Political Crossfire Forums

[Saracen]

I know this seems like a stupid question, but I thought about it last night and I would like you all to share in this topic from a non-specific political view. This is strictly a Philosophical topic.

Ok, here goes. We all know that there are many ideas and concepts that come in pairs, and you usually can't have one without the other; that is, you have something and its opposite.
You can't have Good with Evil, and likewise you can't have Evil without Good, for example...

Now, you can bring about Peace with War...

But can you bring about War with Peace?

[Prog]

Moath wrote: I know this seems like a stupid question, but I thought about it last night and I would like you all to share in this topic from a non-specific political view. This is strictly a Philosophical topic.

Ok, here goes. We all know that there are many ideas and concepts that come in pairs, and you usually can't have one without the other; that is, you have something and its opposite.
You can't have Good with Evil, and likewise you can't have Evil without Good, for example...

Now, you can bring about Peace with War...

But can you bring about War with Peace?

Define what you mean by war. (violent war, I assume)

As wars go, the cold war was a ideological and relatively peaceful "war". An equal attempt at defending and maintaining their (US/USSR) relative peaceful status by the threat of mass annihilation equated to a peaceful, albeit distrustful, stalemate.

[Saracen]

Ok. Let's say you have two sides.

Them at conflict = war.

Not at conflict = peace.

[Prog]

Moath wrote: Ok. Let's say you have two sides.

Them at conflict = war.

Not at conflict = peace.

Sorry, I was editing:

War maintaining peace: The cold war as described above.

Peace bringing about war: a war of passive resistence..ie.. Gandhi/India/Britain

I believe there needs to be some form of preceding conflict which perpetuates war. This seems inherent within the concept. If peace equals a complete lack of conflict then it seem impossible that war could ever derive from peace.

[Sailor Moon]

I dont think it is possible to have total peace. If we had this, for even a moment, we would just start a war for no reason besides a power struggle, world domination, etc.

So, yes. I think peace can bring about war. Peace creates trust, and unfortunately, there are too many people who prefer drama and power to harmony.

Its human instinct to fight, anyways. Its like embedded in us. Too much peace (world peace, or utopia) actually creates distrust, and when this distrust festers, even for a moment, up to months or years, people would go crazy. With too much trust, also, comes too much power. Give a guy an inch, and he will take a mile. I know you didnt ask for political stances on this, and I want to assure you- this isnt a political argument. Its just a historical fact.

Excessive peace= excessive trust= dictative rule= tyranny= war

Thats just how it goes. Cant have one without the other.

Great post, though. I love it! Good job!

[Braveheart104]

I would think that war comes from peoples conflicting definitions of peace, Example: Hitler wants to purge the world of inferior races and have a peaceful world under a highly centralized from of government wherein one who objects with his Hitlers view of peace would be eradicated violently. Now in the pursuit of his goal Hitler would infringe on others definition of peace which would include living free from an oppressive dictator or for some, just living period. And you get the picture.

I think that as long as there is more than 1 person on this earth there will be war as you define it, both civilly (Non-violent person to person) and epically (Example above).

[Saracen]

Great answers. :-D

Keep those opinions coming...

[The Ferryman]

There never has been, never will be peace, as seventy per cent of mankind is emotionally needy; looking for orat someone else to fill their own individual emotional needs, which in reality, is their own eventual responsibility.
The 4 main emotional needs are to feel: respected/accepted/successful/hopeful.

[cassandrabandra]

Harbinger wrote: Peace always begets war. War only happens when people in different groups are unwilling to live in peace with each other. Thus war exists between nations, states (as in a civil war), villages and even neighborhoods (as in gang wars).

To elaborate, peacefull isolation gives different groups of people the opportunity to develope their idiological differences. Idiological difference are what lead to war. If you ask me, this is why standardized, SECULAR public education is necessary. A one world democracy wouldn't hurt either.

If we all had a standard secularized education where we were taught to think analytically and critically about what we were told, we could reduce the extent to which people mindlessly follow another.

The Ferryman wrote: There never has been, never will be peace, as seventy per cent of mankind is emotionally needy; looking for orat someone else to fill their own individual emotional needs, which in reality, is their own eventual responsibility.
The 4 main emotional needs are to feel: respected/accepted/successful/hopeful.

Those who experience a lack of respect, acceptance, hope or success relative to others are especially vulnerable to manipulation by others, so this is a very good point.

If all of us were accepted and respected, regardless of who we were, or what our role in society, we would go a long way towards reducing the potential for conflict. If we can all of hope of a positive future, that would also be important - but how do you ensure success? I think it takes a different way of looking at it.

One of the things we tend to do is we tend to 'norm reference' success, maybe we need to 'criterion reference' success - which probably comes from respect - so that whatever you can do, you can be successful at that.



But I think you can't have discussion of the causes of war without talking about power, and meaning.

Can't remember who it was said that the essential human drive is for power - and I think THIS is one of the major causes of conflict. We can all be sitting here comforably, despite any differences we may have, but one of us will want others to follw them, change their belief to theirs, whatever. This is about power. And as soon as you get the need for power and control over others rearing its ugly head, you get potential for conflict.

Think it was Adler who said the search for meaning is what makes us human. When someone begins to find meaning in what another tells him to believe - you have the seeds for conflict - because he who is after power has convinced another to do his bidding.



These are the seeds of war, along with constructed inequities that are not limited to economics.

[Zoot]

I assume someone has already said "fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity"?

[Saracen]

:shock:
:lol: Good one, Zoot. I've heard that a lot before as well. :)

But what if you guys think about it this way:

If peace exists over a long time, unnecessary tensions are created.
Thus war ensues...

If war previals over years, people get tired of it.
Peace is brought up....

The cycle starts over... Great posts so far.

[cassandrabandra]

Moath wrote: :shock:
:lol: Good one, Zoot. I've heard that a lot before as well. :)

But what if you guys think about it this way:

If peace exists over a long time, unnecessary tensions are created.
Thus war ensues...

If war previals over years, people get tired of it.
Peace is brought up....

The cycle starts over... Great posts so far.

many many years ago I read some work by Arnold Toynbee - his thesis was that there were three things which caused the fall of a civilization. One was external invasion, one was internal corruption, and the third was the rise of a messianic figure. My memory will probably let me down here, but I believe that these were not mutually exclusive, so a combination of these could apply.

now, you may be asking - what has this to do with it ...

I'm just thinking, if we look at Andalusia, we see a prolonged period of peace, where people of different faiths and cultures coexisted for a long period - what happened? There was invasion from the north, but there also seemed to be an element of corruption seeping in, where rulers perhaps paid less attention to the matters of the people than in the past.

Then again, if we look at Emporer Frederick of Sicily - who not only enabled his people to live in peace, but also formed an Alliance with the Roman papacy that made the twelfth century one of the most civilised periods in the history of the church. His respect for other cultures and religions, and his understanding of them, was a huge part of this. Unfortunately, such order seemed to be dependent on one man - and it was power, corruption and conniving with interest groups that destroyed the legacy of this peaceful era.

The historians among us can no doubt find any number of periods where societies were able to live in a relative peace - often this peace is only partial - the power games are probably always played out in high places to some extent - the nature of the beast - but not always affecting us ordinary mortals until there is a crisis.

I believe that the desire for power is a huge part of it. This enables the growth of corruption and intrigue that brings down or makes vulnerable those who maintain order. It sows the seeds for a new leader - whether a Christlike figure or a demonic figure who can influence others. Ordinary people probably will get on with their lives until they begin to feel they are missing out somehow - and that sense will lead them to actions against their neighbours, and this can be stirred up by those who desire power.

I was going somewhere with this - oh yes - so far we've seen this in monarchies, autocracies etc ... we really don't yet know how it works in a democracy ... my guess is that 'mob rule' is the dark side of democracy, and this can be used to place those in power who will lead us on paths which are about power and control. Perhaps Germany should be an example to us ... at least in part.

Most wars have been fought over territory and resources in the past ... so I think that this will also be a major factor now. We might live in relative 'peace', but competition for essential resources will push us into war - wherever we are. Those people who are now most vulnerable are in countries where there is oil (and there is oil in Sudan BTW), but in the future, it may be other commodities that push people to the brink of war. I don't think its any coincidence that often wars occur during times of drought.

Do people get tired of war? yes... and in fact, even repressive regimes kind of relax over a prolonged period, although a new leader, or newly identified external threat, can start purges with renewed vigour that rivals earlier leaders. But I don't think people being tired of war actually ends it ... do you know how long the there has been war in the Sudan? My friend was one year old when her parents fled with her to Kenya ... she is now 36. It is the same in a lot of places ... the peace we see is merely a watershed in a long drawn out war that lasts for decades, and shifts its fronts.

The intense wars requiring high tech weaponry probably can't go on forever ... but those requiring manpower can ... there will always be more cannon fodder as long as there are people who can identify themselves with a cause or group. And the plethora (unhealthy abundance) of weapons available on the black market, and which our governments continue to sell, ensures there is no shortage of killing tools to facilitiate civilian casualties - or 'collateral damage'.

[Prog]

Moath wrote:
If peace exists over a long time, unnecessary tensions are created.
Thus war ensues...

If war previals over years, people get tired of it.
Peace is brought up....

The cycle starts over... Great posts so far.

Is discontented peace really peace? Is true peace an illusion?

This seems to point to the fact that peace and hate (war) are not absolute concepts.

[Saracen]

Is discontented peace really peace? Is true peace an illusion?

Good question. No.

This seems to point to the fact that peace and hate (war) are not absolute concepts.

But is there some sort of absolution in two other concepts if not peace/love and war/hate?

[eynon]

cassandrabandra wrote: Moath wrote: :shock:
:lol: Good one, Zoot. I've heard that a lot before as well. :)

But what if you guys think about it this way:

If peace exists over a long time, unnecessary tensions are created.
Thus war ensues...

If war previals over years, people get tired of it.
Peace is brought up....

The cycle starts over... Great posts so far.

many many years ago I read some work by Arnold Toynbee - his thesis was that there were three things which caused the fall of a civilization. One was external invasion, one was internal corruption, and the third was the rise of a messianic figure. My memory will probably let me down here, but I believe that these were not mutually exclusive, so a combination of these could apply.

now, you may be asking - what has this to do with it ...

I'm just thinking, if we look at Andalusia, we see a prolonged period of peace, where people of different faiths and cultures coexisted for a long period - what happened? There was invasion from the north, but there also seemed to be an element of corruption seeping in, where rulers perhaps paid less attention to the matters of the people than in the past.

Then again, if we look at Emporer Frederick of Sicily - who not only enabled his people to live in peace, but also formed an Alliance with the Roman papacy that made the twelfth century one of the most civilised periods in the history of the church. His respect for other cultures and religions, and his understanding of them, was a huge part of this. Unfortunately, such order seemed to be dependent on one man - and it was power, corruption and conniving with interest groups that destroyed the legacy of this peaceful era.

The historians among us can no doubt find any number of periods where societies were able to live in a relative peace - often this peace is only partial - the power games are probably always played out in high places to some extent - the nature of the beast - but not always affecting us ordinary mortals until there is a crisis.

I believe that the desire for power is a huge part of it. This enables the growth of corruption and intrigue that brings down or makes vulnerable those who maintain order. It sows the seeds for a new leader - whether a Christlike figure or a demonic figure who can influence others. Ordinary people probably will get on with their lives until they begin to feel they are missing out somehow - and that sense will lead them to actions against their neighbours, and this can be stirred up by those who desire power.

I was going somewhere with this - oh yes - so far we've seen this in monarchies, autocracies etc ... we really don't yet know how it works in a democracy ... my guess is that 'mob rule' is the dark side of democracy, and this can be used to place those in power who will lead us on paths which are about power and control. Perhaps Germany should be an example to us ... at least in part.

Most wars have been fought over territory and resources in the past ... so I think that this will also be a major factor now. We might live in relative 'peace', but competition for essential resources will push us into war - wherever we are. Those people who are now most vulnerable are in countries where there is oil (and there is oil in Sudan BTW), but in the future, it may be other commodities that push people to the brink of war. I don't think its any coincidence that often wars occur during times of drought.

Do people get tired of war? yes... and in fact, even repressive regimes kind of relax over a prolonged period, although a new leader, or newly identified external threat, can start purges with renewed vigour that rivals earlier leaders. But I don't think people being tired of war actually ends it ... do you know how long the there has been war in the Sudan? My friend was one year old when her parents fled with her to Kenya ... she is now 36. It is the same in a lot of places ... the peace we see is merely a watershed in a long drawn out war that lasts for decades, and shifts its fronts.

The intense wars requiring high tech weaponry probably can't go on forever ... but those requiring manpower can ... there will always be more cannon fodder as long as there are people who can identify themselves with a cause or group. And the plethora (unhealthy abundance) of weapons available on the black market, and which our governments continue to sell, ensures there is no shortage of killing tools to facilitiate civilian casualties - or 'collateral damage'.

:-D You know your stuff........great post.

[cap'n queasy]

I don't think that the details of human behavior can be looked at in such a dualistic fashion.

Almost any conceivable situation is possible, really.