|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 6:13 am
I just realized that freedom is a rather chaotic ordeal, where as peace is very much leaning towards order. And it also occurred to me that the two ideas, while combined frequently, would be nearly impossible to make coexist. For there to be freedom, someone will disrupt another's peace. And to enforce absolute peace, anyone who may disrupt the order would have to have their freedom to do so taken away.
In summary, I think that freedom and peace cannot coexist, and there must be a balance, or one must choose which is more important.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:53 pm
This reminds me of a phrase from Epitoma Rei Militaris in which it says "If you want peace, prepare for war".
Interestingly enough I think that truly absolute peace would not need enforcement. But I also think that there is no such thing as that nor will there be in my lifetime. Think about it, we all fight amongst ourselves for what we believe in, and for what we think is right and correct. But since no two people are alike neither are our beliefs. For a perfect peace everyone would have to consider each other as equals in every way and I simply don't see this happening. Civilizations are based on structure, which seems to involve someone at the top and then a pyramid of people below to form a base of this "structure". For a perfect peace we would have to restructure how we "build" our civilization.
On the flip side because we are all different we need structure to keep the masses at peace with one another. So in order to keep peace even within our own societies we rely on force. The only one thing that people can unite on IMHO is the idea of self preservation. We want to live and since life is the most precious thing we have we will fight to preserve it any minute of any day at any cost. Overall it is a balance as long as we all have our different beliefs there will be squabbles about whom is right and wrong. Interestingly enough I choose being unique over ultimate peace because I think that peace would require us being all the same and thinking all the same. Really now what fun is that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:35 pm
The inability to mix freedom and peace sucks.
Why can't we all just get along?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:42 pm
But without freedom, there will also be no peace due to rebellion of the people.
The relationship between freedom and peace is very fascinating.
People want both and yet cannot maintain it well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:52 am
Earane_Fefalas But without freedom, there will also be no peace due to rebellion of the people. The relationship between freedom and peace is very fascinating. People want both and yet cannot maintain it well. But that would rewuire them to have the freedom to rebel. Again, this is looking at both from the perspective of absolutes, In mild amounts, they both do exist (I think the world leans a lot more towards freedom than peace, but there is some degree of peace)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 1:23 pm
I can't help but think of George Orwell's 1984 in this. Two of the little sayings of the government in the book are brought to mind, the third I am having trouble recalling at the moment.
War is Pace.
Freedom is Slavery.
There is an odd truth to those.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:29 pm
Hmm. This controversy is a main reason why I am realistic and more so pessimistic.
Here are my thoughts on it:
I do not think we can ever have peace, because I believe there will always be one 'bad apple,' or most likely more than one, who wants something other than the typical 'world peace' whether it be to improve the human condition or or to further themselves.
Thus,if we ever did get to a peaceful livestyle for all, there would soon be another group who is probably completely against peace. This would either start a total war or the groups would span out even more. I would imagine it might be something like massive gangs causing the world peace to turn into world war.
Eventually, after a long time, people would want peace again. It would be a endless cycle. So, I think world peace is doomed from the get go, but I'm doubtful we'd even get there in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:45 pm
I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive. The only reason we have problems reconciling the two is the fact that some twisted minds like to harm others. I think that that sort of mindset though is less inborn and more a product of society. Would total anarchy eventually result in peace, probably not, I highly doubt we have the tools to rehabilitate various criminal mindests like the psycopath. Would total totalitarian goverment result in peace, absolutely not, consider Tianamen square or so many other revolutions started because of lack of personal freedoms.
Freedom outside a concept doesn't officially exist either, there are certain physical laws that prevent it, for instance the laws of gravity prevent me from flying a nice area rug around. I could go on, but here's a list of things I want to do, but can't because of various physical laws:
reading minds
walking through solid objects like walls
turning thin air into gold
posessing superpowers in general like lazer eyes or omnipotence
Likweise as people we limit the freedoms of each other by our choices:
I cannot be unborn thanks to the decision of my parents to have me
I cannot simply breathe clean air in my apartment because of all the pollution from cars people drive outside, the factories that pump out smoke, etc.
In truth, so long as we live on a planet with an ecosystem freedom is fairly nonexistant.
There are other things too, like the freedom to not be raped. It doesn't exist, because if someone is stronger than you and in a place where they can't be stopped...well you get my point I'm sure.
Also please define peace, as inside of any legal system at any given time people have inner turmoil due to various circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:24 pm
People confuse peace with order.
You can't have peace without conflict, much the same way as you can't have order without chaos.
Peace doesn't mean no one ever gets hurt, it just means everything has their role to play, and nothing tries to take more than what they're entitled. Unfortunately, as soon as our culture learned how to store food they forgot this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:15 pm
It has been my opinion for some time now that any sort of absolute peace would lead a society to stagnation and eventual death.
Conflict is necessary to prevent stagnation.
Conflict comes from people expressing differing views and opinions, sometimes in violent ways (war).
Therefore, a certain amount of freedom of expression and action is necessary to keep a society vital.
Too much freedom will result in the exploitation of the weak, simply because the strong can and regardless of how they may be able to benefit others if they are left alone.
A certain balance is necessary, but the perfect balance has never been struck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
