Let there be world peace.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Hyde

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reccura

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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).

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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).

---

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

Perhaps anarchism is the best solution for this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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).

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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).

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

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.

Thanks NikolaiI

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dori

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Vandemar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dori

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

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:

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dori

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

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...).

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dori

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.