Suppose this... Peace is a myth, completely. Not too hard to believe in today's world huh? But let's look at why. We have at least 2 components that I am aware of. Peace of mind, and peace around us, in the physical sence. And they are contradictory. Peace of mind means to be at peace with the way things are, so in essence, to be at peace with the fact that there is no peace. To have peace around us, as in no war, arguments or fighting, could only be the result of extreme totalarism or cencorship. And that would most definately make peace of mind impossible. So you see... Peace is a myth. There are too many individuals for us to coincide in peace.
I don't think it's a contradiction. Maybe the world is too big a place to have peace all over, at the same time, but generally, it's not a contradiction. Surpassing the peace with yourself thing (that's up to you to come to), there has been peace in, say, England, at least officially Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! for quite a while. So, that already means there can be internal (with yourself) and external (in the world) peace. Though world peace may be a whole other thing.
Too be honest, we can never have world peace. Governments profit from war and with all the mistrust nowadays, no-one is gonna get rid of their army, so world peace is a no no. But a period without national conflict, maybe, sometime in the near future
not on a large scale. Small scale might be different though. small communities have relative peace. the only way to achieve peace (not on earth) is Lebensraum.
Peace is elusive ...but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It exists in levels, like needs (cf. Maslow et al.) You have war? Then the countries involved need peace. You have political violence? Then one country needs peace. You have a neighbour with an attitude? You need to make peace, or get your head blown of for no reason. As any government will tell you - peace can be a complicated diplomatic process. I think real piece starts from within (blah blah cliche - but I can't imagine it working any other way). Put two people together who are at peace with themselves - peace. Three, four, five... still peace. Unfortunately it only takes one troublemaker, doesn't it? The problem with peace is that you can't really enforce it. You can only try to create a society in which it is possible.
man would rather take someone's food with force in 5 minutes than grow crops on our own land for half a year and hope all goes well. man is constantly looking for security, more food, if there's enough food then we're looking for a bigger house, with more stuff made for our convenience.. it's what made man and it's what's killing him.. how about evolution? could it be true that more people are born that do not care about robbing someone just because it's the easiest way of living? could it be that the human race gets more violent over the years because of evolution?
How can peace exist if the minds of the citizens are not at peace. If one cannot obtain peace withen himself how can he be at peace with the world around him?
there can be a world/earth peace- when we have colonised many planets in the galaxy and Earth is under my govern
I think that "peace" is like perception, really subjective. Inside the innocent mind of a newborn child, the only intentions and misconceptions are to feed, attach it's mouth to it's mother's body and bring the milk through his system that gives strengths to grow. That is peace to me. When someone walks into a store to buy a bag of groceries achieved through work they are proud of, there's peace in the exchange of goods that profit one another, not compete. That is peace to me. When a man or woman dies, though their physical body may be six feet under ground, and although their spirit may not actually "exist", a plate of food can still be placed over a fire as an offering, a "show" of appreciation so in the event, the slightest chance, the spirit DOES exist, the spirit will see that he was remembered, made enough of a difference in someone's life to sacrifice a plate of food, specifically in their name. How does that all work together? They take faith. The baby has no actual way of knowing the mother's breast has milk till it suckles. The man buying a bag of groceries has no actual evidence the goods are in fact, good. The people sacrificing a plate of food for an aged spirit don't know the spirit actually exists. Another point is, those happen everyday on a day to day basis just as often and "naturally" as we take each breath, it just isn't told about. The difference, however, may be that this world doesn't exist. "If it's not in our records, it simply doesn't exist" - a scientist. Place faith, chance that risks can fail, with wanting it bad enough to work for it, peace can be achieved. Take the above people I used for examples, they might be a family I live with...?
I think the problem with peace is that it is too subjective. How can you have peace between two people when they don't have the same goal in their heads? Peace is a compromise. that is why it is so hard to achieve. You have to let go of something you want. People have to let go of the idea that it's everyone for themselves and the easiest way is the best way to live. People wil have to become civilized. Strange: If peace is as naive as what you describe it will never survicve. I agree that the motives and intentions should be naive - be happy with little, have faith in a lot. But peace can't be this nebulous impractical idea and hope to make a difference.
Where on earth did this concept come from? Quite the reverse is true, ostensibly at least. Is the false notion that we're more violent nowadays attributable (ironically enough) to the fact that although we're significantly more peaceable we're still far from as peaceable as we could be. In other words, that improvement in this respect has gone hand-in-hand with raised expectations, looking for even less violence. The less positive side of our emotions being tied in with basic survival, I think we increasingly feel (as we put the dishes into the dishwasher) that it's time to pack them up and calm down. I also think that as there is less need to apply and to some extent satiate these emotions through a good hunt with a bow and arrow, for perfectly good reason, we find ourselves at an emotional loose end. War (on the streets or global) ties some of them up. That my 4 am stream-of-consciousness...
"well you're just a good fuckin' marine aren't you?" -Adam Beach (my cuz) from the movie Windtalkers -A movie about world war 2 n how the navajo were the codetalkers -see it...tell an indian again his peace is naive
peacemyth peace is a myth. nothing more then faint wishes. and you know why? cause people can't stand peace, it scares them, the very thought of say a carebear teletubie ompalompa world scares me for gods sakes. the lust for action and impluse. thrills chills and spills. thats why people even start wars and conflict. because they are bored and reckless. it's actually not that hard to picture, the thought of perfect peace, would not only be dull beyond belief, boring and repeative, doing the same thing over and over. kind of like my harping...im not saying i'd call blowing up the towers or starting wars forgivible, but i can understand why to an extent. but revolution and wars are essentially neccesary for evolution.
That wars and famine and plagues happen is irrefutable, but the manifesto of peace is that they aren't necessary. It's easy to proclaim excitement "chills and spills" out of the comfort of your own life. Tell me how you were directly affected by terrorist activity and I will tell you why you need peace. I agree that peacel, as prescribed by pacifist idealists, is unattainable simply because we cannot control what others think or do - especially not with laws. In order to make peace we have to live peace. Has anybody seen 'the sum of all fears'? Humanity seems to be surfing on waves of war and peace regardless of what they plan. PS. What do you think president Bush should do about Iraq? End a war by starting one, or start a war to end one?
