Do we really need World Peace?

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
I used to unquestioningly parrot the line of many new-agers and liberals that "world peace" was the ultimate goal of humanity. I agree that this might be a worthwhile endeavor, I have some philosophical reservations.

What if the world is not meant to be peaceful? What if it is a training ground for the soul, to learn lessons that cannot be learned in the everylasting peace above? That is certainy something to consider before calling for world peace. Is conflict and contrast really that bad? Can good be more appreciated in comparison to bad? Dont both light and darkness have their rightful place, providing us the opportunity of choice between the two? And does not a little hardship, just a little hardship strengthen our will? Is the overcoming of obstacles to an happy end not the social and spiritual school that shapes a human character? Would "world peace" not remove all those obstacles, rendering our stay on earth pointless?

Another objection I have to the idea is that world peace would ultimately need to be totalitarian as it would have to get everyone in line to someones relative notion of what peace is. Of course North Koreans are peaceful. Nobody fights or competes over who gets the better uniform because the all look the same. Diversity has been removed for the sake of "peace". Total peace seems unrealistic. Are not the people and organizations that have strived for "total perfection" the ones that have caused the most harm throughout History? Wouldnt it be better to strive for overall peacefulness while taking into account and accepting some unrest here and there?

And isnt that the way the world already is? I mean, zoom your webcam to any village anywhere in the world. In 99% of the cases you will see peace. And isnt the 1% non-peace a natural exception that confirms the regularity? Would you get bored if it were 100%?

Perhaps a compromise between those who like contrast/competition and those who prefer peace and harmony would be to replace wars with games. Then people like me could still wage wars...but on a playing field. This is actually where I see our distant future...the conflicts of nations played out on a soccer field. I do disagree with taking anothers life. But I suspect that a better goal than "world peace" would be respect for the diversity of mankind.

Thoughts?
edit on 1-3-2011 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I realize how politically incorrect, provocative or counter-intuitive the thread title seems. But think about it: Why do the most expensive and most-viewed movies not involve peace but a lot of action? Does humanity prefer action to peace?
edit on 1-3-2011 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Great Post enjoyed and it made me think. S&F Thanks

I think people want peace but they're always looking for something to give them peace instead of trying to find it with in themselves, which I believe is the goal to this training/life. I don't think our reality/world was designed for 100% peace though, bad things have to happen for us to learn and move forward. I've found that the more complacent I am the more bad things happen to push me forward. I like to use logic and break things down and when you break down the world/reality we live in we have Good/Evil - On/Off - 0/1, one exisits to balance the other and vice versa. Fire and Ice

Thanks Again
edit on 1-3-2011 by mileslong54 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I lean more towards getting humanity to work together long enough to get us off of this finicky planet of ours before our race is eradicated entirely.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I can see where you're coming from. But IMO, peace wouldn't take the point out of life, it would allow everybody the opportunity to do absolutely anything they could want to (except killing people obviously). If anything, war halts our progression as a species because we spend so much time and money fighting with each other. Imagine every country on earth lived as we do, scientific advancements would happen much faster just because there'd be so many people to work on different fields of study. 50% of the world live on less than 2 dollars a day, imagine they all lived like us (hopefully not in terms of wasting resources). And personally I think our species was supposed to evolve from violence instead of always having it in our society. i think we were supposed to go to war with each other so that we could learn that it was the wrong thing to do... Unfortunately we took to much of a liking for it.

Good post, its good to look at all sides of an argument. Anyways, this is my cents worth



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mileslong54


I think people want peace but they're always looking for something to give them peace instead of trying to find it with in themselves, which I believe is the goal to this training/life. I don't think our reality/world was designed for peace though, bad things have to happen for us to learn and move forward. I've found that the more complacent I am the more bad things happen to push me forward. I like to use logic and break things down and when you break down the world/reality we live in we have Good/Evil - On/Off - 0/1, one exisits to balance the other and vice versa. Fire and Ice

Thanks Again


I really sync with the idea of finding peace within instead of seeking it out there.

Fire and Ice indeed. Maybe Fire is not "unpeaceful", its just being its nature.
edit on 1-3-2011 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I realize how politically incorrect, provocative or counter-intuitive the thread title seems. But think about it: Why do the most expensive and most-viewed movies not involve peace but a lot of action? Does humanity prefer action to peace?
edit on 1-3-2011 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

I have only one question - how much evil do we need to see to be "entertained"..



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by SpreadLoveNotHate
 


There is some evidence that extreme conflict (such as war) halts progress because its destructive and also wears people down who could be doing more creative things. On the other hand there is also evidence of the new being more easily built on the ashes of the old and of progress bringing some upheaval. Not to mention the inventiveness of humans when it comes to "winning". A lot of progress, unfortunately, has come through spin-offs of military technology. The Internet for instance. So its not that clear-cut, imo.

Looking at my private life I can recall where conflict wore me out and made me tired, and where it gave me the spurs to grow stronger than before.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
In the greater sceme of things you are probably right. It really depends on a person's view point/belief/religion. Those that believe that we are eternal spirits momentarily encased in a flesh vehicle would then ask themselves why, which usually leads them down the path of wanting to know more about free will and experience. My view, and it's just that, is that we are like actors playing a role or roles and confusing ourselves into believing that role is us instead the actor playing the role. It's like Harrison Ford forgetting he's Harrison Ford and believing he's Han Solo lol. It would be absurd to think that an actor playing the role of a villian is truly that villian. Or think of life like a video game where you become that character that jumps around and shoots things. Imagine you believe yourself to be that character in the game and look all around you at every given danger, affraid to move because you might get killed. You are somehow disconnected to the person holding the video game controller (the real you) and think that you are this character which can die at any given moment. So rather than take risks and experience, you stay in the corner of the game with a spas-12 shotgun camping a doorway. If you knew yourself to be the person at the controller then you would know that even if you get shot, you will reappear and could try again, but not knowing that info leads you towards fear and uncertainty.

Ok enough ramble and analogies. What I am saying is that we do not know the truth of reality, nor do we know how positive/negative choices impact the whole, and whether without one or the other the whole cannot exist on on a 3rd dimensional level. We know nothing really. I would like to believe this to be like some sort of virtual reality game where everyone confuses themselves into believing that they are real (their ego, possessions, status, culture, psychology, race etc..), where a greater reality lies just outside. If it's a game then there really isn't a good guy or bad guy right? Because all are allowed to play one role or another after each "do over". However as realistic as this virtual reality seem, I choose the positive side (there are degrees of course) and by free choice and will allow myself to act in that role.
edit on 1-3-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

I have only one question - how much evil do we need to see to be "entertained"..


I dont know. And I still dont know whether violent movies and games serve to vent or magnify violence. I do think that the more desensitized one is, the more violence is required to feel "entertained" by various movies. What do you think?
edit on 1-3-2011 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I realize how politically incorrect, provocative or counter-intuitive the thread title seems. But think about it: Why do the most expensive and most-viewed movies not involve peace but a lot of action? Does humanity prefer action to peace?
edit on 1-3-2011 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

I have only one question - how much evil do we need to see to be "entertained"..


I think that's a personal choice, not all entertainment is evil, people can be entertained by just looking at the stars. What you choose to entertain yourself with is a choice only you can make.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
The reason you want world peace my friend, is because it glorifies the name of God. That is to say philosophically, it is the higher purpose of mankind. It does not take but the mind of a child to understand you can do more through cooperation and love. Watch them play on their own. The only time one becomes dominant and abusive of the group is if he or she has learned that trough suffering themselves. This is a sign that the whole group should focus on what has harmed this person and heal them. World Peace is the next evolution of the spirit of Man. It is the inevitable outcome of our trials. We MUST work together. We are each a reflection of the whole. Thus we are obligated to help each other.

A Kingdom divided against itself will NOT stand...


With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 


To me your analogy seems accurate. There's the soul and then there's the role. .And just in case there are consequences (in this life and the afterlife), I choose the positive side.
No, thats not true. Id also choose the positive side if there were no afterlife consequences for the simple reason that it feels better.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAMIAM
The reason you want world peace my friend, is because it glorifies the name of God. That is to say philosophically, it is the higher purpose of mankind


OK. But that would require a phase of non-peace first, right?



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Sorry edit to previous post, I don't think the world/reality was designed for 100% peace for all, world peace ect, but it's the individuals goal to find it within.
edit on 1-3-2011 by mileslong54 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Could you explain your stance a bit further that all action ceases when peace is attained? or did you mean violence? I ask because i am asked by people that if i am in a radiant state of Love, how do i get anything done? i never personally made such a connection, so i struggle to understand the viewpoint.

World peace would simply usher in a new set of problems to learn from. From a more logical overall standpoint.. co-operation between minds to solve "X" is viewed as significantly more reasonable than killing one another. And there is still technically competition within the co-operation. It is just focused on "winning" in a much larger sense than as an individual.

Why not try to give it a shot, anyway? Its never been tried, we dont know the full repercussions of such a decision made on a mass scale. But, we are very familiar with the methods we have practiced up until this point. The end result of continuing such violent actions is likely annihilation. do we need world peace? not really. a more encompassing question would be "do we need to survive as a species?" not really.

This leads some to believe that it would be prudent to "check out" the other end of that spectrum to see if the results are any less life-threatening. As it has yet to be attempted on a meaningful scale (since it involves individuals realizing the "power of the people"), there are no conclusions to be made. I think it is wishful thinking that all problems would be solved for eternity from making such a decision though. there would still be plenty of hurdles to overcome.. It is really just a different way to go about things. The possible progress and growth from such a co-operative system would likely trump anything we have ever known.

to me, world peace would simply indicate that humans are starting to understand that they can actually learn from one another, even those who are felt to be "wrong." such an attitude would replace the regressive teenage-like nature of believing ones own perspective is the only "absolute truth" and that it is a competition to convince others of the same. when, really, even those of us who agree on things have different personal conceptualizations of those seemingly similar perceptions.

i look at it as more.. we know exactly what carrying on as we have results in. And there is a distinct likelihood that we will be consumed by our own hubris, as we are more concerned with "winning" against others than actually progressing as a race. We have never tried another way, nor have we even attempted to try.

So, why not try it?
edit on 1-3-2011 by sinohptik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mileslong54

Sorry edit to previous post, I don't think the world/reality was designed for 100% peace for all, world peace ect.


Funny...thats how I read it.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by IAMIAM
The reason you want world peace my friend, is because it glorifies the name of God. That is to say philosophically, it is the higher purpose of mankind


OK. But that would require a phase of non-peace first, right?


Absolutely, but now it has reached a boiling point. If we do not take responsibility for our ride soon, we will bring a lot of pain on ourselves.

I am not saying there isn't reason for the past to have been as rough as it was. I am saying that we should always be looking toward perfection in our works. To know that perfection is to see it in all that we have been given to work with, including each other. Every piece is important.

We can end the darkness anytime we want.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by IAMIAM
The reason you want world peace my friend, is because it glorifies the name of God. That is to say philosophically, it is the higher purpose of mankind


OK. But that would require a phase of non-peace first, right?


Absolutely, but now it has reached a boiling point. If we do not take responsibility for our ride soon, we will bring a lot of pain on ourselves.


How can one be responsible for another's choices, if another chooses to not take responsibility for what they do it can effect the physical world we live in but would God see you differently for what others have done?
With love and respect as well
edit on 1-3-2011 by mileslong54 because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-3-2011 by mileslong54 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mileslong54
How can one be responsible for another's choices, if another chooses to not take responsibility for what they do it can effect the physical world we live in but would God see you differently for what others have done?
With love and respect as well


We are all responsible for each others choices. If a young man grows up in the ghetto and is surrounded with pain and corruption, who are YOU to judge him if he lashes out at your world by dealing drugs, killing, and stealing. It is because we ignore that suffering that we get the violence in the world. We have become focused on ourselves and not each other.

Think what we could achieve working together.

If I ended your suffering would you not be thankful and see this world blissfully?

Heaven is right here. We must be our Brother's Keeper.

With Love,

Your Brother





new topics
top topics
 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join