Whether the peace that is being sought is world peace, or simply personal peace of mind, what makes people incapable of understanding that fighting for ANything merely escalates the conditions for war and dissention?
2006-07-25 08:36:23 · 12 answers · asked by Skye 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Many still are under the false belief that they must *fight* to attain the things they want in life. For them, "fighting for peace" is not at all figurative, but quite literal. And unfortunately for all of us, this kind of thinking is what keeps this planet in a perpetual state of aggression, struggle and conflict. Yet, man is not born this way; fearfulness is *learned* and the response of one who fears is often that everything "out there" is a threat to be overcome through some kind of force and coercion. I'm here to point out that love, kindness, and respect work a whole lot better.
Thanks to everyone for taking the time to share. Peace :)
2006-07-27 07:00:34 · update #1
You ask a marvellous question and your observations, that fighting for any reason only escalates things, has been shown time and again throughout history (I studied this very matter in university).
I suppose the core of the issue centres around what is meant by "peace". If peace is simply the absence of overt conflict, then fighting to destroy the enemy is probably logically consistent with that concept. It is unpalatable, cruel and hateful, but that may explain at least some of the rationale behind the mindless violence out there.
However, if by "peace", you mean a mutually supportive coexistence where differences are meaningless and social cohesion is the goal, then fighting is senseless.
Even internally (my degree is in psychology), "peace" can look like many things, from denial of any sour feelings to the unperturbable manner of people like Tibentan Buddhist monks.
It's really such a huge issue that no forum such as Yahoo answers could truly do it justice.
2006-07-26 02:49:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Ah, a very good question. It makes sense that a certain group of people would fight the people who oppress them and cause them pain, hopefully overthrowing them so that they are no longer oppressed. However, I do not understand the concept "fighting for peace." It would be nice if we lived in a world where everyone thought this was a ridiculous concept. If people all had respect for one another, EVERYWHERE, there would never be any fighting for peace, because respect brings peace!
2006-07-25 13:13:38 · answer #2 · answered by glddstgpsy26 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Fight For Peace
2017-01-18 22:28:52 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's because of our nature. Human beings are characters of conflict. We prefer to choose-- as a means to an end--a path of violence through physical means rather than a diplomatic one through discussion. Rousseau once said that man was born good, but was made evil through society. Golding opposed that with his novel, 'Lord of the Flies', by stating that society is what purifies our nature and keeps it in check, and that without society, humans are savages.
Whatever it is, after looking at this POV from both sides, it can be said that humans are just beings that look for solutions through physical actions.
2006-07-25 08:56:24 · answer #4 · answered by Phantom T 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The people who fought the invasion of the Persian empire into Greece fought for peace and attained it.
The people who fought the invasion of the Huns' invasion of Roman territories fought for peace and attained it.
The people who fought the American Revolution fought for peace and attained it.
The people who fought against Hitler in WWII fought for peace and attained it.
Throughout time it is empirically shown that peace must often be struggled for to attain it. Pacifist are like leeches on the struggles of others whom they disdain as morally inferior.
2006-07-25 08:59:01 · answer #5 · answered by wehwalt 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Fighting for peace is like eating to loose weight lol
2006-07-25 08:54:56 · answer #6 · answered by Puff 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It takes only one party to hold a fighting relationship, but it takes two parties to hold a peaceful relationship.
No matter how many parties are involved, one single unpeaceful party would make the entire group unpeaceful.
2006-07-25 09:16:16 · answer #7 · answered by Brianman3 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Call it a non-violent struggle for peace then. These are merely linguistic barriers, nothing else...
2006-07-25 09:11:00 · answer #8 · answered by rsintheatre 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Who said there's anything wrong with oxymorons? And if the say "fight" figuratively, it's not really an oxymoron.
2006-07-25 08:44:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
When we all die, then there will be no war and eternal peace will be granted back to mother nature.
2006-07-25 08:45:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋