English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

We all use words to communicate, but we often communicate that we need to go to war. When are we going to start communicating that we need to go to peace? Can humans use language to make peace as good as we do war? If so, we will succeed, if not we will destroy ourselves.
Tell me about how you see yourself using language.

2007-03-28 18:48:08 · 5 answers · asked by haywoodwhy 3 in Social Science Psychology

5 answers

yes language is very interesting, I which to discuss language with you,thats why I've added you as a contact, I have some concepts as well and would like dialogue and other opinions.
I see most of your recent questions are related to this.
This is my email zentoccino@yahoo.com.

2007-03-30 17:45:42 · answer #1 · answered by zentoccino 2 · 0 0

Words can lift a person up or destroy a person. Words are very powerful. However, communication is a lot more than words. Body language plays a big role in how we communicate as well. As for war, that cannot always be stopped with words. Look at N. Korea continuing to build it's nuclear weapons facilities. We have been talking and talking and talking to them to no avail. Also, you cannot get through to a suicide bomber with words or peace talks. Their mission in life is to destroy the enemy at the cost of their lives so they can be martyrs. Words cannot solve all the worlds problems. Actions speak louder than words many times!

2007-03-28 23:34:24 · answer #2 · answered by vanhammer 7 · 0 0

I write. I've already written one book ("Novajocks," Xlibris.com) about how alternate energy might break the hydraulic despotism that's causing the war in the Middle East right now. My next book (it's going to be the first in a series) will be about how we need a major sociological/societal change to overcome the incessant warmaking that happens regularly.

Now, the ironic part about this is that Frank Herbert wrote about hydraulic despotism in the DUNE series; in my opinion, however, he could have made it easier to understand. (I had to read the whole series several times to get it all...) Also, Kim Stanley Robinson wrote about the sociological/societal changes that would be necessary to solve contemporary problems, and he did the same thing as Herbert; he made it too complicated. I'm going to try and simplify both ideas to a point where anyone can understand, and act upon, them.

I hope it works; I'm getting tired of reading about wars.

2007-03-28 19:01:46 · answer #3 · answered by knight2001us 6 · 0 0

There are lots of things that are said without words.

Words don't always mean something, just look at politicospeak.

I think actions are much more important than words when working toward peace.

I use a lot more than words when I communicate.

2007-03-28 18:54:50 · answer #4 · answered by heart o' gold 7 · 1 0

when i talk, everybody seems to criticize..

then, why we should talk if criticisms are next in line?

2007-03-28 19:02:47 · answer #5 · answered by Chin-Aiko 1 1 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers