What do you think about peace and pacifism?

What do you think about peace and pacifism?

Is peace (right) more worth / more worthwhile than war (left)?

DNA machine changes everything. With it, there’s no need for revolts, no need for wars, since there are no more bad politicians since people are more rational.

Okay. But besides that: What do you think about peace and pacifism? How do you value peace and pacifism? I infer from your answer that you are a friend of peace or even a pacifist, because you want to avoid war. Is that right?

I have the same philosophy as solid snake, i want peace but i dont like pacifists, not one bit.

i also believe that competitive dueling helps the spirits, provided the parties are not too brutally injured during the exercise. War is generally poorly structured, and there is little glory to be found in it. What glory is there in sniping afgans or using drones? where is the glory even in in napolean times, most of the troops died before they ever saw combat. Like vietnam, nothing but mud everywhere, theres no nobility. The glory of legends like 300 has long since faded away.

Is walking left more worthwhile than walking right? You can’t judge pacifism or war absent context.

As always, I vote for the third (missing) option.
A) Peace
B) War
C) Harmony (momentous harmony at that)

How can you harmonize war and peace? Tolstoy tried to put an optimistic spin on Scopenhauerian pessimism, that is why he admired william James by far, however, look at the current Russian/American relations, and the gyrations it went through in the course of the last century, and it makes one wonder, whether such optimism was justified.

It’s better to have a picnic in a park than for a park to be bombed while you’re trying to have a picnic.

Jobs … many available and reasonably lucrative.

Occupy with lucrative activity and there is no need to occupy with troops.

If you identify Buddhism with pessimism, then you are right. But I do not think that both are identical. Schopenhauer was the first European Buddhist, an Eurobuddhist, so to say, a syncretistic Buddhist.

For Uccisore:


I agree, for now. The verdict is still up in the air, whether such relevance can be established in the future, whether any religion can play a part, and displace the chain of events that brought this simulacrum of the world to fruition.

If that were the case, then the underlay of pessimism, would have been a guarded optimism, on Scopenhauer’s part, depending on bringing to light long forgotten links in the chain, or even building new ones, if the old ones have lost their meaning.

But Buddhism is not only a religion but also a Weltanschauung, a philosophy, an ethical system. And ethically it has much in common with Christianity as in stark contrast to Judaism and Islam.

The priest who married my wife and i told us that he founded an interfaith group in Tokyo, merging Catholicism and Buddhism. Such endeavors are not your run of the mill efforts, however. The late Allen Watts was a firm believer in the efficacy of interfaith practice, as was another Catholic priest, very notable, whose name I shall dig up and disclose in a minute.

Thomas Merton.

Wait … A priest married your wife?

I meant, hm…my wife and i. Course nowadays such statement wouldn’t raise an eyebrow. I am surprised at your conventionality.

I thought so but was not quite sure.

The priest marrying his wife would be interesting, but I want to see the selfies of the priest marring HIM. :open_mouth:



Do you agree, Jerkey?