World Peace, quote contradictions?

[weltweit]

In relation to peace I have heard a number of contradictory quotations, what do you feel is the merits of the following:

1) The only thing required for evil to triumph is that good men stand by and do nothing.

2) You can make an equal contribution to world peace by staying in your garden admiring the exquisite beauty of a single flower as you can by marching off to distant lands clutching a weapon to right some perceived wrong.

The first quote is from an american whose name I have forgotten, I also forget who the second is from but there is an elegance to both, however they are contradictory.

Quote 1 says get stuck in or evil will triumph while quote 2 says mind your own business and keep your own world in order and let others worry about their worlds.

If you prefer quote 1, then who are the good men? who should get involved? everyone, just leaders? armed forces? who? and what exactly should they do?

If you prefer quote 2 how will situations in foreign lands resolve themselves without your intervention, can you afford to live in your own bubble, in your own rose garden without getting worked up about events in far and distant lands.

Are either of the quotes at all useful?

Should they both have qualifications and riders before they can be understood?

Your thoughts.

 

[Belushi]

The first quote is from an american whose name I have forgotten

IIRC its by Edmund Burke, the 18th Century English thinker.

 

[Barking_Mad]

......

Laws are rules, made by people who govern by means of organized violence, for non-compliance with which the non-complier is subjected to blows, to loss of liberty, or even to being murdered

 

[neon_mask]

I think the message being (in the entire idea of world peace) is that there is no peace except for peace inside your world. I think there has been a couple instances of large populaces maintaining peace, but it's always short lived because good and evil don't exist separately. And besides, there is never a conflict in a foreign land without someone instigating the shit in the first place, there is always that underlying motive of money and power.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace."

-Jimi Hendrix

 

[rogue_lettuce]

They're not incompatible. The first one is talking about how to stop evil triumphing, the second one is talking about how to achieve world peace. It's entirely possible that one could stand back and do nothing in the face of evil and preserve world peace but let evil reign, or that one could prevent evil only through violent conflict, thus making world peace impossible.

 

[JHE]

IIRC its by Edmund Burke, the 18th Century English thinker.

It is very very often attributed to Burke, but it is not at all clear that he ever said or wrote it.

Wikiquote has some interesting notes on this "probable misattribution": http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke#Probable_misattribution

There are other rather good oft-used quotes of unreliable attribution.

"I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." Usually attributed to Voltaire, but did he ever say it?

"One death is a tragedy; a million deaths are a statistic." Usually attributed to Stalin, but did he ever say it?

 

[isitme]

2) is rubbish tho. It is assuming that everyone in the world has the choice to sit in their garden planting flowers

1) assumes that there are 'good men' and 'evil men' which creates a problem in itself

 

[neon_mask]

2) is rubbish tho. It is assuming that everyone in the world has the choice to sit in their garden planting flowers

I think you could replace 'sitting and planting flowers' with 'admiring your hand on acid'....so it's not rubbish, the activity being enjoyed is interchangeable.

 

[isitme]

I think you could replace 'sitting and planting flowers' with 'admiring your hand on acid'....so it's not rubbish, the activity being enjoyed is interchangeable.

I understand that, what I mean is, most people are still fighting in some way or other to get a garden that they can sit in and enjoy the flowers. or a sitting room

 

[Belushi]

It is very very often attributed to Burke, but it is not at all clear that he ever said or wrote it.

Wikiquote has some interesting notes on this "probable misattribution": http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke#Probable_misattribution

There are other rather good oft-used quotes of unreliable attribution.

"I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." Usually attributed to Voltaire, but did he ever say it?

"One death is a tragedy; a million deaths are a statistic." Usually attributed to Stalin, but did he ever say it?

There's a BBC4 quiz format in there mate

 

[fela fan]

You'll only get world peace after people peace has been achieved.

It needs the revolution of the individual.

 

[i-am-your-idea]

You'll only get world peace after people peace has been achieved.

It needs the revolution of the individual.

thats it! it starts in the mind. radical mind changes = radical world changes

 

[fela fan]

thats it! it starts in the mind. radical mind changes = radical world changes

Wrong. It does not start in the mind at all. That's exactly where politics resides, and world peace is impossible with politics as humanity's driving force for organising themselves.

 

[neon_mask]

If radical ideas do not start in the mind, than were does radical change begin? The collective force of minds is the fuse before a movements explosion into mainstream culture.

 

[fela fan]

If radical ideas do not start in the mind, than were does radical change begin? The collective force of minds is the fuse before a movements explosion into mainstream culture.

Radical change, any change, starts with the individual. If you had said the collective force of individuals, i'd probably be able to agree with your comment.

Our minds are our trap. Language is the trap. Politics is the trap.

Change starts with the heart, or the soul, or some other word if you wish. But it comes from outside of the mind. The mind may put it into practice, but the force comes from outside of it. That practice, and the way towards world peace, is self-awareness and observation of all.

You asked!

 

[neon_mask]

Radical change, any change, starts with the individual. If you had said the collective force of individuals, i'd probably be able to agree with your comment.

Our minds are our trap. Language is the trap. Politics is the trap.

Change starts with the heart, or the soul, or some other word if you wish. But it comes from outside of the mind. The mind may put it into practice, but the force comes from outside of it. That practice, and the way towards world peace, is self-awareness and observation of all.

You asked!

Ok, I can dig that. Feelings are the start of a revolution. And I agree our minds are traps, but they are also our guides. And verbal language is the trap, something like body language can be understood cross-culture. But I'm still sticking with that there is no such thing as world peace, although I am optimistic for the future, there can only be individual peace and peace within those collective group of individuals. It's in our nature to consider things dualistic, despite the fact that we are all composed of a hand full of minerals. I think that by being aware that EVERYTHING is connected in some way and that separation is perceived is the way of greatest of observation that you speak of. But seeing as a whole other majority of people don't believe that, it is impossible to have an entire body of individuals without contradiction. We cannot succeed in eliminating the things we think are evil, our judgments only increase our unhappy state. But a collection of individuals can make things change socially.

 

[ViolentPanda]

In relation to peace I have heard a number of contradictory quotations, what do you feel is the merits of the following:

1) The only thing required for evil to triumph is that good men stand by and do nothing.

2) You can make an equal contribution to world peace by staying in your garden admiring the exquisite beauty of a single flower as you can by marching off to distant lands clutching a weapon to right some perceived wrong.

The first quote is from an american whose name I have forgotten, I also forget who the second is from but there is an elegance to both, however they are contradictory.

Quote 1 says get stuck in or evil will triumph while quote 2 says mind your own business and keep your own world in order and let others worry about their worlds.

If you prefer quote 1, then who are the good men? who should get involved? everyone, just leaders? armed forces? who? and what exactly should they do?

If you prefer quote 2 how will situations in foreign lands resolve themselves without your intervention, can you afford to live in your own bubble, in your own rose garden without getting worked up about events in far and distant lands.

Are either of the quotes at all useful?

Should they both have qualifications and riders before they can be understood?

Your thoughts.

Quote number one posits physical direct action as a solution to the triumph of evil, quote number two posits non-participation as a solution to conflict.
#1 is realistic, in that engages with the idea that one cannot oppose an ideology or it's results without an engagement with it's proponents (physical and/or intellectual engagement), whereas #2 is idealistic, a "perfect world" solution that can only hope to work if there's no percentage for anyone in conflict (which, sadly, isn't the case).
I think they're useful as expressions of particular positions, but I don't believe that they make particularly good "rules for living" in either case.

 

[camouflage]

peace is death, life is struggle.

 

[gorski]

Says that Schmitt cunt...

And Kant says this: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/kant/universal-history.htm

And this: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm

Others on the idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_peace

http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-iraqwarphiloshophy/article_1921.jsp

This is fun: http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/1008.html

 

[fela fan]

Ok, I can dig that. Feelings are the start of a revolution. And I agree our minds are traps, but they are also our guides. And verbal language is the trap, something like body language can be understood cross-culture. But I'm still sticking with that there is no such thing as world peace, although I am optimistic for the future, there can only be individual peace and peace within those collective group of individuals. It's in our nature to consider things dualistic, despite the fact that we are all composed of a hand full of minerals. I think that by being aware that EVERYTHING is connected in some way and that separation is perceived is the way of greatest of observation that you speak of. But seeing as a whole other majority of people don't believe that, it is impossible to have an entire body of individuals without contradiction. We cannot succeed in eliminating the things we think are evil, our judgments only increase our unhappy state. But a collection of individuals can make things change socially.

No real disagreements, but thoughts arising:

I think that if you can have peaceful relations between individuals, then so too can this be the case between nations. Obviously bad relations would work in the same reversible process way. Or would they...

I've often heard it said that war is inevitable in the human world. It might be trite for me to say this is a western view (who do more to perpetuate war than other parts of the world), but i've read more than a few times some very eloquent asian writers and thinkers (and other developing world nations too come to think of it) who completely disagree with this premise. I do too.

One hurdle to overcome is merely to rid ourselves of this air of inevitability. We can't arrive somewhere nice without a lot of hard work, and certainly not if we don't even think we can get started on the journey.

My feeling is, and it comes back to this collection of individuals, that once we have enough 'good' persons, enough peaceful persons and proactively so too, then the balance will tip our way towards the peaceful world that so many yearn for, but believe we can never achieve.

This critical mass of individuals who are self-aware enough, have learnt the art of observation over judgement, who value life as a whole, not just their own small part in it, and who recognise that a strike against the whole of life is a strike against the self, will lead the way to a permanent peace.

I mean, we've done the harder of the two, permanent war, and i feel that once enough individuals have arrived, and the critical mass of them is reached, then the bottom-up movement will alter irreversibly the top-down clique. I say war is harder than peace, because most people most of the time achieve peace in their individual lives compared to fighting.

What is true for the individual can both theoretically and in practice be true of the group, whatever that group may constitute, be it a bunch of neighbours, a village, a nation.

 

[fela fan]

Perhaps i should add that this collective force of what i term the critical mass of individuals will be driven by two key elements:

that each of those individuals are proactive in their lives, and not slave to reaction. They start with love, they don't end with revenge.

They don't react to the demands of their negative emotions in reply to a negative external stimulus, they respond in a benign or positive way.

At the same time, they proactively talk up things like the need for peace, justice, fairness, respect when observing negative actions from other people.

Be proactive by changing oneself.

Avoid being reactive by being a slave to perceived negative external forces.

Help the latter become the former.

 

[camouflage]

But in this world where everyone has become peaceful, isn't another way of looking at it that ambition has died, that destructive side of creativity has been sedated and its energy subdued, or that the will to protect the interests of those close to you is gone, or that the will to control everything so that there can be no conflict has triumphed other all opposition?

People talk about 'love' like it's this big soft pink huggy thing, but love can kill, love can be vengeful and destructive, love can be a control freak obsessed with power, and greed, love spends a lot of it's time hanging out with its buddy, hate... Would a world ruled by 'love' be significantly different from this world? I don't think it's even a meaningful question, love is part of every other thing that goes on in the human heart, and in fact probably in the mammalian heart, the heart of any creature that has a heart or some other expression of that core, the Will to Live.

Personally I reckon we'd be better to find less destructive forms of conflict, but at the end of the day force is force right.

 

[gorski]

Force is the minimal but universal form of communication everyone, even the plants, understand. That, however, does not mean it is our destiny never to come out of our immaturity!

I can't see us stopping to understand ourselves, the "other" and the environment if we stop warring and the adversarial model of behaviour and thinking is behind us. Quite the opposite is the case: UNLESS WE FIND A WAY OUT OF IT - IT IS BOUND TO CONTINUE and leave us stranded!!! That is an irrational manner of resolving disputes [actually, it always produces new ones!], which, of course, are inevitable. But not the only one. And certainly not the best way!!

Indeed, if we put all our energies into solving the essential problems of Humanity and research constructively, as opposed to destructively based research [from the we warring machine perspective/needs] - I mean, from medical problems to renewable energy production, storage and distribution, water supplies, soil erosion and deforestation, better division of all the spoils we commonly produce and particularly or individually appropriate, finding a better way of producing over the irrational market nonsense, space exploration [we will have to leave one day] and so on and on and on...

Somebody mentioned lack of creativity in the absence of a challenge? Start with meteorites, earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, storms, diseases, hunger, fossil fuels malarkey, genetic abnormalities, lack of education and nationalism/racism/chauvinism/xenophobia, ambition itself/being power hungry, psycho-social problems...

I say...

 

[gorski]

Btw, in your wisdom, you mistook love for its opposite. Indeed, you have no idea about it!

Also, we are naturally in conflict but that doesn't necessarily mean the need for violence and war.

The destructive side of creativity? Is that where one is allegedly creative only to be able to better destroy?

Great...

 

[camouflage]

I can't see us stopping to understand ourselves, the "other" and the environment if we stop warring and the adversarial model of behaviour and thinking is behind us. Quite the opposite is the case: UNLESS WE FIND A WAY OUT OF IT - IT IS BOUND TO CONTINUE and leave us stranded!!! That is an irrational manner of resolving disputes [actually, it always produces new ones!], which, of course, are inevitable. But not the only one. And certainly not the best way!!

Indeed, if we put all our energies into solving the essential problems of Humanity and research constructively, as opposed to destructively based research [from the we warring machine perspective/needs] - I mean, from medical problems to renewable energy production, storage and distribution, water supplies, soil erosion and deforestation, better division of all the spoils we commonly produce and particularly or individually appropriate, finding a better way of producing over the irrational market nonsense, space exploration [we will have to leave one day] and so on and on and on...

Not sure what you're on about here.

Somebody mentioned lack of creativity in the absence of a challenge? Start with meteorites, earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, storms, diseases, hunger, fossil fuels malarkey, genetic abnormalities, lack of education and nationalism/racism/chauvinism/xenophobia, ambition itself/being power hungry, psycho-social problems...

I say...

We attack those problems anyway, we are many, our activities are directed in a multitude of directions. We're basically fluidic in the way we take on problems, one good thing about having many different ideas and opinions and attituides about what's important, it means you cover all bases. But it also means you generate lots of internal friction from opposing forces. Which kind of comes back to what I was saying, if you remove the opposing forces within, maybe there'd be no heat, no movement, just a cold, stagnant, sterile uniformity. A species at the end of it's life, no new ideas to quarrel over, no clash of opinions. Still, we'd be around a long time but... we wouldn't be ourselves anymore would we, we'd be a monoculture.

It would be better to stop blowing eachover up and hacking at eachover certainly, maybe one day we'll learn to have conflict whithout murder, but again, force is force. Are you really taking things seriously if at some point one side doesn't MAKE the other side do as it says? Life isn't just a game of cards right?

 

[camouflage]

Btw, in your wisdom, you mistook love for its opposite. Indeed, you have no idea about it!

Also, we are naturally in conflict but that doesn't necessarily mean the need for violence and war.

The destructive side of creativity? Is that where one is allegedly creative only to be able to better destroy?

Great...

Okay, to make a lovely nice wooden table, you first cut down a tree, to eat, you kill, to grow, you eat. To get energy, you transfer it from something else. Destruction and creation are two sides of the same coin.

As for love and hate, they are two woolly terms for two sides of the same solid thing in my opinion. You say I mistook hate for love? If that's true it's a perfectly natural mistake to make, it's in our nature to do it all the time, I think it's not a mistake though, you know what love is when you're being hugged and kissed and fed and cared for and kept safe, but do you still recognize it when it's charging at you full pelt with the singular intention to anihilate you completely because you have threatened its babies? Love from the other side man. Now try an steal loves man, or leave it's warm protective embrace to do your own thing even though love thinks it's dangerous out there and you need to be protected, there are things you shouldn't read, people you shouldn't mix with, and it wont take no for an answer.

 

[gorski]

Yet another pitch black night in which - oh, wonder - all cows are black...

Sometimes I despair... Especially with the conservative lot...

 

[camouflage]

Yet another pitch black night in which - oh, wonder - all cows are black...

Sometimes I despair... Especially with the conservative lot...

I'm not a conservative... I do think the only realistic way to acheive world peace is through a one world state whos laws cannot be disobeyed by anyone. My name is Darth foreigner, how do you do.

 

[fela fan]

But in this world where everyone has become peaceful, isn't another way of looking at it that ambition has died, that destructive side of creativity has been sedated and its energy subdued, or that the will to protect the interests of those close to you is gone, or that the will to control everything so that there can be no conflict has triumphed other all opposition?

If ambition dies, so what?! Life's perfectly wonderful with no particular destination to aim for, just enjoying the journey. But in any case, we always have things like sport which is a prime example of activities that can be done in peace, although war-like tendencies are often exuded during the actual matches.

There is no destructive side of creativity for me. Creativity is a choice for peace. Destruction is what is done to the outcomes of creative people. Those who can be creative are most unlikely to be destructive. While those that cannot be creative usually become destructive.

The peaceful world i like to tread my way through is all about protecting interests of others, but all others, not just those close to you. That is one of the prime forces that lead to fighting and war.

War is about control and contolling others. Peace is about not controlling others. Peace is the outcome of an absence of control.

 

[fela fan]

People talk about 'love' like it's this big soft pink huggy thing, but love can kill, love can be vengeful and destructive, love can be a control freak obsessed with power, and greed, love spends a lot of it's time hanging out with its buddy, hate... Would a world ruled by 'love' be significantly different from this world? I don't think it's even a meaningful question, love is part of every other thing that goes on in the human heart, and in fact probably in the mammalian heart, the heart of any creature that has a heart or some other expression of that core, the Will to Live.

The love that is given is none of what you have described. The love you have described is the usual one found in love songs and in lyrics. It is the sort that is desired by people to come their way from others. Any giving of love they so themselves is dependent on it coming back to them.

I was alluding to this just earlier when talking about the need for individuals to be proactive and avoid being a slave to reactions.

The giving of love regardless of what comes back is an outcome of an independent person. The need and desire to receive love is a sign of a dependent non-free person.

Independent people have no need to fight or wage war. Only those who are dependent on others will wage war.

Love as i'm referring to is the essential precursor to freedom and independence, that in turn when found in enough people - the critical mass - will become a collective force that may well convert permanent war into permanent peace.

It is an absence of this kind of love that leads to destructive tendencies. Destruction does not come first, it is only dependent on certain conditions being in place. This is a prime argument that eternal peace is not only possible, but should be easier than permanent war. And if you look at the number of nations that have nothing to do with war, they totally outnumber those that seem to always be in war. So, we're on our way!