This conversation is closed.

Do we all agree on the same peace?

People come up with the idea of world peace, but what is peace?
Is peace attainable when no wars are going on?
Is peace when no one is angry?
Is peace inside of you?
(I could go on)

Basically almost everyone has different beliefs on peace.
Christians say it is when there is no sin active in the world,
Islam says it is when the infidel is dead,
Atheist say it is when... well I don't even know what they believe peace is,
and so forth.

So I hope you get my idea.
I was just on a blog about having world peace and how to obtain it. But that is not the first question to be asked is it? Shouldn't it be "does everyone agree on having the same world peace?"

I personally didn't agree with anything that the posters had to say about peace.

  • Nov 16 2011: Hi Tim
    Although I desperately want peace between all nations I doubt we will ever have it. People on this site can't even agree to what peace is. To my knowledge there never has been peace on this earth and as much as it hurts me I would say there never will be. I am a very peaceful and accept everyone including my enemies but most people wont. I have my disagreements with much of the world and this country but it's not worth fighting for. The fact is we have a lot of single minded people on this earth who can't agree on anything let alone peace. This was a great question and I hope it gets some people thinking about and discussing peace.
    • Nov 16 2011: James I agree with you that we will never attain world peace.

      "I have my disagreements with much of the world and this country but it's not worth fighting for."

      But are they worth trying to put them into action?
      • Nov 16 2011: Hi Tim

        Could you please explain to me what you mean by putting them into action, I don't understand the question. Thank you.
        • Nov 16 2011: You said that your disagreements (if I may call them your opinions) are not worth fighting for.

          The question is simply are you willing to put them into action?
          For instance you can talk all day long about your opinions and how you don't like the government telling you what to do, or whatever be your case my be on TED, but if your not out doing something about your opinion then what is the point of even opening your mouth?
          (That was just an example, I do not know what you believe)
  • thumb
    Nov 17 2011: yes, they are.
  • Nov 17 2011: Peace can only be attained if all desire for possession, material or otherwise, is divested--pure and utter selflessness. The only ilk of human beings who comes even close to this model are Buddhist monks.

    In other words, it's highly unlikely humans can find pure, unadulterated 'peace' with our current mind-sets. Some 'deus ex machina' would be needed for the seismic shift in the human psyche for this to happen, IMO. ...an alien invasion, perhaps.
    • Nov 17 2011: So what you are saying is for us to obtain world peace, or peace for that matter at all we have to be "reprogrammed" in a way?
      • Nov 18 2011: Well, with so many generations of inculcated greed and selfishness, I don't see how it could happen 'overnight' any other way.

        It's a bit like a lazy person having a near-death experience and being jolted into becoming a success in some field they never had any real interest before the incident. It happens all the time.
  • Nov 17 2011: Hi
    Now I understand and yes they are worth putting out there. I speak of our government often and how they don't represent us anymore. I speak of peace and and the need for acceptence of all, I speak on behalf of the mentally ill against the stigma society puts on them. In a very calm way I am very vocal and never enter into an arguement over petty matters, so yes I put my ideas into action and it is worth it.
  • Comment deleted

    • Nov 16 2011: "I believe we all agree on peace, but you can't share true peace unless you're at peace with yourself."

      I am pretty sure that I don't agree with your definition of peace.

      And what does it mean to be at peace with yourself? To this day I still don't know what that means.
  • thumb
    Nov 16 2011: Peace is actually a pretty lousy target when you think about it. We'd be better looking for world happiness or world prosperity than world peace... right?
    • Nov 16 2011: And what is your happiness?
      • thumb
        Nov 16 2011: I take your point, but knowing what we know about the root of happiness as a state of the brain and the success and failure of different actions we take to promote and hinder the achievement of happy, free thinking and emotionally balanced lives; knowing that there are better and worse ways to achieve a life with these things in it, a goal of "happy" may be more actionable and more readily defined than a goal of "at peace".
  • thumb
    Nov 16 2011: I think there are actually two paradigms being expressed for peace. One of meritocracy, one of equallity, and they are both in constant flux. So true peace in the buddhist, or christian, or muslim sense is simply unattainable. Some people truly believe that we should all work hard and share in societies friuts, some believe that the only way to create that is to distribute rescources according to the fruit of individual labor, and there will be constant pendulum swings between the two, because both are correct.

    People who work hard, need to have better lives than people who are lazy... and people who work, but aren't that skilled or bright, still need to be able to earn a living while they gain skills, or they'll commit crime and destroy society. I don't think anyone even wants peace, i think we want friendly competition, instead of the violent competition we've seen in the past. I think we want controlled anger, like at a sporting even. That's much more attainable and agreeable imho :)
    • thumb
      Nov 17 2011: Yeah. and isn't friendly competition what drives us to discuss these issues in the first place? After all, we are under the debate tab on Ted's website!
  • Comment deleted

    • Nov 16 2011: May I ask what does "state of consciousness" mean?

      And I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say.
      Perhaps it is just me... ?.?
  • Nov 15 2011: Is the opposite of "peace", war?

    War is the most providable business there is. Affecting a majority of a country's businesses in favorable ways.
    But, I might add, not it's people or those warred upon.

    This all includes money. You cannot have peace if you have a monetary system. Most will scoff at this, mock it,
    deny it, pshaw it away, minimize it or try to humiliate it. Just what are the needs necessary to have peace?

    What are the needs of any monetary system? I will list only seven:
    inequality, poverty, slavery, greed, crime, war and death. These are seven needs of monetary systems.
    They need these to survive.
    Are they your needs, our needs, the world's needs? They're not mine.

    Get rid of money.
    Things don't "get done", because of money.
    Things, "don't get done", because of money.

    Sadly, those who control the money perpetuate war and those who falsely believe we need money go along with it. They must then answer, "No," to your question. They either refuse to, or cannot envision or imagine a new world, one we sorely need, that doesn't look exactly like the old one, or, the one we now have.

    Peace is possible. It is not only, nor should it be, relegated to "idealism" or some other form of minimizing it, making it unimportant or foolish thinking. What is foolish, is thinking any thing less than peace. If you shoot for the ground, you will surely hit it. If you shoot for the stars you will surely attain it. If you stop walking towards your goal you will never make it. If you don't stop, you will always get there.

    What doesn't splatter, is sure to bounce.

    Unfortunately, most people aren't interested in doing away with the causes of our problems. That takes real imagination, creativity and discarding the old and what doesn't work. That is too much truth to ask for!

    They want answers. They don't want the truth! That is too inconvenient.
  • thumb
    Nov 15 2011: I think for the sake of the global picture peace is the absence of war, genocide, democide, mass atrocities, megamurders. Nations not at war with each other. That will be a good start. We will never stop arguing, conflicts and fighting but if we can do away with the bigger issues that will be a 1st step. Millions of people get killed in war. I think we need world peace so this will not happen. Inner peace of course is nice and if everyone can achieve that also all the better but we need to but the breaks on war. We would not like to have shock and awe in USA believe me and we should not shock and awe innocent people either especially when there were no weapons found. There are always other options such as continuing inspections and going to court and charging the leader with crimes he or she is being accused of rather than breaking the peace with war. All nations agreed to renounce war as a foreign policy and to settle all disputes peacefully but the problem is they are ignoring this pact which was unanimously ratified in 1928 called the Kellogg Briand Pact. It is still international law and the law of our land as well as it was voted upon and agreed to at the time by our congress. I would like to organize a summit where all leaders of the world may come together and discuss how humanity can do away with war and achieve a lasting peace between nations and quickly get back to the pact before we get into more and more wars. We really can not afford all of this financially, emotionally, environmentally and humanly. We need to change our waring behaviors or we will fight ourselves out of existence. Then we can all ask what were we fighting for and was it worth it. Couldn't we have found a win-win path to peace, truce, cease fire. We have to try not to allow an international incident to blow up into a war. In the past many wars started with just one shot then they had a tit for tat which expanded until it became an all out war lasting for many years.
    • Nov 15 2011: Is war the cause of no peace?


      Imagine: You are the King of a certain land and you want to keep your kingdom safe. Another certain king wages war on your kingdom. The logical thing is to protect yourself and your kingdom by taking up weapons and killing that king and its kingdom.
      Is that bad?
      Because the result of that war is peace for you.
      • thumb
        Nov 16 2011: Tim, We have to find a way for both sides to stop fighting, no invasions thus no need to fight against an invader. We have to learn how to be friends and help each other not kill each other. Im sure most people would agree. Michelle
        • Nov 16 2011: Ok so what is your idea of stopping the invader from destroying your homeland?
  • thumb
    Nov 15 2011: I think Peace is Idealism.

    I will never see peace in my lifetime... not even close. I doubt my children will or my children's children will either.

    Life is good, don't get me wrong. However, I live in a world where people who get naked for a living and whore themselves out to make money with absolutely no discernible talent other than having an attention seeking and grating personality combined with their ability to stay awake and breath is held above (and usually paid well above) scientists, doctors, teachers and people who change the world for good, not personal gain.

    I dare you to walk into a secondary school classroom and ask if they can name 3 things about Nikola Tesla and 3 things about and who has contributed more to society.

    Also, we give the ceo of Facebook as person of the year after he shamelessly hands our information over to marketing executives for his own personal gain and tracks our information (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2042573/Facebook-privacy-row-Social-network-giant-admits-bugs.html) and invades our privacy. We take people like Julian Assange (wikileaks guy) and call him a criminal for exposing governmental agencies of behaving against the interest of the people and supporting our freedoms.

    Peace should be a beacon that we try to get close to as we are in no position to give a practical answer to world peace. just try create a area of peace in your life with other people and extend it as often as you can. As for my own view of world peace... I just don't have the perspective to see a world like that sadly so I don't even know what it would look like.
    • Nov 15 2011: Do those things have anything to do with peace?
    • thumb
      Nov 17 2011: Having a few ads here and there is a small prize to pay for the extent to which social media allow freedom of expression. Let's not forget the crucial role products of Web 2.0 have played in the latest global developments. specifically regarding social movements such as the Arab Spring and Occupy Wallstreet.