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.
if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound.
If it's in a vacuum, then it wouldn't make noise. Therefore, if there is a world devoid of war, then they wouldn't know what peace truly is, as they can't make a definition for war as they've never experienced, thus, they can't make a definition for peace, as it is simply a lack of war.
If it's in a vacuum, then it wouldn't make noise. Therefore, if there is a world devoid of war, then they wouldn't know what peace truly is, as they can't make a definition for war as they've never experienced, thus, they can't make a definition for peace, as it is simply a lack of war.
Its in a forest, not a vacuum, and it does not matter if you don't recognize it, it still exists.
Never said it was in a forest. Also, it still proves the point that there are situations where if a tree falls, it doesn't make noise.
it does not matter if you don't recognize it, it still exists.
But for a world without war, war doesn't exist at all. And it never will unless introduced to them. Sure, WE recognize it because it exists too us. Just like how in a vacuum, matter doesn't exist, as it's a vacuum.
Lorenzo's Law! Ah, long story. We have this Italian Kid in our Phsical Science class, and almost everything he offers ends up happening in a vacummn...
Anywho, its really a paradoxial statement. You really cant have one without the other, as I'm sure others have pointed out before me. If there was no war, there would always be peace, but since there always is peace, they may soon in later generations forget what 'eace' really is. And they would totally undervalue its meaning.
Reminds me of a bunch of those 'one hand clapping' kinda things...
But for a world without war, war doesn't exist at all. And it never will unless introduced to them. Sure, WE recognize it because it exists too us. Just like how in a vacuum, matter doesn't exist, as it's a vacuum.
It does not matter if war was never introduced to them, peace was introduced to them, peace and war are opposites, they can not coexist in the same area, if there is no war there is peace, if there is no peace there is war, there is no grey area in the middle, it is either one.
It does not matter if war was never introduced to them, peace was introduced to them, peace and war are opposites, they can not coexist in the same area, if there is no war there is peace, if there is no peace there is war, there is no grey area in the middle, it is either one.
No peace was not introduced either, as that's what it's always been for them. It may be peace by OUR standards, but not theirs. Using your example of no white or black, in this case they wouldn't have either white or black. They'd have...nothing. Probably red. Maybe blue, idk.
There is no such thing as a true vacuum. If for example a tree fell over in space it would hit some randomly passing molecule of gas at sometime thereby making a sound possible.
No peace was not introduced either, as that's what it's always been for them. It may be peace by OUR standards, but not theirs. Using your example of no white or black, in this case they wouldn't have either white or black. They'd have...nothing. Probably red. Maybe blue, idk.
Yes, peace by our standards, when we use words we tend to use them based on our definitions, not a non existent definition, they would not have a definition for peace(as in a variation of peace, they could easily use the word peace as a synonym of rock) because there would only be one state in which to exist, it would always be peaceful, they would not call it normal because calling it anything would indicate they would be trying to distinguish it from something else, which would be useless if there was nothing to distinguish it from. Also white and black is much different because there is an inbetween.
Yes, peace by our standards, when we use words we tend to use them based on our definitions, not a non existent definition, they would not have a definition for peace(as in a variation of peace, they could easily use the word peace as a synonym of rock) because there would only be one state in which to exist, it would always be peaceful, they would not call it normal because calling it anything would indicate they would be trying to distinguish it from something else, which would be useless if there was nothing to distinguish it from.
So in short your saying that it's impossible for the people without war to have peace, therefore agreeing with me.
Also white and black is much different because there is an inbetween.
The inbetween for red and blue is purple... >.>
There is no such thing as a true vacuum. If for example a tree fell over in space it would hit some randomly passing molecule of gas at sometime thereby making a sound possible.
True, but this was a purely philosophical view/example. Making it irrelevant if there can be a perfect vacuum or not.
Without war, obviously, the only thing left is peace.
Then again, that doesn't necessarily mean that the people would enjoy peace as much as in a world filled with war.
What pacifists look for is not the concept of not being in conflict with other beings, but the -feeling- of serenity and security it gives, obviously. So let's see.
If all the wars afflicting our planet were to finish today, that joyful feeling would last as long as the remembrance of war is stuck in our memory. Which means, for some it could take years, for others a whole lifetime, for others much less. But what matters is that in a new generation of people, "Peace" would become empty and meaningless.
New problems would rise, because we are part of the animal world and as such we can't accept our present conditions without aiming at something higher, and if the word "war" would become just another word in history books, so does "eace".
So my answer is, in a nutshell: with no war there is no peace, but "eace".
So in short your saying that it's impossible for the people without war to have peace, therefore agreeing with me.
Nope, I'm saying they would not have a [proper] definition of peace so when examining this hypothetical world the only definition we can search for is ours, and they would have our definition.
With the world population rising way faster than the amount of scarce resources can be naturaly reproduced, i think sadly war will be more, not less likely in the future. you can say what you will about increased global communications, and awareness on war's futility etc., but really none of that matters when you don't have enough to eat or drink or a place to live.
