cared about anything or anyone at all there would be no pleasure in the world and probably we would all be dead.

I can only acknowledge things that happen amongst myself.


Things out of the realm of my own control I cannot acknowledge that well in that they are outside of myself.

Yes, I recognize from your posts that peace has clearly not played a large part in your life. I imagine, from what you write here, that you have suffered a great deal in your life, and that makes it difficult to imagine and to seek happiness. I hope that you will find some share of peace in your life, or try to found and create some fragment of peace for yourself on the basis of something positive that you have experienced, perhaps some experience of love or security that has since been lost, but which can be the foundations for future snatched moments of happiness.

P.S. I just read over the above and realized that it could come across as awfully preachy.:p Please don't feel that it was intended in that way, but simply as some thoughts offered in friendship from one flawed human being to another.

[Mr Hyde]

When you get upset by the hypocrisy of others, when you are upset by injustice in the world caused by the actions of other people, when you want to draw attention to the way all of us have a part in "inequality, chaos, and suffering" in our world, you are clearly judging the flaws of humanity.

I only get upset that people deny that they themselves are selfish, vain, egotistical,primitive,and amoral.

I do not get upset because I view such things as flaws when infact I view them to be natural tendencies but rather I get upset at people's denial of what they themselves are and do in actual life.

People describe themselves as moral, fair, and equal but beyond the description of appearances that they set up their actions simultaneously do betray them.



Your posts demonstrate that you do get upset by the faults of others.

I only get upset at others denial.


If you really and truly didn't believe in any morality you wouldn't care about what other people do or do not do.

Even the amoral have their preferences, likes, and dislikes.



If it's all so pointess, then let them all be deluded and run around thinking whatever they want.

Which they usually do because no matter what I think or anybody else for the record people do what they want regardless of how absurd their actions become.



Who cares if they realize that they are causing all these problems if nothing can ever change?

My problem is that they further delude themselves by calling our species fair, equal, and moral when clearly it isn't.



You do care that people not just walk through the world without understanding certain dimensions of experience that you understand.

I care to a point but I also acknowledge that in the end the little care that I do embrace is ultimately futile in that the opinions that I do hold changes nothing.


You feel that it is wrong that they not acknowledge and understand the things that you are pointing to, and that is a type of moral judgment about those around you.

How can someone who doesn't believe in morality make a moral judgement?

I make judgements out of personal preference which I acknowledge to be entirely subjective built upon my own opinions.

To call that moral I believe is a diservice.



OK, let us say that the "flaws" of human beings, the features of human nature that cause suffering, are natural tendencies. My question for you then would be why the other features of human nature are not also natural tendencies.

For starters people who call themselves moral while they commit or tolerate amoral acts around themselves doesn't make sense to me.

To me morals, ethics, and golden rules is a elaborate behavior of deception amongst human beings in order to control one another through images, symbols, and signs.

It is not that human beings themselves are innately or inherently moral but rather it is that human beings imploy the deception and imagery of morality in order to fulfill instinctual selfish amoral gains amongst themselves.

To me the deception of morality, ethics and golden rules amongst the social sphere is nothing more than a elaborate camouflage in hiding instinctual ulterior motives of a human being.


Why are hope and love, and a desire for peace only features of hypocrites?

Because these features you speak of is articulated and expressed by a very hypocritical species.



Why are they less "real" than the tendencies that cause harm among people? They are just as real.

They are not honest as far as I'm concerned.

To me they are nothing but words and images that conceal are far more primitive or primordial instinct. ( Basic instinct.)


I was not saying that peace is fragmented, I was saying that there are fragments of peace in the world: pieces of a person's life or places in the world where life is at peace. Sometimes this is only the experience of a few moments, sometimes a more lasting personal peace. What I was trying to say is that just because the whole world isn't simultaneously at peace, it doesn't mean that there isn't peace at work in the world.

But what is peace?


In the larger picture, if no one cared about anything or anyone at all there would be no pleasure in the world and probably we would all be dead.

There exists a sort of sadistic pleasure amongst psychopaths where there exists no compassion or love.

Am I calling humanity psychotic? In a way, yes.

[maraki16]

heraclitos the philosopher(not quite sure about the spelling) claimed that everything in this world has its present form due to war, to the evrgoing conflict between powers-any kind of powers, not just good and bad, and because of the fact that the one wins the other. well, funny theory right? i could say it is ironic considering the constant wars that humanity makes. i don't understand why such things have to happen. who are we to affect other people's lifes in such a way? i hate hypocrisy myself too. and sadly, i believe that none of us is really nice. as far as myself is considered at least, for it would not be fair to include people i know nothing about, there are times that i think i am a really bad person, really egoistic, though others don't believe so. it's not that i am trying to do any harm or that i take pleasure in watching people suffering or stuff like that, but it is just that i have this strange feeling you know.
i see evil so frequently in various forms and situations and i feel like 'if he is a bad person, if he is capable of doing something like this, then i am probably also capable of such horrible things'. but yet, i believe that people have our own will, and even if this possibility(of turning to evil) scares me, i try to have faith to good. peace might be almost impossible to ever exist, but impossible is not a word that i like. and i know that i might come down to earth with a bump someday due to this belief, but if none of us had faith in good, imagine what this world would have been like by now...

[TheInsomniac]

Peace is just the period inbetween wars.

[Dori]

Frankly, I have only one question to ask, and I will ask it with no knowledge of whether it has been brought up previously in this thread, for I would rather be wrong than to read through three pages of discussion. My question: what is peace?

[NikolaiI]

I only get upset that people deny that they themselves are selfish, vain, egotistical,primitive,and amoral.

I do not get upset because I view such things as flaws when infact I view them to be natural tendencies but rather I get upset at people's denial of what they themselves are and do in actual life.

Your view is quite tyrranical.

[muazjalil]

There is a natural self contradiction in what you say Mr Hyde. You say "I only get upset that people deny that they themselves are selfish, vain, egotistical,primitive,and amoral. I do not get upset because I view such things as flaws when infact I view them to be natural tendencies but rather I get upset at people's denial of what they themselves are and do in actual life.", if it is indeed your viewpoint then when people lie about being amoral, deceptive and selfish they are doing exactly what you expect them to do i.e. being amoral.

You cannot be disappointed with people when they are acting in a manner which you think is natural for them to act and especially when you don't find the act in themselves disappointing but rather attribute them to natural tendencies.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I agree. :)
Because there's no such thing as human satisfaction, we will always be greedy and hunger for more.

This is one of the problems I have with the capitalist system, it seeks to actively encourage greed, it needs greed in order to spin the wheels of industry. I don't believe anything with a foundation of greed can be a good thing.

Having said that war has been alive back to the good olde caves years, war is part of the normal make-up of the human, regardless of political or philosophical system, though they may be others in the future that are better at re-directing the negative aspects of the human condition, who knows?

[muazjalil]

The character Gekko in Wallstreet said "Greed is good Greed is what made America Great" :-p . Jokes apart, i dont think Capitalism is fueled by greed per se but rather self interest. Being motivated by Self Interest doesn't necessarily imply greediness.

Having Enlightened Self Interest vs Being Greedy is ultimately a function of Education and culture, not the economic system. Another thing, in spirit of Winston Churchill, Capitalism has many flaws but then show me something better, LOL

In comparison to all other economic system in the past, Capitalism so far has been the most efficient and coupled with democracy and universal education has provided the best solution for universal prosperity.

It is worth noting that most arguments so far have been based along the line that as war has been there since dawn of civilization it will continue to be there till the end. There is no logical reason to conclude this. If we were in Egyptian time, i am sure we would have concluded that incestuous behavior is a universal phenomenon too and that it will continue till the end of time :-P

[skasian]

Frankly, I have only one question to ask, and I will ask it with no knowledge of whether it has been brought up previously in this thread, for I would rather be wrong than to read through three pages of discussion. My question: what is peace?

Had a search for the definition and it all hovers around harmony, tranquility, silence, avoidance of war or freedom from civil distrubance.
No matter in what perspective you look at it eg. from the world, or even in-between siblings, I see it as the opposite as any act or effect of conflict.

[Mr. Vandemar]

You are right. War is necessary. War is necessary to the state and to the ruling class.

The state creates these enemies, like the "terrorist" or "soviet", that we MUST defeat in order to preserve peace and democracy. It tells us that these people are out to kill us, when in fact the state presiding over our enemies tells THEM the same thing! They tell us that they want to avoid conflict and peacefully compromise, but that military force is necessary so that our enemy is not given an advantage.

Why does it do this? If there were no enemies, the excuse for having a military, then would there be any use for soldiers? No, so the state creates these imaginary evils and wars with them, killing innocent civilians and other soldiers (who are just as deluded into fighting off the Westerner as our soldiers are deluded into fighting off the commie or al qaeda!).

If we can remove this illusion of the "enemy", we can see things lucidly. There is no use for a military. The military's real purpose is to subjugate the people to the will of the state (in case the propaganda fails). If we ever choose to have a revolution, we will never be able to compete with the massive army of our state (that we ourselves supported by paying taxes).

[skasian]

You are right. War is necessary. War is necessary to the state and to the ruling class.

The state creates these enemies, like the "terrorist" or "soviet", that we MUST defeat in order to preserve peace and democracy. It tells us that these people are out to kill us, when in fact the state presiding over our enemies tells THEM the same thing! They tell us that they want to avoid conflict and peacefully compromise, but that military force is necessary so that our enemy is not given an advantage.

Why does it do this? If there were no enemies, the excuse for having a military, then would there be any use for soldiers? No, so the state creates these imaginary evils and wars with them, killing innocent civilians and other soldiers (who are just as deluded into fighting off the Westerner as our soldiers are deluded into fighting off the commie or al qaeda!).

If we can remove this illusion of the "enemy", we can see things lucidly. There is no use for a military. The military's real purpose is to subjugate the people to the will of the state (in case the propaganda fails). If we ever choose to have a revolution, we will never be able to compete with the massive army of our state (that we ourselves supported by paying taxes).

Really? If you look in an acute perspective, then "war" is not necessary. A girl fighting with her brother for the last piece of chocolate is not quite war. In periods that the two do not engage in this fight, there is still peace.

[Dori]

Had a search for the definition and it all hovers around harmony, tranquility, silence, avoidance of war or freedom from civil distrubance.
No matter in what perspective you look at it eg. from the world, or even in-between siblings, I see it as the opposite as any act or effect of conflict.

Thank you, skasian. Another question: why is peace desirable?


You are right. War is necessary. War is necessary to the state and to the ruling class.

The state creates these enemies, like the "terrorist" or "soviet", that we MUST defeat in order to preserve peace and democracy. It tells us that these people are out to kill us, when in fact the state presiding over our enemies tells THEM the same thing! They tell us that they want to avoid conflict and peacefully compromise, but that military force is necessary so that our enemy is not given an advantage.

Why does it do this? If there were no enemies, the excuse for having a military, then would there be any use for soldiers? No, so the state creates these imaginary evils and wars with them, killing innocent civilians and other soldiers (who are just as deluded into fighting off the Westerner as our soldiers are deluded into fighting off the commie or al qaeda!).

If we can remove this illusion of the "enemy", we can see things lucidly. There is no use for a military. The military's real purpose is to subjugate the people to the will of the state (in case the propaganda fails). If we ever choose to have a revolution, we will never be able to compete with the massive army of our state (that we ourselves supported by paying taxes).

What you have said is very reminiscent of 1984, but I won't go into that.

Perhaps anarchism is the best solution for this.

[Virgil]

You are right. War is necessary. War is necessary to the state and to the ruling class.

The state creates these enemies, like the "terrorist" or "soviet", that we MUST defeat in order to preserve peace and democracy. It tells us that these people are out to kill us, when in fact the state presiding over our enemies tells THEM the same thing! They tell us that they want to avoid conflict and peacefully compromise, but that military force is necessary so that our enemy is not given an advantage.

Why does it do this? If there were no enemies, the excuse for having a military, then would there be any use for soldiers? No, so the state creates these imaginary evils and wars with them, killing innocent civilians and other soldiers (who are just as deluded into fighting off the Westerner as our soldiers are deluded into fighting off the commie or al qaeda!).

If we can remove this illusion of the "enemy", we can see things lucidly. There is no use for a military. The military's real purpose is to subjugate the people to the will of the state (in case the propaganda fails). If we ever choose to have a revolution, we will never be able to compete with the massive army of our state (that we ourselves supported by paying taxes).

Huh?? Are you saying that the Soviets did not roll tehir tanks into and take over central Europe and create an iron wall? Are you saying that Eastern Europe was free from Soviet domination? Are you saying the Soviets were lying when they claimed to want to take over the whole world and spread their demented ideology? Are you saying the cold war was just fabricated?

Are you saying that the Twin Towers were not attacked and 3000 people killed? Are you saying that terrorists bombs don't go off and kill people routinely? Are you saying what happen in London and Mumbai was a fiction?

What nonsense. You need an education badly.

[NikolaiI]

Huh?? Are you saying that the Soviets did not roll tehir tanks into and take over central Europe and create an iron wall? Are you saying that Eastern Europe was free from Soviet domination? Are you saying the Soviets were lying when they claimed to want to take over the whole world and spread their demented ideology? Are you saying the cold war was just fabricated?

Are you saying that the Twin Towers were not attacked and 3000 people killed? Are you saying that terrorists bombs don't go off and kill people routinely? Are you saying what happen in London and Mumbai was a fiction?

What nonsense. You need an education badly.

Virgil I must come to Mr. Vandemar's defense strongly. It was quite apparent to me, reading Mr. V's post that he was against war. He is against war and his point is that we fight because the state forces us or brainwashes us into believing we need to. War is necessary-- for the state. The meaning of this is, to me, pretty clearly that war is not necessary or good in the least. It exists because the state believes it's necessary and acts in this direction.

In the case of the Soviets it was the Soviet state creating war. Probably acting in response to this was partly a reasonable reaction; but the excuse is used for non-reasonable wars and killings. The excuse is always to keep ourselves safe, but sometimes this is so ludicris as to be plain nonsense. Then if we as the people see the war is nonsense, why can't we stop it? War machinery or the war machine.

Vandemar wasn't saying that all the U.S. has ever done was completely wrong - some of it wasn't and some of it was very wrong. When we go to war wrongly it is when we do so for the wrong reasons. V. was suggesting the state does this because they think it's necessary.

[JacobF]

You are right. War is necessary. War is necessary to the state and to the ruling class.

The state creates these enemies, like the "terrorist" or "soviet", that we MUST defeat in order to preserve peace and democracy. It tells us that these people are out to kill us, when in fact the state presiding over our enemies tells THEM the same thing! They tell us that they want to avoid conflict and peacefully compromise, but that military force is necessary so that our enemy is not given an advantage.

Why does it do this? If there were no enemies, the excuse for having a military, then would there be any use for soldiers? No, so the state creates these imaginary evils and wars with them, killing innocent civilians and other soldiers (who are just as deluded into fighting off the Westerner as our soldiers are deluded into fighting off the commie or al qaeda!).

If we can remove this illusion of the "enemy", we can see things lucidly. There is no use for a military. The military's real purpose is to subjugate the people to the will of the state (in case the propaganda fails). If we ever choose to have a revolution, we will never be able to compete with the massive army of our state (that we ourselves supported by paying taxes).

The USA is not 1984's Oceania (yet...). While media sensationalism has put the USA in a state of, in my opinion, irrational paranoia, that is not to say that the USA does not have its enemies. It does. These enemies that we have are not illusionary.

However, I do not believe that war is good. War serves the interests of the state, as the above poster stated, and nothing else. But as long as there are different states with different ideologies, there will be war. In the end, we can only be unified as one singular state or as one mass of rubble.

[blazeofglory]

I believe peace doesn't exist infact I would be so bold to say that no kind of peace has ever existed.

In three thousand years of human history when has peace ever existed?

The world is conflicting and chaotic. The world has always been anything but peaceful.

If there is a person reading this thread who believes strongly in world peace please tell me what it is and how it exists.

Yes you are right in part. That there is always struggle is true. Existence demands struggle and without struggle man would have been extinct. Since primordial moments man kept on fighting and fighting and that was termed as struggle for existence by Charles Darwin.

Of course there is peace also. In between conflicts there is peace, both go like sun and shadow and each shores up the existence of the other in this cosmic interplay, and of course this is a very subtle issue and we cannot easily comprehend the subtlety of it.

It demands a great amount of contemplation.

[NikolaiI]

Yes you are right in part. That there is always struggle is true. Existence demands struggle and without struggle man would have been extinct. Since primordial moments man kept on fighting and fighting and that was termed as struggle for existence by Charles Darwin.

Of course there is peace also. In between conflicts there is peace, both go like sun and shadow and each shores up the existence of the other in this cosmic interplay, and of course this is a very subtle issue and we cannot easily comprehend the subtlety of it.

It demands a great amount of contemplation.

Blaze, almost 90% of what you have written recently I have disagreed with. But this I agree with definitely, you have stated this very well. Struggle exists but so does peace. The Earth orbits the sun once a year, and celestial bodies move slower - and also faster - than we can imagine. So there is peace all around us, always, we just have to recognize it. Space is an illusion - or actually the illusion is that there is not enough space. First we believe in space but immediately after we are fixated on form, and soon after that we are completely mired in ego. In truth form does not exist without space, and the two are intimately intertwined. Ego does not exist separate from nirvana, and nirvana and ego are also intertwined like form and space.

[Mr. Vandemar]

Thanks NikolaiI

Virgil, I never denied any of that. I think you misinterpreted my post.

[skasian]

Thank you, skasian. Another question: why is peace desirable?

Without peace, there are destruction, chaos and distrubance of tranquility. Just as someone that desires agreement during a debate, peace is desired as disagreement in any context is undesirable.

[Virgil]

Thanks NikolaiI

Virgil, I never denied any of that. I think you misinterpreted my post.

Well, perhaps coming into the middle of this can be difficult to surmise the entire context, and if I misunderstood I apologize. I'm not going to get into a pacifist versuses non-pacifist argument. We'll never agree or change our positions. Let me just say that it takes two to create a state of peace, unless you don't mind being trampled over. I'm afraid I don't turn the other cheek.

[Dori]

Without peace, there are destruction, chaos and distrubance of tranquility. Just as someone that desires agreement during a debate, peace is desired as disagreement in any context is undesirable.

Ah, but aren't there people out there that enjoy conflict and disagreement as much as some people desire peace and agreement?

[skasian]

Ah, but aren't there people out there that enjoy conflict and disagreement as much as some people desire peace and agreement?

In an overall view on the total population of mankind, a significant majority of people desire peace and agreement, so overall it is fair to say that people desire peace and agreement.
I have to ask, do you really think that there are people who enjoy conflict and disagreement as much as the people desire peace and agreement? Why do you think Americans chose Obama over McCain? Clearly Americans voted Obama for reasons that includes peace with other countries and avoidance of war.

[Dori]

In an overall view on the total population of mankind, a significant majority of people desire peace and agreement, so overall it is fair to say that people desire peace and agreement.
I have to ask, do you really think that there are people who enjoy conflict and disagreement as much as the people desire peace and agreement? Why do you think Americans chose Obama over McCain? Clearly Americans voted Obama for reasons that includes peace with other countries and avoidance of war.

Obama was elected because of the following logic:

Bush = bad
Bush = McCain
Therefore, McCain = bad

But enough of that.

I wrote something a while ago that deals with this topic. I quote:


I love conflict. Without it, I wouldn't be the way I am. It has influenced me far more than anything else. Conflict loves me, too.

Let's talk alternatives. Peace--an overrated and loaded term. People conceive peace as the highest "ideal". After all, conflict results in setbacks and suffering. However, being our biased selves, we tend to overshadow the other side with this notion that conflict is the harbinger of suffering and that's the end of it. Let me put it simply. In any conflict, there are at least two sides. One sides wins, the other loses. The winner is satisfied, the loser unsatisfied. This is conflict at a glance. A closer look into conflict would find that the loser, though unsatisfied, can reap at least some advantage from being the loser. Stronger people are made on the notion that they were once weak. Thus, both the winner and loser have the potential of advantage. They must simply realize this potential.

Back to peace. Why do people think peace is so great? What purpose in life can peace contrive? None. Only conflict can give us purpose. And what is life without purpose? Not a life I would want to live. Perhaps others can conceive a life with no purpose, but I see a life with no purpose and weep. I love life and humanity too much to be without purpose. Peace smudges the colors of life into that brownish-black poop-looking color that looks just horrible. Thank God it's naturally impossible to maintain. I suspect some people will disagree with me. To them, I say "bring it", for I know that accompanied by them is my true love: conflict.

People live. People die. Nature proceeds. Conflict reigns. This is my life.

If I were to rewrite this, I believe it would be at least a little different, but oh well. Essentially what I was trying to say was that conflict brings purpose and rewards.

I am not pro-war, by the way.

[Mr. Vandemar]

Peace is not only the absence of war, it is the absence of oppression.

[skasian]

Obama was elected because of the following logic:

Bush = bad
Bush = McCain
Therefore, McCain = bad

But enough of that.

I wrote something a while ago that deals with this topic. I quote:



If I were to rewrite this, I believe it would be at least a little different, but oh well. Essentially what I was trying to say was that conflict brings purpose and rewards.

I am not pro-war, by the way.

Sometimes conflict does bring purpose and rewards but think of the costs. No matter how the purpose and reward may overweigh the cost, conflict should be contained to the minimum. For example, conflict brings additional damage to substances that are neutral in the encounter. When the H-Bomb was dropped to Hiroshima, millions were afflicted harm heavily; costing their lives and the future lives of the next generation as harmful radiation caused mutation in unborn children. Yes, the purpose of silencing Japan was successful but consider the cost of the lives of the innocent. If there was no conflict in the first place, ie Japan attacking Pearl Harbour, there wouldnt be any retaliation therefore further destruction. Therefore, conflict should be avoided and peace selected for.

[Dori]

Sometimes conflict does bring purpose and rewards but think of the costs. No matter how the purpose and reward may overweigh the cost, conflict should be contained to the minimum. For example, conflict brings additional damage to substances that are neutral in the encounter. When the H-Bomb was dropped to Hiroshima, millions were afflicted harm heavily; costing their lives and the future lives of the next generation as harmful radiation caused mutation in unborn children. Yes, the purpose of silencing Japan was successful but consider the cost of the lives of the innocent. If there was no conflict in the first place, ie Japan attacking Pearl Harbour, there wouldnt be any retaliation therefore further destruction. Therefore, conflict should be avoided and peace selected for.

Let me just simply add that we wouldn't know peace if it weren't for conflict. And conflict is responsible for the subject matter in a book I just got Masters of the Battlefield, so I'm content for now (how horrible! I know...).

[aBIGsheep]

Peace is an equilibrium.
There's always going to be conflict in the world.

But when a person finds balance, then there is peace.

pffttt

[skasian]

Let me just simply add that we wouldn't know peace if it weren't for conflict. And conflict is responsible for the subject matter in a book I just got Masters of the Battlefield, so I'm content for now (how horrible! I know...).

But you agree that peace is desired over conflict right? I doubt that anyone will be favouring a WWIII that involves nuclear weapons.

[blazeofglory]

Sectarian ideas and idealism or adherence to sets of faiths jeopardize peace.

[andave_ya]

This is an interesting thread, well-represented on both sides :).
"We are not of those who glorify war; when the opportunity presents itself we describe its realities. War has frightful beauties which we have not concealed; it has also, we must admit, some deformities."
-Les Miserables by Victor Hugo, translated by Charles Wilbour.

"Certain faculties of man are directed towards the Unknown; thought, meditation, prayer. The Unknown is an ocean. What is conscience? It is the compass of the Unknown. Thought, meditation, prayer, these are the great mysterious pointings of the needle. Les us respect them. Whither tend these majrestic irradiations of the soul? into shadow, that is, towards the light."
-Les Miserables

So, although I think that war is indeed inevitable, I do have hope for a better world someday. That hope however is very closely tied to my faith as a Christian.

[skasian]

This is an interesting thread, well-represented on both sides :).
"We are not of those who glorify war; when the opportunity presents itself we describe its realities. War has frightful beauties which we have not concealed; it has also, we must admit, some deformities."
-Les Miserables by Victor Hugo, translated by Charles Wilbour.

"Certain faculties of man are directed towards the Unknown; thought, meditation, prayer. The Unknown is an ocean. What is conscience? It is the compass of the Unknown. Thought, meditation, prayer, these are the great mysterious pointings of the needle. Les us respect them. Whither tend these majrestic irradiations of the soul? into shadow, that is, towards the light."
-Les Miserables

So, although I think that war is indeed inevitable, I do have hope for a better world someday. That hope however is very closely tied to my faith as a Christian.

Thank you for sharing your quotes, they are insightful.
I like to say that I completely agree with your views and that a world with more peace than war is desirable.

[Delta40]

I know I'm entering this thread late and I'm not very well versed at such things but I am confident that you will welcome me into the discussion. My understanding that it is through conflict that resolution is found. This is a positive, good thing. Society continually seeks to improve upon itself. In the balance of things, it ****s up terribly along the way while it aspires toward peace. Along the way it hits bumps in the road. Conflict. Resolutions happen here. Roads to peace are re-routed or more are created. I am confident that more bumps pop up.

I love that humankind doesn't destroy itself and manages to love and cherish one another amidst conflict, where it struggles for resolution. We are blessed in this respect.

[skasian]

I know I'm entering this thread late and I'm not very well versed at such things but I am confident that you will welcome me into the discussion. My understanding that it is through conflict that resolution is found. This is a positive, good thing. Society continually seeks to improve upon itself. In the balance of things, it ****s up terribly along the way while it aspires toward peace. Along the way it hits bumps in the road. Conflict. Resolutions happen here. Roads to peace are re-routed or more are created. I am confident that more bumps pop up.

I love that humankind doesn't destroy itself and manages to love and cherish one another amidst conflict, where it struggles for resolution. We are blessed in this respect.

Welcome to this thread, any views that are seen in any thread are important, and we value and respect them.

I agree that conflict can be a positive aspect but only if it accounts in the improvement between a group or society. I believe that it is conflict that sometimes brings a group or society closer together and strengthens their relationship as they begin to recognise the differences that may of commenced the conflict from the beginning.