Peace

[KevinTheOmnivore]

So I have been thinking about this one, and I was wondering what you folks thought.

I feel like many of the differences that develop over war, aggression, and violence stem from a different definition of the concept of peace. Is peace merely the absence of violence, or is it a conscious agreement/understanding between two or more parties?

For example, the American Left (not everyone, but many) often throw the word around a lot in reference to just about anything. The further Left, such as the Green Party, often refers to themselves as the "peace party," and their candidates have a "peace platform." So they support peace, which means they oppose any kind of military action just about ever.

But is that peace? I realize opposing a particular war doesn't make you a pacifist or even non-violent. Most Liberals and/or Dems I meet oppose the war in Iraq, but supported the war in Afghanistan.

Are people content to know that violent acts simply aren't happening, or does violence lead to peace? For example, is a nuclear Iran better than dead Iranians and dead American soldiers (let's say if all talks melted down)?

[Sethomas]

Hey, I actually like the idea of this thread!

"Peace" is always going to be a subjective and relative term. However, I think that a rational fear of violence in itself is a contradiction of worthwhile peace, and national autonomy is most always a prerequisite for real peace. Like, the Pax Romana was famous for having no wars, but I wouldn't consider it a genuine across-the-board "peace" because there were skirmishes virtually everywhere that were simply incapable of escalating into war because of the constant thumbscrews in place.

Obviously, peace should be the perpetual telos of all politics, but that doesn't override the option for operating a just war to accomplish a greater peace.

Just an aside, if the fear of Iran getting nukes is such a valid concern on the grounds that they could fall into even worse hands, what is being done for the much more palpable reality of the Soviet stockpile that everyone's totally forgotten about? I'm not saying that Russia would sell them to terrorists, but last I heard their security measures were non-existent.

[Grislygus]

I believe that nonviolence and agreement between nations would be a prerequisite for peace, rather than being peace itself (which I believe to be a state of utter comfort and security).


I'm sorry if that sounds obvious and retarded, I can't exactly articulate what I'm thinking in more complex terms.

[Archduke Tips]

Nuclear bombs bring peace. You can only kill everyone once.

[Juttin]

Peace? Fuck peace! Peace is for communists! And Hippies!
And, also, TERRORISTS! Sure, you'll feel safe,
but when you let your guard down,
the Soviets and Vietcong will take over!
Then, the brown people will TAKE OUR FREEDOM >:

REPUBLICAN SMASH!

[kahljorn]

Well, war stems from conflicts of interest of some kind, so I suppose peace would occur when all people's interest are the same. Insert communist manifesto.

[Preechr]

Sweet thread.

If war is the use of violence to accomplish political objectives, then maybe peace is... instead of the absence of war or violence... simply the use of non-violence to accomplish political objectives. Peace is fair representative politics.

We shouldn't try to define peace as the absence of something. That's like saying life is the absence of being murdered.

Notice how I just turned that around so the War on Terror is even MORE justified? When I'm allowed to define the terms, peaceful nations cannot deal peacefully with violent states or people.

[Juttin]

Bah...the WoT will NEVER be justified.
I'm totally close-minded at the thought anymore

[Abcdxxxx]

If peace is a state of being, or understanding, then it's an ideal, goal, and sometimes outcome. The methodology one takes to achieve an existance of peace is almost secondary. There are a lot of activities in life which seem counterproductive if taken out of context (ie. cutting a body open to do surgery, or say, making a mess so that you can reorganize and clean a house).

There has to be an agreement on what peace means, firstly...is it a state of submission, or is it a state of harmony and tolerance?

[Preechr]

You are trying to make this a value judgement. You can define a carrot without determining whether it is a good or bad thing. Define it, then we can determine it's value.

[Preechr]

Bah...the WoT will NEVER be justified.
I'm totally close-minded at the thought anymore

Stay on topic.

You try defining peace.

That's what Kevin asked for in his thread, and he might just ban you if you don't do it.

It's what he does.

[Preechr]

Well, war stems from conflicts of interest of some kind, so I suppose peace would occur when all people's interest are the same. Insert communist manifesto.

Ok, so how about if everybody chooses war. Is war then peace?

Try again.

[Preechr]

...peace itself (which I believe to be a state of utter comfort and security).

So, your definition of peace is something along the lines of what Kevin said was: "a nuclear Iran (is) better than dead Iranians and dead American soldiers."


Oh, but you said, "utter."

That means you believe peace is unobtainable.

See how that works?

[Preechr]

Nuclear bombs bring peace. You can only kill everyone once.

But what is peace?

Are you saying peace is the absence of humans?

[Juttin]

The only wars in which the American Public have benefit are the American Revolution and World Wars (I and II).
I'd rather "Submit" than watch more False Patriots die in an unnecessary war. And for what? FREEEDOM? Safety of our country?
I don't think so. Homeland Security is just a ploy to blind the public from their greedy asshole leader and his "Trusty Cabinet" consisting of Haliburton investors and Enron Refuge

[Preechr]

But what is peace?

[Juttin]

Peace is an unachievable thing.
It's just an idea with no working backbone.
Human society was built around conflict, and it'll end by the hands of some conflict gone awry.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

That's absolutely absurd. Do wars end? Do nations that engage in bloody wars often become allies?

[Juttin]

Sure. A single war ends. But out of that war comes two more wars.
Then out of those comes more wars.
Times change, friendships are lost, conflict ensues.
There's no such thing as peace.

[kahljorn]

if you look at what the etymology of peace it actually means lack of war or stability under one dominant nation. So peace then always occurs after wars :(

"Ok, so how about if everybody chooses war. Is war then peace?"

if everybody wanted war and waged it willingly and were happy with it i dont see what the problem would be I'm sure people would be "At peace" with their war, kind of like how you can "find peace" at your death bed..
Everybody in the world wanting war and wanting to die is an absurd thing to say, because it would never happen. Nobody ever wants war i don't think, nobody has ever started a war thinking, "I want war" they think, "I want objects/land/property/wealth/power", sometimes people even want "Peace" from war, from another place. Hence, war occurs from conflicts of interest, usually conflicts of self-interest.

[Preechr]

Everybody starts war thinking, "I want war."

You have to understand this before you can go on.

[Preechr]

There's no such thing as peace.

So, then, peace is your version of chaos... or peace is a unicorn?

[Preechr]

It's just an idea with no working backbone.

Then what is war?

You seem to be saying war is existence, at least for humans.

...and it'll end by the hands of some conflict gone awry.

So, then... I'd venture to extrapolate we were, in at least your estimation, born of war.

We live it, and we will die from it.

How else could we have become?

[Preechr]

...under one dominant nation.

Where the fuck did you find a dictionary that would say that?

[Preechr]

...usually conflicts of self-interest.

Everything that happens is bound to "self-interest."

That "self-interest" may be misguided... even suicidal... but it is as it is notheless.

[Preechr]

Everybody in the world wanting war and wanting to die is an absurd thing to say, because it would never happen.

Your argument seems to be with Juttin, here.

[Preechr]

Hence, war occurs from conflicts of interest...

As per usual, the idiot savant is gonna choke up the most relevant bit of spew to come from this discussion.

I hate you, Kyle.

IF war is, indeed, as you say, occurring from within conflict, Peace... it's opposite, must actually be born from a convergence of self interest.

Get it?

Peace beats war.

War is thus an instrument of peace.

Fucked up, ain't it?

I'd love for Seth to jump back in here and explain that. I'm not sure I can.

[kahljorn]

"IF war is, indeed, as you say, occurring from within conflict, Peace... it's opposite, must actually be born from a convergence of self interest. "

"so I suppose peace would occur when all people's interest are the same."

i don't know i feel the bases are already covered as to your three posts.

Why do you repeat what I say as a response? Three posts of you repeating what I said.


Also what do you guys think of the natural world side of this you know, the beasts. Always look to the beast. Would you call them, "At war"? Would you call them, "At peace"? I don't want to make it sound black and white i just wanted to throw that out there. Peace is a complicated subject, especially if you consider political and economic disease and instability, "Conflicts of interests". "The war on drugs" "Gay people can't get married" etc.
Really I wonder whether or not war is a natural process of the human enviroment and if it can even be overcome. If it could be acheived in any meaningful state beyond absence of physical shooting wars then it would clearly require a melding of interests of some sort. Even in physical wars, the interests of those involved decide the outcome. For peace to arise from a war it's necessary for there to be a truce or a "Merging of interests".
Yes, war can be a tool of "Peace" by eliminating the opposition to your interest and destroying their interest. Interest of course is very variable and can be shifted according to circumstances, sometimes interests can in themselves be opposing. The "Peace" gained through physical war can cause angst and unhappiness which could be considered "Unpeaceful".

Also I have to agree that nonphysical violence is basically what peace is in a physical sense because that's basically what a truce or compromise is, but I don't see how that creates peace. Absenceof war and but still having absolutely horid life circumstance like i don't know maybe hell most people wouldn't choose hell over a war you see so obviously "Peace" must be more important than the opposite of "War", or a new word would need to be used. At the least everything in this entire thread has been repeated seven times.

[Sethomas]

Well, first thing to point out is that you CAN actually define something as the lack of something else. It works in some examples but not all, hence the difficulty of overly binary logic and terminology. Augustine, for example, defined evil as the privation of good. One of my professors demonstrated that a strong argument against the actual utility of Platonic Forms as an ideal is the fact of relative qualities. Namely, think of "cold". Both heat and coldness have negative connotations in some senses and positive ones in the other. You can't even set up an arbitrary definition between the two; an internal body temperature of 108° F is deathly hot, a core temperature of 800° F in a forge kiln is uselessly cold. Furthermore, darkness has no other definition than the absence of light. To refer back to Plato, how could hot and cold possibly have conceptual embodiments? That you can have one for darkness but not for temperature kind of underlines the weirdness of waxing philosophical on abstractions, even those we want and perhaps seek.

If we can agree that "peace" can indeed be the absence of something, it falls to us to determine what. In man's tabula rasa, there is no political war. But, Hobbes argued that in the absence of the Body Politic life is inevitably "nasty, brutish and short" (like your mom!), and to entertain that idea maybe peace does require something more substantive than a definition of what it isn't. I don't, however, that it's really pertinent at the moment because again, peace is a matter of subjectivity. That's why I mentioned the Pax Romana in my initial post; obviously it fulfilled some requirement of "peace" that it could get that appellation, but I doubt it was really a worthwhile peace. I mean, those Israelis were sure pissed off about SOMETHING in 70 AD or whatever, and I don't think it was the Palestinians at that time. Two million dead (if we're to believe Caesar's numbers) in the Gallic Wars that established this Roman Peace doesn't speak well for its intrinsic value very much at all, in my opinion.

So, maybe the best step is to set up some kind of tier system for peace. Off-hand, I'm thinking international, domestic, and personal. Those obviously can fall into different stratifications. International, for instance, would have the objective of as little foreign military involvement as possible, and beyond that you would look at the amicability of different trade relations. I do believe that a worthwhile peace would incorporate personal peace into the international one, hence you wouldn't have exploitation of foreign workers by an exterior State because the interior one can't set up a viable safeguard for its workers.

Since teleology SHOULD manifest into action, it should set up priorities. Firstly, to end war. Secondly, to resolve domestic disputes. Thirdly, to best accomodate the reality of "the pursuit of happiness". Does that give us a definition?

Maybe. I guess we're left with "the relative absence of discord, primarily at the interpersonal level." Shit, have I exceeded my name-dropping quota? If not, here's some Plautus for you: Homo homini lupis est. (I've seen syntactical variations, don't bother telling me I got it wrong.) "Man is a wolf to [other] men", or more succinctly, "people will always be assholes".

I bring up dead Romans for the same reason I brought up hot and cold. I think itt's a rule of thermodynamics that you can't reach absolute zero in a closed system, so there is no such thing as 0° Kelvin. If you define "cold" as the absolute lack of heat, you make the equivocation that cold is impossible. Same goes for peace. Peace as an absolute is a worthless destination because it won't be reached, ever. Peace as a direction is essential because it's the only way we can stay alive.

[Big Papa Goat]

Alright Preech, when are you going to come out of your Hegel-closet?

[Sethomas]

Is this tragedy, or have we reached farce?

[kahljorn]

"people will always be assholes"

would people not be assholes if their interests were fulfilled to some extent? is it even possible to fulfill people's interests and provide them with a worthwhile existence that doesn't require animal nature?
I don't know ;( Usually the more equitable the community, the more "happiness" and "peace" there is, but equity becomes difficult with overpopulation.

"Firstly, to end war. Secondly, to resolve domestic disputes. Thirdly, to best accomodate the reality of "the pursuit of happiness""

Yea the ideal of "Peace" should be eudomonia for everyone. But that's human-societal ideal, anyway, so I wonder if "peace" is better left as a contrast for war. Anyway, "peace" to some extent has always come from some type of social contract idea, sort of like pax romania, especially relating to the community/political/ other interpersonal levels. "peace" is an abstraction of compromise for stable function, war would be it's counterpart-- compromise of a compromise, with instability aimed towards future stability. Kind of like any cultural advancing, except with HUMAN LIVES.

[Grislygus]

...peace itself (which I believe to be a state of utter comfort and security).

So, your definition of peace is something along the lines of what Kevin said was: "a nuclear Iran (is) better than dead Iranians and dead American soldiers."


Oh, but you said, "utter."

That means you believe peace is unobtainable.

See how that works?

Leave me out of your little spats, okay? My definition is an open-ended one, and you're immediately trying to nail it down into a black-and-white technicality to help you in your eternal argument with everyone else.

I wasn't given any GUIDELINES for my freaking definition of what peace is like in happy-go-lucky fairyville and unicornland, allright?

If true peace could possibly be obtained in the real world, which I believe to be impossible, (but you deduced that allready, didn't you, Holmes?) I believe that the world would be in a permanent state of comfort and security, due to the lack of aggression and the general aura of goodwill, understanding, and various other imaginary ideas.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

So Grisly, to you, is peace something (or an understanding) that can be reached between two actors, or is peace only truly reached when everyone gets along, and there were no wars, like in a John Lennon song?

[Grislygus]

Peace itself is relative, any time that there is no serious conflict qualifies as "peace". If you are feeling kind of whimsical and generally untroubled on a lazy Sunday, that also qualifies as "peace".

But when I think of peace as an ideal, yes, the first thing that comes to my mind is everyone getting along, with no wars, like in a John Lennon song.

[Preechr]

"IF war is, indeed, as you say, occurring from within conflict, Peace... it's opposite, must actually be born from a convergence of self interest. "

"so I suppose peace would occur when all people's interest are the same."

i don't know i feel the bases are already covered as to your three posts.

Why do you repeat what I say as a response? Three posts of you repeating what I said.

Umm, I started out by saying you had hit upon the most relevant point to be made so far in this discussion. I just said that in a mean way to even out the compliment.

Calm down.

Breathe.

Read.

You get so excited by an argument you lose track of it, kahl.

Really I wonder whether or not war is a natural process of the human enviroment and if it can even be overcome...

Well, we already established peace beats war. BPG calls me Hegelicious partly because I wear my positivity on my sleeve (partly also probably because I'm a mish-mash of BS that sometimes sounds like it might make sense,) so you know I'm gonna say peace is in fact possible.

I find Kevin's original question to be much more important than all the little tangents that can spring from it. You say we can claim negative feelings to be "unpeaceful." Does that mean you want to expand the definition of peace to include only sunny days where everybody gets a lollipop like Grislygus?

Seth brought up a tier system, which should be looked at. "International, domestic, and personal..." Can we say we live in a peaceful world if it is free of war even if maybe one or two of us live in violent neighborhoods or households? THAT's why we have to define peace.

Democrats argue that Iraq is less peaceful now because "personal" "unpeacefulness" has increased. Republicans say Iraq is more peaceful now because it's leadership is democratic and not threatening it's neighbors with war. Neither position is entirely RIGHT, in my mind, but the central disagreement on Iraq is what peace is. Factoring in for time, I believe the hawkish position is more correct in the shortest timeline, even though it's still uncomfortably a long one.

I could take the easy way out and say a peaceful world is one without war. I fully see that world happening. I think war is on the road to being proven impractical as a means to any end. Instead, I took the position that peace is meeting political goals without the use of violent means. Peace is a world of representative governments. I think those two positions are pretty much the same thing, but the second is a little harder to imagine happening I suppose.

Representative "Democracies" are the path to peaceful and productive personal lives for all of us. The absence of that government style is the path to war.

[theapportioner]

I seriously wish this forum had a feature that allows you to block annoying/retarded posters.

Anyway, to state the obvious, war and peace are two ends of a spectrum. Politically, you have all sorts of things in between, from stability to immigration restrictions to tariffs to embargoes to cold wars and so on. However, I don't think the terms are as relative as Seth implies, with his examples of the ordinary language usage of "hot" and "cold".

As far as a peace platform is concerned, it depends on precisely defining one's goal. Is it to aim for one end of the spectrum, peace? Or to avoid the other end, war, by all means necessary? These are two different things. Personally, I think that as #1 priorities, both positions are myopic ones to take, and although the latter one is more palatable, and is an important part of diplomacy, it shouldn't necessarily be the sole, or even core, aim. I mean, should we avoid war while someone like Hitler is gassing millions of Jews? Clearly there's a problem with either position.

Or is the goal something else, like the promotion of a free, democratic society, or preserving human rights, and so on? If it's this, then war and peace become means to an end, and may both be appropriate under different circumstances. How one goes about promoting a free, democratic society is then tempered by one's approaches--i.e. bombing the hell out of autocracies, or finding more diplomatic means to achieve the same end.

[Grislygus]

Does that mean you want to expand the definition of peace to include only sunny days where everybody gets a lollipop like Grislygus?

Peace itself is relative, any time that there is no serious conflict qualifies as "peace".

[kahljorn]

"Umm, I started out by saying you had hit upon the most relevant point to be made so far in this discussion. I just said that in a mean way to even out the compliment. "

thanks.

"Does that mean you want to expand the definition of peace to include only sunny days where everybody gets a lollipop like Grislygus?"

not really id like to keep it from getting that far like i said that's more of a human-societal ideal than anything. Still, war and violence can exist in more forms than politically motivated slaughter, and even politically motivated violence can exist in forms other than war. I pretty much feel we agree on this like we do on most topics...

" I think war is on the road to being proven impractical as a means to any end."

You know I have to disagree with you on this. Maybe in the modern world it is impractical as a means to any end, but in most other time periods war played important roles in thefoundations of various empires and their legacies which still touch the world. I'm writing a documentary. If you removed war from the history of the world things would be much different. Whether we're talking idealogical wars or physical ones it doesn't really make a difference, wars are not impractical as a means to acheive an end.

[Azrael]

I feel peace is an unattainable goal. Religious dogma aside, humanity as a whole falls into one of two catergories. You have "good" and "evil"(for lack of better terms). Now these words are subjective as far as making a text-book definition of them. But the very idea of their respective meanings can generally be agreed on by most people.

Good-being a person who respects his fellow man, and generally works to eitheir make the world a better place, or simply minds their own, and doesn't cause undo suffering towards his fellow man.

Evil-being a person who has no disregard for his fellow man, and sees man as an expendable commodity ripe for expoitation, or a person who does cause undue suffering towards his fellow man.

No matter what you believe, I feel that every person on this Earth falls into one of those two categories. Do you do charity work down at the Children's Hospital, or would you like to blow up the Charity Hospital to see all of the bloody carnage? If this question is taken seriuosly, you will fall on one side of the fence or the other. There will be no middle-ground, as even simply ignoring the Children's Hospital, you are on the "Good" side, as you are not causing suffering. The sad reality is, the world is full of people who would very much blow up the Hospital, for many reasons. It could be done to make a Political and or religious statement, it could be done to send a message, or it could be as simple as one man getting his jollies from it. Death is the ultimate attention grabber, people drop the apathy when lives are lost. It unites and or divides, depending on what your ultimate goal is. That is the whole idea behind "Terrorism" Death creates fear. Fear creates submission. Submission creates extermination. You will always have people working to bring about the extermination, no matter what their reasoning may be.

That is why I define peace as nothing more than a noble idea. It is something definately worth striving for, but is an unnattainable goal. The world is a swirling mass of chaos, and for the "good" to exist, there must be an "evil" lurking around the corner to counter-act it. Without the war-mongers to counter-act the peace keepers, the entire balance of the world is lost. Creating one thing ultimately requires the destruction of another.

[kahljorn]

"Evil-being a person who has no disregard for his fellow man, and sees man as an expendable commodity ripe for expoitation, or a person who does cause undue suffering towards his fellow man. "

but exploitation pertains to life. Life itself is a series of exploitation, we exploit cows, birds, the environment, eachother whatever to survive and get ahead, without exploiting we would all be dead. I liked your second definition the best. Exploitation for survival isn't "Undue".

"Do you do charity work down at the Children's Hospital"

What about the charitable person who only does it for attention and glory. "Hey like if i do charity work that girl will think im caring!" "If i do charity work I can put it on my resume".

"as even simply ignoring the Children's Hospital, you are on the "Good" side, as you are not causing suffering."

But you're not helping. Let's use a better example, what if a children was being beaten next to you and you ignored it. You're not causing suffering at all, but you're certainly not being "Good". I always thought good was more of a progressive state in which the amount of "Good" and "Happy" things you cause (or attempt to cause) are more than the evil things you cause. Not doing anything particular isn't helpful or good, although not particularly evil either, if anything it's still "Selfish". No action=action.