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.
After all, we're talking about how "say there was a world without war, then they wouldn't know what peace was."
Well...dude...they might not have the word but they are experiencing it. And imagining up this hypothetical situation then pondering if something we have would exist in this fake world...
doesn't it seem like a waste of time to you?
Sorry four double post...but I dislike philosophers...especially the ones that aren't really philosophers, they sit around for an hour, think about a thing or two and act like they are xD
Most hobbies are a waste of time to me. Playing video games is a waste, watching movies is a waste, posting on this forum is a waste. It's something to pass the time.
Here's the problem with this whole argument:
Technically no, since peace would be the norm and it wouldn't really be peace, it would just be normal.
And I re-cite the definition of the word in a 'war' context:
1. the normal, nonwarring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world.
So if peace is the very word for the 'normal' condition of a country or nation, then without war, or without there ever having been war, this definition of peace still stands true.
People things don't need an opposite to exist. Things can have names without opposites. Eventually it would be named. It does exist without an opposite.
first off theres never going to be no wars. But to answer the question war and peace are like ying and yang so if theres no war theres no peace but if 1 nation has peace another one has war and that country has peace because of the war so no peace can not be with out war
No, without war the world wouldn't exist. Chaos is the basis of all life and lif is the basis of chaos. Without war there wouldn't be a peace. Its the Ying to the Yang.
can there be good without bad? yes. but not to an extreme of actually noticing it.
War is a diplomatic decision to solve a conflict. Humans inherently believe they are always the right one; causes tension/arguments; war. humans aren't perfect.
No, without war the world wouldn't exist. Chaos is the basis of all life and lif is the basis of chaos. Without war there wouldn't be a peace. Its the Ying to the Yang.
Wow...this is a HUGE load...
Chaos is the basis of all life and all life is the basis of chaos?
What in the world would make you believe something like this? Show me examples and evidence that have you conclude that all life is based on chaos and the reverse.
See I can prove all life is based on the sun, because all organisms energy stems from the sun.
The eagle eats the fish which eats the worm which eats decomposed plants which use sunlight to produce sugars.
War has existed since the beginning of time. Cain killed his brother Abel which at the time was war because there were almost no humans on the earth. War will always exist as long as there is evil in the world to eliminate. All people have to acknowledge that there is a right and a wrong. If there is a right and a wrong they will always conflict with each other because one can not exist with the other. They are opposites. So, yes, there is no peace without war.
I'm tired about all of this ying yang, deep thought bull $h!t. Peace would have to exist if there was no war. Then if there was no war peace would always be.
Chaos is the basis of all life and all life is the basis of chaos.
Uh, maybe in your own made up world, but not in this one.
but if their was no war then peace would be so common it'll be normal, meaning they'll be no peace, but also no wars.
For the first time sonicheroes, I am agreeing with you. Say war never ever existed. Peace would not exist. The fact that there is peace means there is war and war is bad, so peace is bad too, because it means there can be war. See?
If there were never war, there would never be peace. It would be considered normal. You may disagree, but if you look at it logically you'll see that peace cannot exist unless there is war.
Then if there was no war peace would always be.
Yeah but it wouldn't be called peace. It would be called normal.
Honestly, this is just about as pointless as the "If a tree falls..." train of thought.
Anyway.
Yes, there would be peace as defined by us. Because we have experienced war, and when there is not war there is peace.
Thus, if you have no war at all you have peace. Except then the concept of peace would be an alien concept to that realm of existence seeing as they have no conflict in which peace follows. However! It would be peace by our standards. To them, it world be just...the norm.
Which was more or less all said before.
Bottom line: -If we saw such a world, we would say that they are forever peaceful. So on the outside looking in: Yes. -To such a world, peace would not be part of the vernacular or vocabulary. Yet the concept would still be there.
Once again, it's like the dang "If a tree falls..." argument.
