Let there be world peace.

[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?)

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. 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