Topic. I have an extreme hate for OPs, since they tend to try and shift the reader to one side or another. Therefore, I don't right one, unless I am explaining something.
But let's say this (hypothetical): We live in a world without war, fighting, drugs...etc. Wouldn't you say it is peaceful, or is at peace?
Looking at the world from where we stand, it would be peace. However, if you lived in such a word, the word peace may have a different meaning. It's like saying, without evil, there would be no good. If there was no evil, nothing being done would be particularly good (if you lived in the world without evil). Looking at such a world were evil exists, it would be good. The definition would vary depending on where you stand.
No, he doesn't mean 'right' as in direction. He means it as correct. So he never makes a correct OP. :P
Anyways, peace can't exist without war, and war can't exist without peace. In a world without anything that causes conflict, that would be utopia and be perfect, not peace. At least, that's what I think.
Actually everything can exist without its opposite counterpart. Peace can exist without war. If it is dark but, there is no light. Is it still dark? Yes. If it is day, but there is no night. Is it still day? Yes. If you are at peace, but there is no war. Is there peace? Yes. It doesn't matter if things have an opposite or not. Things can still be named that and you can still be in the state of said item/time/state of being.
Then yes... in order to have peace, you do in fact need to have no war. Case closed?
NO.
Actually everything can exist without its opposite counterpart. Peace can exist without war. If it is dark but, there is no light. Is it still dark? Yes. If it is day, but there is no night. Is it still day? Yes. If you are at peace, but there is no war. Is there peace? Yes. It doesn't matter if things have an opposite or not. Things can still be named that and you can still be in the state of said item/time/state of being.
YES.
All this philisophical garbage annoys me sometimes. Without any war, there is peace. That is the defenition of peace, a lack of war. It is plain and simple.
Pragmatism: action or policy dictated by consideration of the immediate practical consequences rather than by theory or dogma
Thinking about this is of no practical use to me, so why should I care?
If there was never any war since the beginning of time, wouldn't peace be non-existent or have a different definition? Everything has an opposite. Just because that opposite isn't there at the moment, doesn't mean it's not real. Such as darkness, it is a lack of light. If there was never any light in the first place, it wouldn't be considered darkness. It's all about perception and experiences. Peace would be completely different if there was never any war at all. We can only call 'times of peace' peace because we have experienced war. So no, peace can't exist without war.
[quote]If there was never any war since the beginning of time, wouldn't peace be non-existent or have a different definition? Everything has an opposite. Just because that opposite isn't there at the moment, doesn't mean it's not real. Such as darkness, it is a lack of light. If there was never any light in the first place, it wouldn't be considered darkness. It's all about perception and experiences. Peace would be completely different if there was never any war at all. We can only call 'times of peace' peace because we have experienced war. So no, peace can't exist without war.[/quote Our definition of peace can only exist without war, if there was no war and only peace peace would be considered normal so there would not be a new definition of peace, the word peace itself would become obsolete.
Actually everything can exist without its opposite counterpart. Peace can exist without war. If it is dark but, there is no light. Is it still dark? Yes. If it is day, but there is no night. Is it still day? Yes. If you are at peace, but there is no war. Is there peace? Yes. It doesn't matter if things have an opposite or not. Things can still be named that and you can still be in the state of said item/time/state of being.
This is true speaking from your current position. However...
If there was never any war since the beginning of time, wouldn't peace be non-existent or have a different definition? Everything has an opposite. Just because that opposite isn't there at the moment, doesn't mean it's not real. Such as darkness, it is a lack of light. If there was never any light in the first place, it wouldn't be considered darkness. It's all about perception and experiences. Peace would be completely different if there was never any war at all. We can only call 'times of peace' peace because we have experienced war. So no, peace can't exist without war.
This would possibly be true speaking from the other position.
Technically no, since peace would be the norm and it wouldn't really be peace, it would just be normal.
In a way, the fact that peace exists is almost a bad thing, because it means that there is enough war and violence for there to be peace. See what I mean? That's kind of advanced view of it, but that's kind of what I think about peace.
