TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Definition Time: Peace
Definition Time: Peace
OK,
i hope that this reaches everyone on some similar level. i fear that this will, yet again, turn into a Middle East discussion of various sorts- but i dont intend it that way. i *guess* you could provide examples from said region, but given the worlds history of conflict and war you could most likely avoid talking about anything that has happened in the last 1 year or so...
but: onto my question.
there has been much debate on these forums regarding war and peace. the problem with these discussions is that we all have our own (and often legitimate) ideas and conceptions of what both entail.
some see 'war' as a possible solution while others say that 'peace' should be the goal.
in regards to 'peace' i want to know what 'peace' is!
-is peace simply avoiding physical combat/conflict?
-is peace avoiding *any* conflict or confrontation?
-does physical violence stem from violent or conflicting ideals/beliefs whether physical or verbal?
-is peace relative?
-is peace only attained on a universal level? (macro vs micro)
-has peace ever actually existed (examples)? again (macro vs micro)
-has peace ever solved a conflict and then lasted for a discernable amount of time in that region? (think Ghandi or MLK Jr.)
-how would one go about promoting peace without also promoting conflicting ideals?
...maybe others understand what im saying or have further questions!
________________
personally, i feel that peace is something that may be somewhat unrealistic. that does not mean that i am not a peaceful person, or do not stive to be intelligent, well informed and peaceable to other individuals. it just seems to me that in some circumstances where confrontation can be avoided it is more harmful than beneficial. sometimes people need to be pushed over some esoteric edge to get real results or realize a change that needs to occur-
i feel there have been peaceful people that have gotten successful results with their methods. the teachings of Thoreau, Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. all point to this. the problem is that often once the small battles are won, violence once again emerges. Ghandi was a hero for his peacful demonstrations, yet now that India is free of British control they threaten nuclear war on Pakistan. MLK Jr. was another influence, but even he couldnt escape an assassins bullet.
and while there have been peaceful people, they have only been viewed as peaceful when there was a violent agressor to counter with. if everyone was peaceful, how would anyone judge peace? what would it become then? and could it last?
humans are complex animals and whether you delve into Calvanist, Hobbseian, or other Social contract theories (among millions of other topics/ideas) no two people will think alike. this is why everyone in the world doesnt subscribe to our love of trance! if thats the case how can everyone 'unite for peace' when we are all so different and conflicted on a smaller, personal level?
any help|?
peace is LIVING in harmony and smoking the ganj
Excellent thread!
Just had to say that right now..my contribution will folllow later, though 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit peace is LIVING in harmony and smoking the ganj |
those are some of the most angry, violent moments ive ever experienced around your average, ardent dope smoker|
i'd define peace on a micro level as having respect for others and an OPEN MIND, freedom of speech and expression, and a polite and educational exchange of ideas through debates, forums , etc...
but on a macro/ international level the definition of peace gets skewed as you pointed out... one explanation could be having healthy relations with everyone... now u ask what are healthy realtions and how do you maintain them???
i guess answering the first part is simple but to answer the second part... we have to go a little back in history to understand sources of conflict between peoples in present times... also world factors like social and political factors have a say in maintiaining relations between countrys ... i therefore agree with you on the point that peace really doesnt exist on a macro level atleast...
but as long as ppl can keep an open mind i think that ppl on a personal level can be at peace..., like for e.g i was totally anti war at first but after browsing through this forum and talk to a lot of ppl on the subject i admit that there are strong points for and against the issue...
peace is realtive too.. for eg if aliens were to attack the earth (lol) then we'll all unite to fight a common enemy... at that point we'd all be at peace with one another... so i guess peace only exists when there exists or is potential conflict.
kind of an oxymoron 
... any other ideas???
PS :: i havent at all answered your questions but these are just my views on peace...
To have peace and to live peacefully means not to create antagonism. Peace is not an ideal. To me, an ideal is merely an escape, an avoidance of what is, a contradiction of what is. �Peace is a state of mind, not a state of the nation.� To have peace, we have to love, and we have to begin not to live an ideal life but to see things as they are and act upon them. This can only come about through an inward revolution of the individual self.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior To have peace and to live peacefully means not to create antagonism. Peace is not an ideal. To me, an ideal is merely an escape, an avoidance of what is, a contradiction of what is. �Peace is a state of mind, not a state of the nation.� To have peace, we have to love, and we have to begin not to live an ideal life but to see things as they are and act upon them. This can only come about through an inward revolution of the individual self. |
hahaha yeah...
good thread tho... 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by biznology it gets old listening to polarizing opinion/heresay on very limited subjects when this forum could be used to truly discuss everything related to politics, et al| |
I agree with bizz that total peace cannot be achieved as I feel violence is a very natural human reaction. People have said that the development of ones mentality or the inner self is a possible solution. Well this is key I feel it must be coupled with physical conditions. By this i mean a point of relative global peace can be achieved by creating a global gov which can impose population/economic controls. I strongly believe that over population and the resulting competition for basic needs plays the largest reason for conflict globaly.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by biznology it gets old listening to polarizing opinion/heresay on very limited subjects when this forum could be used to truly discuss everything related to politics, et al| |
| quote: |
if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies, and in the way to their End, . . . endeavor to destroy, or subdue one another . . . If one plant, sow, build, or possess a convenient Seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces united, to dispossess, and deprive him, not only of the fruit of his labor, but also of his life, or liberty . . . So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, Competition; Secondly, Diffidence; Thirdly, Glory. The first maketh men invade for Gain; the second, for Safety; and the third, Reputation. The first use Violence to make themselves Masters of other men's persons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their Persons, or by reflexion in their Kindred, their Friends, their Nation, their Profession, or their Name. Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called War; and such a war, as is of every man, against every man . . . state of nature will return. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider ... The famous saying that everybody attributes to hobbes is that the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. I agree that the current state of mankind is accurately described by that statement. I don't think that we are destined for oblivion and violence however. I think that only through GLOBAL education, can we can rid the world of many intolerances, hatred, misconceptions, and ignorance. That won't happen in my lifetime though. Probably not for another 10 lifetimes follow at least. |
|
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider ... The famous saying that everybody attributes to hobbes is that the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. I agree that the current state of mankind is accurately described by that statement. I don't think that we are destined for oblivion and violence however. I think that only through GLOBAL education, can we can rid the world of many intolerances, hatred, misconceptions, and ignorance. That won't happen in my lifetime though. Probably not for another 10 lifetimes follow at least. |
|
| quote: |
| Originally posted by TranceGiant Excellent thread! Just had to say that right now..my contribution will folllow later, though |
|
| quote: |
| Originally posted by biznology hmm...this global education though would be entirely relative as well. you would have to either teach everyone the same thing - which could be seen as brainwashing and *not* education, or adapt your education culturally. it would be difficult- but in regards to Hobbes, the modern(not-post) view of history was of progression - that things got better. therefore Hobbes theory was criticized and adapted by social contract theorists, etc. are they less appropriate? (our) post-modern views in regard to theory and history have changed how we look at our world, but does that mean that history or the world has changed? who is to assume things will get 'better' with time? who is to say the opposite? | |
PEACE
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ShellSh0ck PEACE |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by biznology by what means? you really shouldnt bother wasting everyones time here. go to another thread and type that- if you dont have anything to say, try to explain why or how. just saying the word 'PEACE' doesnt accomplish anything. which is maybe one of the problems i had laid out... maybe not| |
�Peace is not merely the absence of war but the presence of justice, of law, of order--in short, of government.� -Albert Einstein
a g00d definition...
Returning to Hobbes, while he sees this perpetual conflict between men seeking their own self-preservation as necessary, you have to view it in the context of his broader philosophy.
Firstly he was an unabashed egoist, believing not only that man wishes at all times to do what is in his best interests, but that he should act in this manner and has every right to do so. Given this stance, he precludes any possibility of advocating peace on "moral" or altrusitic grounds. For instance, if there is no morality beyond my own egoistic impulses and - to use "the" example - a war in Iraq will benefit me by, say, the lowering of oil prices, then Hobbes would undeniably advocate this course of action regardless of the hardship it may cause the Iraqi people. In this sense, from a purely egoistic stance, morality - or, rather, inter-personal morality (the way we should alter our behaviour in accordance with the wishes and desires of "mit sein", the others) - is done away with, and there is no real justification for committing to any action that may detract from our own "Endeavours" (Hobbes' phrase) or in anyway make our life less "perfect" than we would otherwise have it. Perhaps I'm idealistic, but I believe that moral actions (to refute what Hobbes believed) can have an altruistic benevolence to them at base and that we do not all purely act out of our own egoistic desires.
Secondly, we need only view Hobbes conception of the ideal government to see where these ideals leave us. The "Covenant" he talks of makes it sound like (and I could be wrong here - my knowledge of much of Hobbes' philosophy is quite sketchy) humanity in harmony with itself can only exist if it is subserviant to a "higher power", namely God or government. He suggests that we each do and should sacrifice our liberties and freedoms to government so that they may enforce this "Covenant" by use of force ("Covenants, without the sword, are but words"). Thus we are left in a situation where social peace is maintained domestically be a despotic, unelected regime who's only task is, really, to preserve the life of its citizens. They are also unaccountable as they are excluded from the Covenant made between the people to exist under this regime.
Thus, while Hobbes may say that "life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short", I fail to see how this situation can be rectified by his short-sighted justification of egoism. If we assume that there is an unegoistic, inter-personal morailty that does existed and is acted out daily, surely - even if it involves sacrifices in the short term - this is preferential, in the long run, to the perpetual war Hobbes as good as says that there is no way of escaping (that is, that we cannot transcend our will towards immediate "Endeavours")? Hobbes may paint an accurate picture of life in the sense that, yes, "untamed" humans will tend towards egoistic pursuits in the same manner as all other animals, but he neglects any possibility of this primitive side of human nature being transcended by our ability to rationalise and to forward-plan. He denies the existence of free-will so he, obviously, sees no way out of the cycle, but - like you Occrider - I believe that the "brutish" nature of humanity can be overcome through education and a unified respect for human life. We cannot thus, simultaneously, justify the perpetual war Hobbes speaks of - based on his moral justification of psychological egoism - and, with the corresponding contempt for human life this stance almost necessitates, expect not to create turmoil beyond our societal "Covenant" through an ephemeral, short-sighted tendancy towards uncompromising egoistic self-preservation and thus perpetuate and prolong the very war we say we cannot end.
War is a choice, not a necessary condition of human life. I cannot think of any war that cannot be explained in terms of one or more sides of the conflict refusing to compromise with the other(s) and thus, in their egoistic pursuit of immediately gratifying self-preservation, threatening the very way of life they were going to war to protect in the firts place.
Er, does that make any sense to anyone?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by biznology what does 'living in harmony' entail? what does that even truly mean? harmony with nature? with other people, plants, music, what? and what happens when the ganj runs out?! those are some of the most angry, violent moments ive ever experienced around your average, ardent dope smoker| |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Renegade Returning to Hobbes, while he sees this perpetual conflict between men seeking their own self-preservation as necessary, you have to view it in the context of his broader philosophy. Firstly he was an unabashed egoist, believing not only that man wishes at all times to do what is in his best interests, but that he should act in this manner and has every right to do so. Given this stance, he precludes any possibility of advocating peace on "moral" or altrusitic grounds. For instance, if there is no morality beyond my own egoistic impulses and - to use "the" example - a war in Iraq will benefit me by, say, the lowering of oil prices, then Hobbes would undeniably advocate this course of action regardless of the hardship it may cause the Iraqi people. In this sense, from a purely egoistic stance, morality - or, rather, inter-personal morality (the way we should alter our behaviour in accordance with the wishes and desires of "mit sein", the others) - is done away with, and there is no real justification for committing to any action that may detract from our own "Endeavours" (Hobbes' phrase) or in anyway make our life less "perfect" than we would otherwise have it. Perhaps I'm idealistic, but I believe that moral actions (to refute what Hobbes believed) can have an altruistic benevolence to them at base and that we do not all purely act out of our own egoistic desires. |
. At any rate the perspective that I was getting was that Hobbes wasn't so much praising or justifying the moral ethics of man in fulfilling everything that is in his best interests. The mood that I was getting was that Hobbes was describing the basic human nature of man. That essentially, in the end, human nature is reduced to fulfilling and satisfying our impulses such that regardless of how ethical/moral we may be, we are reduced to a state of war (and by war I don't think he's talking about battles but rather conflict with other humans) whether we choose to enter that state or we are dragged into it by the actions of others. Essentially, he's saying that what you described as an altruistic benevolence as a method of man to avoid being reduced to a state of nature is as you described it, an ideal. If he's not saying that than let me ask that. Even if a person is a moral/ethical angel, wouldn't human nature in general drag that person into conflict because humans are driven to fulfill their desires? | quote: |
Secondly, we need only view Hobbes conception of the ideal government to see where these ideals leave us. The "Covenant" he talks of makes it sound like (and I could be wrong here - my knowledge of much of Hobbes' philosophy is quite sketchy) humanity in harmony with itself can only exist if it is subserviant to a "higher power", namely God or government. He suggests that we each do and should sacrifice our liberties and freedoms to government so that they may enforce this "Covenant" by use of force ("Covenants, without the sword, are but words"). Thus we are left in a situation where social peace is maintained domestically be a despotic, unelected regime who's only task is, really, to preserve the life of its citizens. They are also unaccountable as they are excluded from the Covenant made between the people to exist under this regime. |
| quote: |
Hobbes may paint an accurate picture of life in the sense that, yes, "untamed" humans will tend towards egoistic pursuits in the same manner as all other animals, but he neglects any possibility of this primitive side of human nature being transcended by our ability to rationalise and to forward-plan. He denies the existence of free-will so he, obviously, sees no way out of the cycle, but - like you Occrider - I believe that the "brutish" nature of humanity can be overcome through education and a unified respect for human life. We cannot thus, simultaneously, justify the perpetual war Hobbes speaks of - based on his moral justification of psychological egoism - and, with the corresponding contempt for human life this stance almost necessitates, expect not to create turmoil beyond our societal "Covenant" through an ephemeral, short-sighted tendancy towards uncompromising egoistic self-preservation and thus perpetuate and prolong the very war we say we cannot end. |
i sorta follow whats been going on here...
i think one issue with Hobbes is his insistence that people *must* be subservient to a higher position or power. in that, there can simply be no peace.
i am not well versed on his entire philosophy or work- hell i only understand basic philosophy and have limited concept of Hoobes in regard to sociology. but i also think that culture, time and place have relevance when talking about these things.
Hobbes was a philosopher like so many more- and others based their work on critiquing each other, Hobbes or vice versa. were they critiquing a different *time* in the human scope, or are people always the same?
____________________
oh- and pot is addictive, psychologically. it is still less addictive than caffeine - but for some people it gets a little crazy! 
____________________
if we must discuss philosophy whether political or otherwise- what says Hobbes is the only answer? all philosophers like Rousseau, Montesquieu, among many others. unlike Hobbes, they viewed humanity in differing lights. Rousseau believed that unlike the brutish many of Hobbes eye, men were inherently good(unless im very confused, mistaken). a 'good' man used social contracts and bonds to tie communities and understandings together- not subservience to a master or lord. is this more in line with what we have today? are either appropriate? do i have any idea what im talking about?
'answer unclear, try again in 5 mins'
oh and shellshock- wasnt it the US govt that has been causing so much anxiety of late?
on the flipside...do we have anyone that has studied conflict theory here? i started a class today with a wee bit of discussion into that regarding the former soviet bloc, seems interesting!
bueller?...bueller?
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.