Originally posted by Tenchimaru Draconis
<img src=“http://www.rpgclassics.com/staff/tenchimaru/td.gif”> If the absence of war is peace, then we live in a pretty peaceful world.
Absence of war is nothing. There are other kinds of conflicts around.
Even if it were, there are about 70 wars happening at this moment (most in Africa & south Asia).
<img src=“http://www.rpgclassics.com/staff/tenchimaru/td.gif”> So if there is no conflict, there is peace? If there is no hate, there is love? If there is no colour, there is the colour black?
Love and hate are waves that may suffer destructive interference. In other words, if you eliminate one of them, you will eliminate the other one together with it.
<img src=“http://www.rpgclassics.com/staff/tenchimaru/td.gif”> Then don’t make stupid statements like the one I quoted 
Could you elaborate further on it? You eliminate a problem by its root, it doesn’t exist anymore. Why is this stupid?
Originally posted by Ren
Peace can be attained by destroying all creatures that are able to hate or to be greedy.
So basically; most of humanity?
Originally posted by Pierson
So basically; most of humanity?
All of it, but even so, peace would only be temporary. You have to add every creature who has the potential to generate an intelligent species in the future to make it last longer. True peace only comes for sure when there are no living creatures in the universe.
Which is basically why I say a little violence and conflicts here and there are not bad. It’s bad when it’s too much.
Originally posted by Ren
Could you elaborate further on it? You eliminate a problem by its root, it doesn’t exist anymore. Why is this stupid?
Originally posted by Ren
Peace can be attained by destroying all creatures that are able to hate or to be greedy.
Originally posted by Ren
Love and hate are waves that may suffer destructive interference. In other words, if you eliminate one of them, you will eliminate the other one together with it.
<img src=“http://www.rpgclassics.com/staff/tenchimaru/td.gif”> By destroying conflict, you’re also destroying peace. Think of it as that old good/evil thing. For God to be good, evil is an absolute neccesity.
It’s basically what I said, just with other words. It ain’t stupid.
<img src=“http://www.rpgclassics.com/staff/tenchimaru/td.gif”> No, you said that peace would be attained by destroying conflict/war. Without the concept of conflict, there is no concept of peace. Therefore it is impossible to achieve true peace. Look at the logic in your own arguement
Well, all i have to say is…
does she want herself murdered?
I cant imagine how many people she has after her…every deranged pyscho who wanted to kill lennon sees her as a consolation prize! So she puts herself alone onstage and hands these guys scissors?
TD: I didn’t say you should destroying conflict, or its concept, but people who cause conflicts. And my definition of peace is an absence of conflicts. No conflicts = peace, even if there isn’t a concept of peace (just like a thing that has not been discovered by man may exist even if man has no concept of it).
Devillion: you gave me an idea. If only I would be there…
<img src=“http://www.rpgclassics.com/staff/tenchimaru/td.gif”> Then your definition is flawed. Since man <i>did</i> discover the concepts of peace and conflict, it is impossible to erase them. The only way to do this would be the complete removal of everything sentient and non-sentient, aka, absolutely everything. Even inanimate objects have “conflicts” and “peace” on a cellular level, or just look at the stars. Canibalism, there’s conflict for you. But since they are intertwined concepts, if you’d remove the concept of conflict you’d remove the concept of peace, since there is nothing left to give meaning to the concepts. As soon as there is something, anything, the concepts are created again. Therefore, it is impossible to achieve total peace.
A concept is something you have in your mind, not a concrete object. It is subjective and differs from person to person.
I’m just showing my idea. I’m talking about conflicts that happen because the parts involved can’t get into an agreement and resort to brutal force or cohersion to get what they want. If they didn’t exist, there would be peace. Concrete peace, not a concept of peace.
The thing among stars and all is not a conflict, it’s part of the natural happenings in the universe and therefore doesn’t count in my ideas here.
p.s.: by your thoughts, if people haven’t yet discovered something, this thing doesn’t exist simply because there is no concept of it. In homologue form, if I don’t know the basement of the building I am in now, thus not having a concept of it, the basement does not exist and the building floats over vacuum.
<img src=“http://www.rpgclassics.com/staff/tenchimaru/td.gif”> yeah, I was a bit vague and weird about that in my last post. What I meant is that concepts always exist, as long as there is stuff to apply them to. Because man hasn’t found them just means that he is ignorant of them. Only at the complete lack of objects to apply said concepts to do they stop existing. As soon as there is something to apply them to they immediately exist, since the basis for the concepts is there.
And yes, the thing among the stars and everywhere else is a conflict, just like how we kill eachother. The basic idea is the same. Multiple forces have multiple targets, and will attempt to get to those targets, even if it means that this obstructs the accomplishing of a task of a different force. Say, I want to capture the USA. Bush doesn’t want that, but wants to capture Holland for himself. A cnoflict arises, and the winner takes his target, completes his task. How is that any different from (this is a very general example, since I know next to nothing about molecules etc) a virus trying to infect a host, but the antibodies of the host trying to prevent the infection? An atom seeking to expend (Big Bang. Loads of matter, needs expanding. Of course there are opposite forces, hence the explosion.) You get the idea.
And you were talking about total peace, not human peace. Peace on a specific level (humans) is also not possible without the absense of the objects (humans.) As long as there are people, the concept will be there for them, and there will be no total peace. As soon as they’re gone, all that remains for humans is neutrality, although the concept still applies to all the other stuff in existence. But since humanity doesn’t posses the basis for this concept (like, you know, existing :P), the concept doesn’t apply to them. Neutrality, the absence of both forces, is all that remains.
Human nature makes it inevitable for there to BE war; dif povs where differing opinions cause conflicts and relativity creates right and wrong as it is purely subjective as to who is right and wrong. What is further contradictory is that you would use a method of conflict to eliminate conflict. That is counterproductive since all that ensues is more conflict.
It’s not productive because it is utopic. even though it’s contraditory, the end would give no conditions for human conflicts to exist.
and once you’ve taken out the people that disagree, what makes you think that people won’t have kids that will disagree or keep disagreeing? Kill them too? In the end, you’re only creating more conflict. And its not utopic.
So Ren’s talking about human conflict/peace and TD’s talking about conflict/peace in a more general term
<img src=“http://www.rpgclassics.com/staff/tenchimaru/td.gif”> They’re essentially the same, but yeah
