project help: What does peace & war mean to you? - Help.com

peace = absence of war
war = absence of peace

“..what the meaning of peace and war..”

Hormones.

But you should also read Tolstoy and SunTzu. good luck :)

Peace to me means that you and another party could possibly have been previously having conflicts/arguments but have made ammends and are at a more friendly level now if that makes sense. Or they were allies from day 1 when they met.

War to me means that an opposing party of you has done something you don’t care for/like/approve of. This angers you so you take a big step backwards and attack (physically and/or verbally) the opposing party. These attacks go back and forth between the two parties and could possibly end and become what ive described as peace, or could never end.

im a bit sleepy so i think im going to hit the hay.

Half day of school tomor. so will probably come back to this post tomorrow.

Nighty night.

best book in Russian literature :)

Really, the only way to explain it is in 1200 pages. They are so complex and multifaceted. They can’t exist in isolation, only in relation to one another. War can be anything, from nations bombing another into oblivion, organizations tearing themselves apart over minor differences in opinions, families not talking for years because of some perceived slight. A child fighting to understand how to read, a sick person fighting to stay alive… Peace is the same way. Peace is the resolution, but changes the original somehow. The scar tissue over places, emotions, or memories. Peace is safe, but wary. always tenuous. Watching the sunset over Gettysburg, finding common ground, forgiving and moving on, mastering skills that seemed impossible, living.
hope this gives you some perspective!

Anonymous wrote:
peace = absence of war
war = absence of peace

peace is only achievable with war, you cant have one without the other otherwise you get dictatorship so no, peace doesnt equal absence of war, peace=war+victory

I always think of, “War does not determine who is right. War determines who is left.”
War, essentially, is akin to manipulation or bullying. It’s a way to either make someone do something, or not do something. There can be people who go to war to stop what someone is doing that they think is entirely wrong, and there can be people who go to war to cause wrong.
And peace is merely the absent of that.

My thought on it, is that normally people go to war for the wrong reasons. It isn’t some fickle decision. It kills many, many people if done as it is supposed to be done. Hopefully, there’d be no need for it. At times, we can get distanced from warfare. Unless it’s in our own country we have a hard time grasping the reality of it. It’s desperate, and a last resort.

redringedmidnight wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
peace = absence of war
war = absence of peace

peace is only achievable with war, you cant have one without the other otherwise you get dictatorship so no, peace doesnt equal absence of war, peace=war+victory

well, peace can be achieved through negotiations and treaties. war isn’t always essential

DarkSnow wrote:
I always think of, “War does not determine who is right. War determines who is left.”
War, essentially, is akin to manipulation or bullying. It’s a way to either make someone do something, or not do something. There can be people who go to war to stop what someone is doing that they think is entirely wrong, and there can be people who go to war to cause wrong.
And peace is merely the absent of that.

My thought on it, is that normally people go to war for the wrong reasons. It isn’t some fickle decision. It kills many, many people if done as it is supposed to be done. Hopefully, there’d be no need for it. At times, we can get distanced from warfare. Unless it’s in our own country we have a hard time grasping the reality of it. It’s desperate, and a last resort.

I think war has only become a last resort in modern times because of nuclear weapons. If we were to have a war begin right now involving the superpowers of the world (in terms of military strength) im pretty sure the whole thing would be over in a day because the whole world is blown up.

I also think that peace isnt just the absence of war - that is only one definition of peace. There are other conflicts besides war. Like for example when we say the water looks so peaceful, we arent saying that the water is war-free.

Basically i think that peace and conflict are related here. If we have no conflict, how would we define peace?

peace & war to me means war & peace

salim3302 wrote:

redringedmidnight wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
peace = absence of war
war = absence of peace

peace is only achievable with war, you cant have one without the other otherwise you get dictatorship so no, peace doesnt equal absence of war, peace=war+victory

well, peace can be achieved through negotiations and treaties. war isn’t always essential

if nations are willing to negotiate and settle things “peacefully” then peace has already been achieved. war is needed when peace is not achieved…which is unfortunately the usual

Blehs wrote:
I think war has only become a last resort in modern times because of nuclear weapons.

That’s one of the main things I was thinking of at the time.

Blehs wrote:
I also think that peace isnt just the absence of war - that is only one definition of peace. There are other conflicts besides war. Like for example when we say the water looks so peaceful, we arent saying that the water is war-free.

Basically i think that peace and conflict are related here. If we have no conflict, how would we define peace?

That’s a very good point. The word is shared for both things, but I normally separate it when I think of it. Though the two have a bit of similarity. For example, my view is that war and conflict should always be started to stop behavior that warrants it. If there is no better solution, and the issue is important enough, it should produce conflict. Like, if someone randomly starting insulting a friend of mine. I’d defend them and make conflict instead of passively allowing it to happen.

redringedmidnight wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
peace = absence of war
war = absence of peace

peace is only achievable with war, you cant have one without the other otherwise you get dictatorship so no, peace doesnt equal absence of war, peace=war+victory

So what your saying is that you can not have peace with anyone unless there is war first? this question is not only directed towards wars specifically, this can also deal with friendships, so every person you meet you must be in war with first before you can even consider having peace with them?

********.

I can think of at least two ways to look at it where you need war for peace.
1) Without war there is no such thing as peace. Or no way of knowing about it, at least.
2) Sometimes it is necessary to go to war to keep peace. For example, how Americans fought the British for independence to get peace. So in that sense you could need the war to get the peace at times.

/shrug/

peace - balance/acceptance
understanding differences - communication/diplomacy
war has been defined as the final act of diplomacy

conflict ensues - acceptance of defeat - terms enforced

matters resolved? - wars have rarely sustained a lasting peace.
violence begets violence. sometimes a lasting order. but order and peace - are they the same?

No. A dictator can have order within his country, but the citizens might not really feel like they are living peacefully at all.

Yep, that’s what I was eluding to. It also surprises me that the underlying issue to (I believe anyway) the internal struggle in free society, is not allowing for Fair trade. The side issues muddying how in 35 years we went from over 65% of the world’s production of goods to nearly nil. A nation of consumers now. Living under the con of rhetoric to the tune of “Competition is good. Just not with other nations.” Complacency is not the same as peace either. Because, to me peace is balance. Not unnecessary economic strain. Peace is fair.

To be fair, America has moved beyond a secondary producer to a tertiary or… quaternary was it? I forget the exact way it works as depicted in the social studies class I had years ago in high school, but we sell goods and services now, not products. Or something similar. I don’t know. It’s odd.

Odd or sucks. Depending on your place in the class system. Geez, maybe I am being a jerk tonight… But no, Sucks.

I have yet to meet a college grad who is not in debt strain. Maybe I just need to get out more….to the ball of oh so many.

Well, I don’t know if you’ve been a jerk. It wasn’t so nice to confuse people with Confucius though ^^

I’ll be in debt myself. But I’ll gladly work it off. I was given a chance, that’s enough. It was my choice to take a loan.

DarkSnow wrote:
Well, I don’t know if you’ve been a jerk. It wasn’t so nice to confuse people with Confucius though ^^

lol.:)

war is totally obsolete.Its a very poor way to resolve differences.
It never helps.In todays world its very dangerous with nukes so readilly
available.
Mankind know on some level it must come to an end.
We have banned chemical weapons because they work too good.
This is an indication that we know killing is just wrong.
Its always wrong.