Peace?

[Bijo]

Well, I'd like to tell ye this thread is about peace and how to establish it, and why peace doesn't exist. Mainly aimed at being philosophical and debate-like/discussion-like, as long as we keep it civilised and such.

I'd like to keep subjectivity to a minimum, and objectivity to a maximum, but of course you're allowed to express opinions, if they're suited enough. But for ascertaining truth I prefer no opinions or beliefs at all, 'cause 't seems to me they will not give us truth. We'll see.

Peace (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peace): peace (pēs) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. The absence of war or other hostilities.
2. An agreement or a treaty to end hostilities.
3. Freedom from quarrels and disagreement; harmonious relations: roommates living in peace with each other.
4. Public security and order: was arrested for disturbing the peace.
5. Inner contentment; serenity: peace of mind.


That's the basic rundown thereof.

When I observe why there is no peace, general peace, agreement, etc., I look at humans. Seems that observing humans and their traits, personalities, egos, psychology, and the likes, will provide a good basis to explain many problems in the world [related to peace].

And what is a deciding human factor to obstruct peace? Emotion. This is, what I truly see, the very human factor causing conflict so I'd like to state this following simple rule at the end of my post, but before that, first emotion.

Emotion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emotion):
e·mo·tion /ɪˈmoʊʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-moh-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and volitional states of consciousness.
2. any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc.
3. any strong agitation of the feelings actuated by experiencing love, hate, fear, etc., and usually accompanied by certain physiological changes, as increased heartbeat or respiration, and often overt manifestation, as crying or shaking.
4. an instance of this.
5. something that causes such a reaction: the powerful emotion of a great symphony.


These emotions and desires one hath, will obviously create conflict (or the general opposition of peace). [Conflict] with one another, [conflict] with oneself. To have a desire and to fight to satisfy your desire: it will lead to conflict. Envy, hate, love, joy, etc.: they're all things that can or will lead to conflict.
Inner peace is a state of mind hardly anybody has, or will ever have. Even if global or general peace is there, there is no true peace, for people have no inner peace, which can lead again to conflict within oneself and conflict with others.

Therefore:
"Emotion is, thus Peace is not."


So how do we possibly and logically achieve peace? We invert "the rule" --> "Emotion is not, thus peace is."
By having no emotion, by doing noble deeds, by following a path of light, by gaining wisdom, etc., we will have peace.

Discuss!

[Somebody Else]

Jedi!

[macsen rufus]

Nah, more Buddhist than Jedi, methinks...

but the general diagnosis I agree with: "No peace within; no peace without"

Non-attachment and mindfulness are the key (in westernised Buddhist terminology) or being "in the world, but not of it" in a Christian equivalent. Or as Gandhi so eloquently phrased it "There is no road to peace; peace is the road". Conflict is a vicious circle that feeds on itself, hence the wisdom behind turning the other cheek. It is not possible to right past wrongs by revenge, only desist from propagating them to the future. That requires a detatchment from some of our most basic emotions, or at least an awareness of them. Yet emotions are such that they can overwhelm awareness and rationality.

However, that said, psychopathy is also associated with lack of emotion, so it cuts both ways.

[Marshal Murat]

Being detached from the situation lends your ability to determine peace.

Its common enough on this forum. People who comment on American issues point out "Why don't you do this." They have no stock in the situation, which doesn't mean it isn't credible, but that they don't understand the human emotions involved.
Par example-Israel/Palestinian Conflict
We point out all these possibilities, but it doesn't help the situation.

If you do something that helps others but goes against your instinct, your either doing something good or very stupid.

If your an anti-abortion politician but your voting bloc is a greater percentage pro-choice, you either face politican suicide if you go anti-abortion, or re-election for pro-choice.

This problem is interesting. By taking the statisical viewpoint, your going against your instincts and what you were brought up with, but your being the representative of the people, what your elected to do. On the other hand, lending yourself to anti-abortion, you represent who you are, and will go down full of respect for standing up for what you believe in, but are still not re-elected.

Emotions exemplify who You are, and probably allow you to live with yourself.
Peace requires detachment from vices (pride, honor, greed, advancement)

[Papewaio]

Too detached and you will get into another set of vices such as procrastination, poor hygiene and sloth.

Most wars are over limited resources from land and oil to hairspray and mate selection.

[KukriKhan]

We have lots of practice waging war. But not in waging peace.

We can't even define peace, except in terms of war (see the starter post).

If we could find a way to focus the same ferocious intensity we wage war with, to wage peace, we might get somewhere.

Sadly, such efforts are contingent on a "you first" negotiation position... except by war-weary survivors of prolonged conflicts, who were usually neither the instigators, nor the formal combatants of those conflicts. With little more to lose, those survivors manage to find a way to the common ground that eluded their leaders.

Even more sadly, those short-lived periods of peace, and the roads that led there, are forgotten in less than a generation.

For a while, I thought that the African "truth and reconciliation" paradigm might show us the way, and it does show us westerners important lessons. But, it too, needs "war deeds" to have been committed before it is invoked and works. And my jury is still "out" on how long that works, without some future revenge rearing its head.

Someday, we'll figure out a way to go from the 'conflict-fight-resolve-prosper' plan to the 'conflict (skip fight)-resolve-prosper' plan.

If that makes any sense.

Cool topic.

[Bijo]

We can't even define peace, except in terms of war (see the starter post).

If we could find a way to focus the same ferocious intensity we wage war with, to wage peace, we might get somewhere.

But by peace I meant the general meaning thereof, not just in relation to war as we know it - armies, nations, etc., at war, or not at war. That's why I used the term conflict 'stead of war to point out the overall generality. And by conflict [with oneself and others] I mean for instance exactly these emotions, instincts, and the likes, preventing one from having a peaceful mind, and preventing others from having peace(ful minds), and so forth.

War, this term, I think, when applied to society itself, is about everyday conflicts (or non-peace) between everyday individuals. Based on the same principles starting wars, it's just on a "lower level" so to speak in terms of authority.

A basic emotion such as fear is a very dangerous one, and combined with ignorance or irrationality we have a sure way of things going sour between people(s) (in society), even if their fear has no proper basis or ground.

To continue about peace, 'tis this everyday conflict, emotion, anger, fear, etc., of others and to others, obstructing peace, and I really include the most simple stupid things such as love.
Example: I'm walking down the street with my girlfriend and we're totally happy, then sitting in a café happily. There's another guy nearby who isn't happy at all because he's lonely, has problems, etc., sees us, and what he feels is ENVY, anger, and hate towards me. This is non-peace, for his mind is in conflict due to his emotions, and could easily lead to conflict with me or others, and whatever else this chain reaction of cause and effect might put forth. And his non-peace/conflict in the mind, came to be (or was actually there already, but now more active) because of the (happy) emotions me and my girlfriend had.

So to finally address ye, KukriKhan, I think we can actually define peace, unrelated to war which we know so well

Not even positive emotions would be allowed, then, to further peace.

[Beirut]

Victoria Secret model, big screen TV, and enough money to live.

Give that to every man and you'll have peace.

[KukriKhan]

Victoria Secret model, big screen TV, and enough money to live.

Give that to every man and you'll have peace.

And a dog - a good dog. :)

I'm with you, Bijo, in your attempt at a definition of peace.

But I think your Buddhist-like "denial of desire" model, though commendable (and obviously workable, by huge numbers of practitioners world-wide) ignores the other-than-peaceful-intent of other humans in the world.

I submit that we, as a species, have never seen, peace; but rather, a series of cease-fires of varying intensity and duration. And this, whether we are talking about nations, tribes, families or individuals.

Therefore, I think the pursuit of peace, as an end in itself, is doomed to failure*, and we have to find some other, more tangible "end" (that perhaps has peace as a prerequisite) to succeed. Maybe: prosperity.

*believe me, as a '60's peace-nik, no one regrets this failure more than I

[Bijo]

@KukriKhan
Hmmm, you raise a good new point. I like the idea of ceasefires 'stead of peace, as I, too, think this is so. But it sounds very much the same to me, though, but nevertheless..... non-peace/conflict/war is continuously, and when we think there's peace it's actually a mere ceasefire, thus the conflict never ends. Might that be a way to further describe your point of ceasefires?
I think you are right when you say the pursuit of peace is doomed to failure, unless of course we can still control or get rid of those emotions, something most likely not to happen. Or perhaps we must reeducate all of humanity, but that looks like an impossible task.

[Yun Dog]

A basic emotion such as fear is a very dangerous one, and combined with ignorance or irrationality we have a sure way of things going sour between people(s) (in society), even if their fear has no proper basis or ground.

To continue about peace, 'tis this everyday conflict, emotion, anger, fear, etc., of others and to others, obstructing peace, and I really include the most simple stupid things such as love.
Example: I'm walking down the street with my girlfriend and we're totally happy, then sitting in a café happily. There's another guy nearby who isn't happy at all because he's lonely, has problems, etc., sees us, and what he feels is ENVY, anger, and hate towards me. This is non-peace, for his mind is in conflict due to his emotions, and could easily lead to conflict with me or others, and whatever else this chain reaction of cause and effect might put forth. And his non-peace/conflict in the mind, came to be (or was actually there already, but now more active) because of the (happy) emotions me and my girlfriend had.

So to finally address ye, KukriKhan, I think we can actually define peace, unrelated to war which we know so well

Not even positive emotions would be allowed, then, to further peace.

Good thread


I think the above is the critical failure here

Its the fear emotion particularly I want to concentrate on. Before there can be peace people have to conquor their fear of each other. We need to understand that people from other cultures, are still just people, with the same dreams as you. Yet through various devisors eg. ignorance, religion, culture, breeds peoples fears that other people are not like them and thus they fear them and mistrust them. Certainly their are people within our own society (wrongdoers) who we should not trust. But these people are in all societys and in general they are the exceptions in a community not a reflection of the community as a whole.

To achieve peace the walls or devisors between groups needs to be removed, we can only hope that through education and tolerance the human race can overcome its tribal instincts and become a global tribe.

as for peace within = peace without

I agree whole heartly this would be the perfect ideal for all people - but peace within may only be attainable for few, most will not get close to peace within - unfortunately. The most I think we can hope is for the masses to attain sufficient understanding of each other to remove most of the fears and doubts that separate us.

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

Again, kudos for the thread, great topic.

War is wage by the few at the cost of the many. War is waged as the leaders seem to feel that X is a worthwhile price to pay for Y. the phrase "National Interest" is the main problem with most of the international conflicts today, someone decides that our "national interest" are more important then your "national Interest" and we are willing to pay for it in every way imagined.

Peace has no winner and no looser. The only lasting peace (relative that is) has come about from serious concessions from both sides and a willingness to put aside personal or national egos or interest for the greater good.

while some people prosper others suffer, this is always going to lead to desperation and desperate people do desperate acts. there needs to be more concern, willingness and action to help a fellow man for no reason other then the fact they need help.


On another point, sometimes the only people that can't see whats going on is the people in the middle of it all, perspective is a valuable commodity.

[Marshal Murat]

Fear motivates men to war.
Anger and Hate keeps it going.
Sorrow ends it.

Fear is the greatest motivator for war. Whether real or imagined, it will start wars like no ones buisness.
When you start fighting, you grow to hate, despise, admire, respect, and feel the fury of the gods course through your blood. You will fight, and fight, and fight because they have killed your buddies. They struck your hometown with a bomb.
The final toll, the death, destruction, and MAD on the battlefield scale (both sides are to tired to fight on) you feel sad that you had to carry away so many lives.

Wars have started about soccer (there were other causes but it ignited the incident) and about racial superiority. However, fear of what the other side can do will make you think there is a need for a pre-emptive strike.

Peace requires some emotion if your currently in one. Sorrow. Pain. Suffering. Those will drive men to end the whole affair.

[Andres]

"Emotion is, thus Peace is not."

If that would be true, then I don't want peace. Having emotions is inherent on being human. A human being without emotions has lost its' humanity.

"Emotion is not, thus peace is."
By having no emotion, by doing noble deeds, by following a path of light, by gaining wisdom, etc., we will have peace.

I feel love, desire, fear, anger and, I admit, sometimes envy.

But I'm happy. I accept myself as I am. My emotions are there and I have to struggle with them sometimes, but I wouldn't want it any other way. Without my emotions, I wouldn't be able to be happy. I would be a stone, a robot, an ongoing machine. How contradictary it may sound, those burning emotions inside are what makes my life worthwile and intresting.

Maybe peace is impossible, since it's not human and therefore maybe not even a desirable state...

@Bijo: great thread!

[yesdachi]

Peace is relative.

[Bijo]

Thanks, guys, for the 'good thread compliments' and all of your contributions. What can I say? I just love these kinds of topics


@Yunus

The most I think we can hope is for the masses to attain sufficient understanding of each other to remove most of the fears and doubts that separate us.

O yes, I think that's indeed the best we can hope for, at least, but when I include Andres' words-

Maybe peace is impossible, since it's not human and therefore maybe not even a desirable state...

-I, cynical as I am, think that it, indeed, would not happen and that we humans are not designed to achieve peace. Think of the scale involved, finding ways, methods, to actually get this understanding and removal of doubts, fears and other negative emotions. A total overhaul of humanity: it would cause many new problems, but maybe I'm thinking about a too big thing here. There might be ways.


Way I view humans generally, is that they are animals with those basic instincts and emotions we've been talking about. But I think humans are worse than animals. Not only do we/they still possess these tribal/animal/beast-like traits in some form more or less, we have more intelligence than our wild pets we put into zoos. And it is intelligence, creativity, resourcefulness, etc., wherewith we even take our destructive evil natures to greater heights.

Our intelligence, combined with, and even influenced by, those emotions and instincts, seriously threaten the world and peace (on all levels) more than ever.

The fact that man hath ideas aplenty makes us sophisticated and brutal creatures. And if humans are not to be at peace, if we are naturally designed, like animals, to constantly be in conflict (and an occasional ceasefire), then it's truly a most undesirable race.... the human race. So many great abilities, and what do we do? We fuel our most basic evil desires, thoughts, and the likes.

[Vuk]

My simple Philosophy? If you want peace; prepare for war. :D

[Yun Dog]

Thanks, guys, for the 'good thread compliments' and all of your contributions. What can I say? I just love these kinds of topics


@Yunus

O yes, I think that's indeed the best we can hope for, at least, but when I include Andres' words-

-I, cynical as I am, think that it, indeed, would not happen and that we humans are not designed to achieve peace. Think of the scale involved, finding ways, methods, to actually get this understanding and removal of doubts, fears and other negative emotions. A total overhaul of humanity: it would cause many new problems, but maybe I'm thinking about a too big thing here. There might be ways.


Way I view humans generally, is that they are animals with those basic instincts and emotions we've been talking about. But I think humans are worse than animals. Not only do we/they still possess these tribal/animal/beast-like traits in some form more or less, we have more intelligence than our wild pets we put into zoos. And it is intelligence, creativity, resourcefulness, etc., wherewith we even take our destructive evil natures to greater heights.

Our intelligence, combined with, and even influenced by, those emotions and instincts, seriously threaten the world and peace (on all levels) more than ever.

The fact that man hath ideas aplenty makes us sophisticated and brutal creatures. And if humans are not to be at peace, if we are naturally designed, like animals, to constantly be in conflict (and an occasional ceasefire), then it's truly a most undesirable race.... the human race. So many great abilities, and what do we do? We fuel our most basic evil desires, thoughts, and the likes.

This would be true, but surely as individuals and as a species we can control our emotions - greed tells us to exploit the planet - logic tells us this would not be sustainable. Anger and fear tell us to build nuclear weapons, reason tells us if we use them then we too will be destroyed along with our enemies.

The teachings of buddism etc are all about controlling ones ego and not being a slave to ones emotions, the no self state. I think that while in the past people have been manipulated by organisations preying on peoples emotions, surely there are still those in our society that are able to control their emotions and be master of them, if those peoples example was admired and copied eventually the hundreth monkey would learn it and then the whole world.

Why should people change - if the longevity of the species isnt enough, then we should rightly go to our doom, hopefully before the planet is too wrecked for something else to emerge from the ashes.

There have been many mass extinctions over the geologic history of this planet. The geological record will stand as testament to the end of the Holocene being the worst of these, both in terms of numbers of species and being the most rapid. We have the dubious destinction of being Lords over the greatest mass extinction of life this planet has ever known. This period may be refered to by whatever lifeform that replaces us as Le Grande Mortus. ALL HAIL MAN THE DESTROYER. Good riddence I say.

[Goofball]

Victoria Secret model, big screen TV, and enough money to live.

Give that to every man and you'll have peace.

Until I decide that your Victoria's Secret model is hotter than mine and bonk you over the head with a big stick.

[Bijo]

This would be true, but surely as individuals and as a species we can control our emotions - greed tells us to exploit the planet - logic tells us this would not be sustainable. Anger and fear tell us to build nuclear weapons, reason tells us if we use them then we too will be destroyed along with our enemies.

We can indeed control our emotions, but I don't see it happening. Your point stands strong, though, about the fear, anger, and the logic to withhold oneself from committing those attacks (military and politics-wise, etc.). It's not necessarily immediate destruction, but the use of fear, threat, to safeguard oneself. This would still be classified as conflict/non-peace, and it only taketh one error to go all the way.

The teachings of buddism etc are all about controlling ones ego and not being a slave to ones emotions, the no self state. I think that while in the past people have been manipulated by organisations preying on peoples emotions, surely there are still those in our society that are able to control their emotions and be master of them, if those peoples example was admired and copied eventually the hundreth monkey would learn it and then the whole world.

The idea is there, but then again... I'm skeptical and cynical. Is there really a way to have people admire others (who are few) for their no-self states and learn this for themselves ('themselves,' a term to then disappear)? I think ignorance, fear of the unknown, the thought of no financial/materialistic gain, etc., would keep people from even getting to this. It's exactly those egos that prevent them from having no ego, when it's too powerful to defeat. And O brother, what power man's emotion hath!

But it seems there are still authoritative groups/organizations aplenty to influence people's emotions, not just in the past but really at the moment as we speak. We could even include things such as commercials, TV, radio, news, billboards, and more. They all add up thereto, with the sole purpose of financial gain (and any other gain they have in mind).

About those few who are there without egos...
I wonder, how can the ones who still dwell in the dark come into contact with them? Seems to me those without their selves are kind of "disconnected" from society, which could very well have granted them the luxury position of having no ego. But by coming into contact again therewith - society - to teach these ignorant the way of peace, they risk falling into the trap and obtain non-peace again. But yeah, it's my cynicism, heh heh

It also seems to me that sometimes "one cannot exist without the other," but 'tis a loose claim. Nevertheless, those who know peace know it 'cause they know (and/or have known) non-peace, its opposite, the one which was before peace. Or 'twas the the other way around, where peace was first and then came non-peace - also a possibility.

[Yun Dog]

We can indeed control our emotions, but I don't see it happening. Your point stands strong, though, about the fear, anger, and the logic to withhold oneself from committing those attacks (military and politics-wise, etc.). It's not necessarily immediate destruction, but the use of fear, threat, to safeguard oneself. This would still be classified as conflict/non-peace, and it only taketh one error to go all the way.


The idea is there, but then again... I'm skeptical and cynical. Is there really a way to have people admire others (who are few) for their no-self states and learn this for themselves ('themselves,' a term to then disappear)? I think ignorance, fear of the unknown, the thought of no financial/materialistic gain, etc., would keep people from even getting to this. It's exactly those egos that prevent them from having no ego, when it's too powerful to defeat. And O brother, what power man's emotion hath!

But it seems there are still authoritative groups/organizations aplenty to influence people's emotions, not just in the past but really at the moment as we speak. We could even include things such as commercials, TV, radio, news, billboards, and more. They all add up thereto, with the sole purpose of financial gain (and any other gain they have in mind).

About those few who are there without egos...
I wonder, how can the ones who still dwell in the dark come into contact with them? Seems to me those without their selves are kind of "disconnected" from society, which could very well have granted them the luxury position of having no ego. But by coming into contact again therewith - society - to teach these ignorant the way of peace, they risk falling into the trap and obtain non-peace again. But yeah, it's my cynicism, heh heh

It also seems to me that sometimes "one cannot exist without the other," but 'tis a loose claim. Nevertheless, those who know peace know it 'cause they know (and/or have known) non-peace, its opposite, the one which was before peace. Or 'twas the the other way around, where peace was first and then came non-peace - also a possibility.

Yep good post

I agree the consumer society isnt geared for peoples inner peace - in fact its geared towards the opposite - constant need/want - and instant gratification. It is a pity it is not enough to listen to a veteran tell of how terrible war is, and should be avoided at ALL costs, and that be enough to convince others who have not experienced it, that it should be the last resort. These days rather the last resort it almost seems like buying a pair of shoes - pick up the kids from school, mmm better have a war with those people cause we dont like the 'look' of them, home in time to catch all the action on the 6 o clock news. Its hardly surprising given societys willingness for conflict at any opportunity, and why not, its worked very well for the Christian Western civilisations so far. Superior tech, advanced weapons, go and kick the poo out of some lesser developed people, get rich off plundering their resources, rinse and repeat.

I agree Im also skeptical as to if the human race can get to a peaceful place or will it be in constant conflict till we obliterate ourselves or our habitat so it becomes unable to support humans.

perhaps there are selective forces at work as we speak with the warmongers killing each other and the pacifists surviving and reproducing more pacifists...

In essence I see the human species much like an over population of chimps picking up a bone and clubbing each other (scene from 2001), we havent really come very far from that in terms of our emotional/spiritual development. While we have much prettier curios to adorn ourselves with, and we will pay lip service to communication and diplomacy, in the end we still want to whack each other and take each others things. Not alot ot hope for there I agree.

One thing I think we can assume, if we dont find a way to get past it, then our destruction is an issue of when not if.

[Bijo]

In essence I see the human species much like an over population of chimps picking up a bone and clubbing each other (scene from 2001), we havent really come very far from that in terms of our emotional/spiritual development. While we have much prettier curios to adorn ourselves with, and we will pay lip service to communication and diplomacy, in the end we still want to whack each other and take each others things. Not alot ot hope for there I agree.

One thing I think we can assume, if we dont find a way to get past it, then our destruction is an issue of when not if.

Hah hah! Chimps 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of those movies I need to watch again, 'thas been a very long time ago.

It's true about the emotional/spiritual development, and also the technology and such you mentioned. So much technological scientific advance, but no spiritual, social, and emotional advance. Efforts to reach good, 'stead of evil. Though there are some organizations with noble, good-hearted, and philanthropic goals and natures, I think they're merely outnumbered by the majority that consists of the typical individuals (or should I say collectives simultaneously?) who are to greedily benefit only.

Not even the Catholic Church, one could think that it's actually about a noble religion in the service of good and spirituality, but if we look at history and the usual power struggles of man we see much evil therein, is a group or movement aimed at peace: I think it's a group aimed to achieve power, but I think I'm going to start a new thread on that; religion.

I'm not so sure about-

One thing I think we can assume, if we dont find a way to get past it, then our destruction is an issue of when not if.

-that. It sounds reasonable, I grant you that. But maybe we'll be so innovative enough to even extend our ways of destruction in the future. Perhaps technology will enable us to forever live in conflict/war.
To a great degree it's been happening already with the advance of science (used for bettering human life standards, monetary gain, and especially methods of destruction, etc.) throughout history. If we've been able to sustain so much destruction - humanity - up until now, finding ways to extend it all including our lives, there's a good chance technology/science will continue doing this.

Until I decide that your Victoria's Secret model is hotter than mine and bonk you over the head with a big stick.

I think this funny short sentence of few words says a lot too.

I feel love, desire, fear, anger and, I admit, sometimes envy.

But I'm happy. I accept myself as I am. My emotions are there and I have to struggle with them sometimes, but I wouldn't want it any other way. Without my emotions, I wouldn't be able to be happy. I would be a stone, a robot, an ongoing machine. How contradictary it may sound, those burning emotions inside are what makes my life worthwile and intresting.

I understand.
There've been times I was able to detach myself from emotions and really feel inner peace, some kind of "non-existence" or "emptiness" of mind and everything around oneself, and nowadays I've been trying to regain the ability (and it works quite well and fast, if I say so myself) about the emotional part.

But what's said about making life interesting or worthwhile is true. I've noticed the following kind of personally more or less:

Peace requires detachment from vices (pride, honor, greed, advancement)

Too detached and you will get into another set of vices such as procrastination, poor hygiene and sloth.

Advancement, poor hygiene, sloth: in a way I've had these when 'twas about emotional detachment (but many time it wasn't).

If man gets too detached, he'll indeed achieve inner peace most likely, but he risks the trap of the above negativities. However, when one is at peace, I think those "negativities" wouldn't matter anyway, because this person exactly is at peace. And 'tis this peace that brings along those situations with it.

Therefore, what's better?
To live in conflict, negative and positive emotions alike, to have no peace whatsoever in any circumstance, but you might be happy; or to live in peace which brings poor states of life standards with it, no joy, no emotion, no conflict, apathy, etc.?

Easy Street, non-peace; the hard way, peace; or is there a middle road? (One might even argue peace is the easy street, while non-peace is the hard way.)


Also, the following is of very extreme logic or drastic action (but the basic principle or idea has been in this thread already I think):
If peace is a state of being wherein there's no conflict, it would mean that to achieve it, non-existence (in the broad sense) would suffice as well. And by non-existence I refer to humanity to not be alive. Yes: death.
Should peace wishers just take control and drop A-bombs to finish off everything? With this cold logic I refer to the following words to be juxtaposed therewith...

My simple Philosophy? If you want peace; prepare for war.

...where war is the destruction of man with all its necessary acts, in order to achieve said peace, which is exactly this non-existence, the destruction of man.


Personally I'd prefer the middle road, if there's one: peace AND the benefits of (positive) emotion(?). I mean: no hostilities, prosperity (which was mentioned in the thread somewhere), positive emotions, compassion, friendliness... you get the point.

[Mooks]

Who wants peace? Reading about history would be dead boring without the frequent wars and battles. Think about it.

[Yun Dog]

Who wants peace? Reading about history would be dead boring without the frequent wars and battles. Think about it.

generally speaking people who have first hand experience of war

think about it

[Lorenzo_H]

And a dog - a good dog. :)

I'm allergic to dogs.