I am confused by the philosophies and methodologies of the world. There must be a deeper meaning to peace than for 'some people' to accept 'enforced mediocrity'. I am not perfect; so please tell me...
2007-12-01 02:14:56 · 5 answers · asked by highthoughts 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I see peace on a personal level as not being in conflict within myself. On an interpersonal level (including globally) it is not being in conflict with others.
This doesn't mean we have to see things the same way, it means being respectful of all people and not forcing our ways or ideologies on others. We can explain or pursuade others to our viewpoint, but honor each individual's right to decide for themselves what they will believe.
The more people who are involved, the harder that is to achieve. This is why inner peace becomes so much more important.
I don't see peace as having anything to do with mediocrity. As for equality - that is in our equal right to choose the ideologies we will embrace.
(By the way, none of us is perfect. Only God has all the answers.)
2007-12-01 02:35:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think not, because equality does not mean peace. If all were equal, equal in opportunity and importance in society, there would be chaos. Who would make the decisions that would keep the peace? There would be insane people, with all the resources of everyone else, trying to take power. No peace would evolve from that.
Take another example. If everyone was equal emotionally , mentally, and physically chaos would also erupt. Perception and point of view would still differ between each person. If two people had the same amount of stubbornness, then neither would ever relent and see the other's view.
Total equality is impossible because humans need something to follow and without that something, we fall apart. Peace cannot be described as something so chaotic.
I suppose that peace is sometimes just a state of mind. It is never going to be possible to have total peace unless competition and anger are bred out of the human race. But then again, because of the lack of competition, society wouldn't advance. there is always someone that will disagree with whatever is happening.
2007-12-01 03:08:47 · answer #2 · answered by darkstar 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I suppose you mean equality on the human level. I think that human kindness is the answer to peace not "enforced mediocrity" which will probably just make people rebellious. I suppose human kindness will never be unanimous though.
2007-12-01 03:05:55 · answer #3 · answered by carpe-diem 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
this could be an ordinary one. If the international gets too warm, we've shown that we are able to stay to tell the tale it because of the fact the "Cradles of Civilization" have been in warm, dry areas. If the international gets chilly, then we've already shown that we are able to stand up to ice a while, and that's with none "intense" technologies. If the international gets overpopulated, it is going to, out of necessity, stability itself out. i do no longer think of we could desire to rigidity approximately surviving the subsequent a hundred years. the actual question is the thank you to we shop the subsequent a hundred years from turning out to be to be the subsequent darkish Age.
2016-10-18 11:35:15 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think not. Even if there's equality, there will still be psychos intending to create chaos no matter what.
2007-12-01 02:27:18 · answer #5 · answered by Poch_P 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋