I try to claim that real intelligence leads a person towards a peaceful nature but apparently thats not the definition. Some might claim its religion or belief or faith that might create a peaceful lifestyle. But we see so many examples to the contrary it doesn't seem that any religion alone might be the cause.

Is there something that can lead one towards peace? Can it be taught? Is it chance? Can a person will themselves towards peace? Where might the motivation to change come from?

I myself can't claim to be peaceful, but I do recognize what I think is the importance of it.

Is it a conditioned lesson?

What is it that makes a peaceful peoples?

define "peaceful"?

define "real intelligence"

I wonder if this is the issue. Before I attempt a definition maybe we could approach it differently.

Can we use peace as an ideal without defining what it is?

Or maybe we can know what violence is and know that peace is in the opposite direction. Do we create the same issue then 'what is violence?'?

I always mean it to be tends towards peace. But the science fold won't let me change it so it must for now remain as "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills."

It's not the "science" folks. It's the desire-to-communicate-effectively folks. When you use words in ways that are nowhere close to their accepted meaning, nobody knows what you're talking about. This is true of technical terms, like "Nash Equilibrium" and "synesthesiac" and it's also true of more generalized concepts like "intelligence."

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...28&postcount=1

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=334

No, we cant use peace as an ideal without defining what it is.

Or violence either. For example, is a lion killing an antelope for food defined as violence? Is cancer entering and destroying a cell defined as violence?

I have a another thread ready that is more suitable for smp, and where your post here will be just as appropriate. For this thread we shouldn't have to deal with the definition of intelligence.

Are you able to point out the thing that might bring about a peaceful attitude from someone, or a peaceful way of living? Can it be taught or do we get stuck on the definition of what is peace?

We might still have the same issues bet can we keep it as peace between man?

We do still have the same issues. Just define peace already.

If we continue to slice away things that are not meant by peace are we not already in the process of defining it, or is this a different definition and use of the word 'define'.

Or we don't care about the word peace but instead the thing i mean to point to behind it?

If I were to grunch and just throw up some quick suggestions I would go with reflection, the tendency to take other perspectives and patience. On the flip side things like fear, cowardice and shyness can also tend a person toward doing nothing, which can be mistaken for peace.

We could deal with some of these words separately but maybe we could just ask in what type of situations is doing nothing non peaceful?

Given that you use words in non-standard ways, we're probably going to get stuck on the definition of peace.

I'm not sure if this clarifies but i would like it to mean 'not war' with respect to humanity. Is it defined enough, does my definition contradict the real one to much to explore how peace might be brought about in a person or persons?

When doing something could have made a violent or forceful situation dissipate. There is nothing laudable about apathy.

There are many concepts of peace. What you have put forth here is "the absence of conflict."

But the Jewish concept of peace ("shalom") means more than just the absence of conflict. It refers to a more universal sense of wellness and prosperity. Tame_deuces comment is relevant here.

Feel free to "explore" all you want. Just be aware of how your choice of language often creates a barrier that causes others to not understand what you're saying.

Would it be useful to separate the type of violence that is apathy or indifference, do we know that in a world of peace indifference can't be the cause of conflict?

And the tougher question I guess, can the opposite of apathy towards the disturbance of peace be laudable if itself is a violent act

Can we show these two definitions to be separate or contradictory? Can there be wellness and prosperity universally with conflict? Without conflict will there not be wellness and prosperity for all?


Yes I think its easiest to clarify in dialog.

That depends on who you ask. If you ask me we're on a planet of species that (except for the most basic of organisms) survive by eating eachother and in the case of all organisms survive by out-competing eachother.

Peace is not the default, it is something you have to make and something you limit. A forest is beautiful and serene, but it is also a collection of organisms that starve and thirst other organisms to death.

It might then be and evolution beyond such a state of 'survival by competition'.

I can put up an argument that peace can have been the default but its a huge derail, if I ever feel it pertains to a dialog I'll point it out.

But we can go a different way to keep things simpler maybe, can't we separate an animal killing another for dinner, from a serial killer or an economically motivated war. The latter seem to come from the human psyche and social conditioning (civilization) that animals don't seem to have.

Or is there no distinction between the two?

That is a close enough definition. Add in problem solving in parentheses where you have "apply" and you've captured the essence of the concept. And no, just like all words you do not get to change it just because you don't like the definition.

Peace roughly means lacking in violence (and retribution and threat of violence). If you meant the concept of Shalom, you should have used the word "Shalom." There is a reason why we have many different words at our disposal. Using them incorrectly or idiosyncratically is not useful. There is almost always a correct word or phrase that you can use for a concept.

The concept of enlightened self interest states that cooperation is generally the smart thing to do.

Smarter people are generally more capable of finding resolutions to differences without resorting to violence than dumber people. This is simply because smarter people have a better ability to think of alternative conflict resolution procedures than dumber people.

That doesn't mean that smarter people will always avoid violence or even be against it. Very intelligent people will weigh every option including violence.

Thx. As intelligence increases in humanity, there must then be some tendency towards non-violence.


And I guess we have to say non violence must have some equivalence to peace (you kinda laid it out but I wonder if we can put it this simply and direct).

Depends. Chimpanzees are extremely territorial and will actively go out and kill other flocks in what most likely an expansion of territory, so I think it would be wrong to presume that war is human.

There has been a decrease in violence over the centuries. I don't think this is necessarily because we have gotten smarter. I think it generally is because we have additional options that weren't available in the past to get other people to act as we'd like them to act.

I think you will like watching: http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pink..._violence.html

It isn't that direct. There are just more options for cooperative behavior which is hard to have during violent conflict. Smart people take advantage of whatever options are available. Since acts of violence are often followed by retributive behavior it is generally correct to avoid violence when it meets our needs.