Are we discussing peace between humans, or peace on a much broader scale?

was thinking about the same thing but decided to go with "between humans"

I mean if we die out there won't be any large scale wars. But on the other hand, would peace exist in the notion we think of it as, if humans didn't exist?

so I mean, it all comes down to definitions, what do people mean by "peace" and "war"?

False.

Warning, cognition inducing substance!

Since we need at least 1 person for the concept peace to exist,
for it does not manifest in nature. If there are no humans, there is
no peace as if there are no humans, there is no classical music,
just something a human being would acknowledge to be classical music,
but a bat would find just an unexplainable nuisance, although the
classical music most likely never came to be if humans were not
to exist.

Peace is a definition made by humans,
therefore animals do not have such notions. For peace to exist in
praxis, you need two human beings. Both participants must share
the same view of not having aggressions against the other party
and such things that do not have self-awareness of higher level certainly
do not have the awareness of somebody else's self-awareness, even less
awareness of such abstracts as peace.

Although there are animals that might
have allies, such as primates, we are not to speak of peace,
since they have no clue what peace is,
they just do something that helps them surive, all instictively.
The peace we
discuss now has nothing to do with anti-aggression pacts of primates.
For there to be peace between them, there must be a human to say
that there is a peace between them. Apes just stick together for their
own good, not because they have a developed moral code.

We could compare peace with a Datsun 100A. It is perfectly possible
for a Datsun 100A to exist as substance without humans, assuming
Nissan hasn't lied to us and has actually made all Datsun 100A's out
out of human bodies. (Although it could still exist, since human bodies
are made of substances that also appear elsewhere besides human bodies,
but it would be another mystery how human bodies came to be without humans
and what exactly is Nissan, but that is not crucial now.)
That Datsun 100A however requires a human
being to classify it a Datsun 100A and of course that means that the
human must speak truth of what s/he sees. It is not a Nissan 140Y,
even if the human mistakes it to be one. Just like the alliance
between apes might be mistaken to be a peace, but is only something
that resembles something that we know and that thing is peace.
All those Datsun 100A's could
exist in the nature based on the atoms they consist of. It does not
require a human for those atoms to exist, although it requires a human
to create a Datsun 100A out of those atoms. Just like the alliance between
monkeys, Datsun 100A is there. It just is not a Datsun 100A if nobody ever
made the concept Datsun 100A and if nobody ever saw it as Datsun 100A,
although it still is identical to a Datsun 100A to us who know how Datsun 100A
looks.
It would just be a huge abomination that no being can explain,
assuming any being besides the inexistant humans could explain anything.

One cannot be in peace with hermit
crabs, since they are unable to form a coherent stance or any stance at all.
There is no peace between granite and peridotite. There however can be
a peace between two beings that posses self-awareness and enough
intelligence to understand the concept and practice of peace or
groups of such beings. Such beings can assume that there is a peace
between granite and peridotite, but that would not be true, only false belief,
as false as granite and peridotite actually possessing the conditions required
for peace, but not being able to comprehend the idea of peace, therefore
making peace inexistant.


Amen.

Although I doubt anybody who read this understood my point,
but just try it.
I tried to keep my thought as one and firm, but I wrote between lines
and it was hard to stop adding new material, so I ended up writing
even more of the sub-categories of sub-categories and so on and
leaving the main subject clouded for a while to myself.
Everything is still there however.

What? Peace is a concept that has meaning only among rational beings, so unless you are considering there is inteligent life outside earth, I think you are looking for another word.

And the asking about definitions leads really to nowhere. There are accepted definitions of some words, but if you mean there should be one that everyone will recognize as being "THE" definition, then I don't think you will like where that path leads you

who is to say the earth is not alive? acording (sic) to the theory life has its own definition and just having emotions and a concesnouse (sic) doesn't cover it, humans are like a viral infection to this earth inhabitance (sic), we are the only race who don''t adapt to the eviroment (sic) but change it like a virus, truly after we are dead the earth will be peacefull (sic) with no ill harbour to the harmonious ecosystem it has.

we are like a plague, just because your human doesn't make you exzempt (sic) from it. peace for the earth is what is needed, then perhaps all humans should be eliminatet (sic). you just look at the compremises (sic) as a human, you see a leaf on a branch and i see the tree in the forest.

Complete peace is impossible since to have peace you need war like to have light you need darkness 1 can't live without the other it's sad but thats how it work.

You mean the movie "The day the earth stood still"?
Your point and your intelligence would be more accepted if you didn't write like a 13 year old.

Anyways. Peace isn't possible. Humans can't exist without conflict. Blahblahblah.



X2

Complete peace is impossible since to have peace you need war like to have light you need darkness 1 can't live without the other it's sad but thats how it work.

. . . the first part is what I was talking about, you put a defintion on peace, and the one I generally have as well, but everything you can interpret is relative so in THEORY you could say that if you have a clan of animals are fighting over territory, then it's a war.

that's why I said we need definitions, is peace simply the absence of war, or is it a state in which humans are not in war with each other?

mind you, remember that peace has more meaning potential than one to begin with

See, I always question statements like this. Theoretically, say you have a single spherical container known as the universe, and inside of it there is no source of light whatsoever. Therefore the entire theoretical universe is immersed in complete darkness. Darkness does not need light to exist, in fact darkness is the ABSENCE of light. Darkness does not exist where light exists. To assume that darkness needs light to exist is faulty, because darkness itself is not created by light, but exists when light is not present.

We only view darkness conceptually in relation to light because of the relationship the two tend to share, if light is present then darkness does not exist, and if darkness is present then that means light must not be present. In actuality, darkness can exist without light, in fact the very definition of darkness is without light, and light itself is simply seen as "not-darkness". Darkness could have existed before the universe was created, before the first source of light even existed.

Similarly, peace and war does not require one another to exist. In a (theoretical) time before war, a time before humanity has advanced enough to create societies, the act of war did not exist. There were hunts for food, disputes between (neanderthals) people, but war itself did not actually exist. It was an era of peace, but only when society advanced enough to produce war, did war begin to exist and disturb peace.

Take for example, the animal kingdom. Do we say rabbits live in peace? Aside from the natural order of predation, rabbits exist in harmony with one another, they live in peace. Does war exist among rabbits? Are rabbits even capable of war? Let's take a better example, the lion. Lions naturally live in packs, and will hunt lesser beings. They are at the top of the food chain and lay out territories in which they exist and hunt. They can be said to be at peace, but if two different packs of lions decide to fight over territory or superiority, can we not asy that they are warring?

So what is the difference that exists between rabbit and lion? The difference is the advancement in behavior within the species. Rabbits tend to live quite randomly whereas lions form packs, and even claim territory. It is only because "packs" and "territory" exists that war can exist.

But i deter. Ultimately, peace can exist without war, and in fact before conflict is even possible, and before life even exists, the universe is at peace. War is only created and formed later (and arguably we conceptualize war and peace and defined them as such), but this does not mean that peace had never existed until then. Just because we have yet to conceptualize something does not mean it never existed in the first place, and just because we link two concepts together does not mean they cannot exist without one another. Darkness can exist without light, and in fact if light never existed, it would be conceptualize as "everything", and peace can exist without war, if war never existed then peace would be conceptualize as "the state of now" or the "state of living"